[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61684-61774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22705]
[[Page 61683]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 219
November 13, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper
Rule Revisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61684]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10001-16-OW]
RIN 2040-AF15
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes regulatory
revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for
lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). This proposed rule provides more effective protection of public
health by reducing exposure to lead and copper in drinking water. This
proposed rule also strengthens procedures and requirements related to
health protection and the implementation of the existing Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: Lead tap sampling; corrosion
control treatment; lead service line replacement; consumer awareness;
and public education. This proposal does not include revisions to the
copper requirements of the existing LCR. In addition, this proposal
includes new requirements for community water systems to conduct lead
in drinking water testing and public education in schools and child
care facilities.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2020. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before December 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2017-0300, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from http://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for
this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Helm, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code
4607M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1049 (TTY 800-
877-8339); email address: [email protected]. For more information visit
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What is the EPA proposing?
B. Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper
B. Statutory Authority
C. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and
Copper
A. Lead Trigger Level
B. Corrosion Control Treatment
1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During Sanitary Surveys
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements Based on Lead 90th
Percentile
3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
C. Lead Service Line Inventory
D. Lead Service Line Replacement
1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan
2. Partial Lead Service Line Replacement
3. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Trigger Level
Exceedance
4. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Action Level
Exceedance
E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance
for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community
Water Systems
1. Lead Service Line Replacement
2. Corrosion Control Treatment
3. Point-of-Use Devices
4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
F. Public Education
1. Notification for Customers With a Lead Service Line
2. Outreach Activities After Failing To Meet a Lead Service Line
Replacement Goal
3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach
G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water
Sampling
1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites
2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling
3. Sample Collection Methods
H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
3. Review of Water Quality Parameters During Sanitary Surveys
4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Requirements
I. Source Water Monitoring
J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care
Facilities
K. Find-and-Fix
L. Reporting
1. Reporting Requirements for Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper
and for Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
2. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Reporting
Requirements
3. Lead Trigger Level Notification Requirements
4. Reporting Requirements for School and Child Care Public
Education and Sampling
IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
A. Consumer Confidence Report
B. Public Notification
C. Definitions
V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
A. What are the requirements for primacy?
B. What are the State record keeping requirements?
C. What are the State reporting requirements?
D. What are the special primacy requirements?
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize
the Sample Universe
B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
C. Cost Analysis
1. Sampling Costs
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
3. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Costs
4. Point-of-Use Costs
5. Public Education and Outreach Costs
6. Drinking Water System Implementation and Administrative Costs
7. Annualized per Household Costs
8. Primacy Agency Costs
9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated With Additional
Phosphate Usage
10. Summary of Rule Costs
D. Benefits Analysis
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
2. Impacts on Childhood IQ
3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
4. Total Monetized Benefits
E. Cost-Benefit Comparison
1. Non-Monetized Costs
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
F. Other Regulatory Options Considered
[[Page 61685]]
1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care
Facilities Option
2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead
Service Lines
3. Reporting of Lead Service Line Related Information
G. Cost-Benefit Determination
VII. Request for Comment
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Cost
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
K. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
L. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board and the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
M. Consultation With Health and Human Services
IX. References
I. General Information
The United States has made tremendous progress in lowering
children's blood lead levels. As a result of multiple Federal laws and
regulations, including the 1973 phase-out of lead in automobile
gasoline (40 CFR part 80, subpart B), the 1978 Federal regulation
banning lead paint for residential and consumer use (16 CFR part 1303),
the 1991 LCR (40 CFR part 141, subpart I), and the 1995 ban on lead in
solder in food cans (21 CFR 189.240), the median concentration of lead
in the blood of children aged 1 to 5 years dropped from 15 micrograms
per deciliter in 1976-1980 to 0.7 micrograms per deciliter in 2013-
2014, a decrease of 95 percent.
Although childhood blood lead levels have been substantially
reduced as a result of these actions, data evaluated by the National
Toxicology Program (NTP), 2012 demonstrates that there is sufficient
evidence to conclude that there are adverse health effects associated
with low-level lead exposure. Sources of lead include lead-based paint,
drinking water, and soil contaminated by historical sources. The
Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures
and Associated Health Impacts, issued in December 2018, provides a
blueprint for reducing further lead exposure and associated harm
through collaboration among Federal agencies and with a range of
stakeholders, including States, tribes, and local communities, along
with businesses, property owners, and parents. The Action Plan is the
product of the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks to Children (Task Force). The Task Force is comprised of
17 Federal departments and offices including the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, which co-chaired the development of the Action Plan with
EPA.
Through this plan, the EPA committed to reducing lead exposures
from multiple sources including: Paint, ambient air, and soil and dust
contamination, especially children who are among the most vulnerable to
the effects of lead. To reduce exposure to lead in paint, the EPA
published new, tighter standards for lead in dust on floors and
windowsills to protect children from the harmful effects of lead
exposure (84 FR 32632). These revised, strengthened standards will
reduce the amount of lead in dust that causes adverse health effects
and that may warrant measures to reduce risks. To address lead in soil,
the EPA will continue to remove, remediate, and take corrective actions
at contaminated sites, expand the use of Soil Screening, Health,
Outreach and Partnership (SoilSHOP) health education events, and manage
lead contamination at Superfund, a Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Corrective Action, and other sites. The EPA will also
continue to work with State and tribal air agencies to implement the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and evaluate the impacts of lead
emissions from aviation fuel. The EPA is also focused on conducting
critical research and improving public awareness by consolidating and
streamlining Federal messaging.
Lead and copper enter drinking water mainly from corrosion of lead
and copper containing plumbing materials. Lead was widely used in
plumbing materials until Congress banned its use in 1986, and there are
an estimated 6.3 to 9.3 million homes served by lead service lines
(LSLs) in thousands of communities nationwide, in addition to millions
of older buildings with lead solder, and brass/bronze fittings and
faucets across the U.S. To reduce exposure to lead through drinking
water, the Action Plan highlights several key actions, including the
EPA's commitment to making regulatory changes to the definition of
lead-free plumbing products and assisting schools and childcare centers
with the 3Ts approach (Training, Testing and Taking Action) for lead in
drinking water. The Action Plan also highlights the EPA's continued
support to States and communities by providing funding opportunities
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program for updating and
replacing drinking water infrastructure. In addition, the Action Plan
highlights three newly authorized grant programs under the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, for which Congress
appropriated $50 million in FY2018, to fund grants to small and
disadvantaged communities for developing and maintaining
infrastructure, for lead reduction projects, and to support the
voluntary testing of drinking water in schools and child care centers.
The Action Plan also highlights the importance of preventing lead
exposure from drinking water by working with States, tribes, and local
stakeholders to share best practices and tools to better implement the
NPDWR for Lead and Copper. For more information about the Federal Lead
Action Plan see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_final.pdf.
Since the implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR),
drinking water exposures have declined significantly, resulting in
major improvements in public health. For example, the number of the
nation's large drinking water systems that have exceeded the LCR action
level of 15 parts per billion has decreased by over 90 percent and over
95 percent of the all water systems have not reported an action level
exceedance in the last three years (EPA-815-F-19-007). Despite this
progress, there is a compelling need to modernize and improve the rule
by strengthening its public health protections and clarifying its
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily
enforceable. Also, due to the financial and practical challenges of
wide-spread replacement of lead pipes around the country, it is
important to use our nation's resources wisely, and thus target actions
where they are most needed and can provide the most good.
The LCR is a more complicated drinking water treatment technique
regulation due to the need to control corrosivity of treated drinking
water as
[[Page 61686]]
it travels through often antiquated distribution and plumbing systems
on the way to the consumer's tap. States and public water systems
require expertise and resources to identify the sampling locations and
to work with customers to collect samples for analysis. Even greater
expertise is needed for systems and states to identify the optimal
corrosion control treatment and water quality parameter monitoring to
assure that lead and copper levels are reduced to the extent feasible.
The current structure of the rule compels additional protective actions
on the part of a water system only after a potential problem has been
identified (i.e., the lead action level is exceeded), which may result
in periods where the public is exposed to elevated levels of lead while
the system evaluates and implements the actions required.
Water systems cannot unilaterally implement the actions that are
needed to reduce levels of lead in drinking water. Homeowners must be
engaged to assure successful lead service line replacement because in
most communities, LSLs are partially owned by the water system and
partially owned by the homeowner. Water systems must also engage with
consumers to encourage actions such as flushing that reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water. The ability of water systems to
successfully engage with consumers to reduce lead exposure can pose
challenges to achieving the goals of the LCR.
The EPA has sought input over an extended period on ways in which
the Agency could address the challenges to achieving the goals for the
LCR. Section VIII of this notice describes the engagements the Agency
has had with small water systems, state and local officials, the
Science Advisory Board and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC). The Science Advisory Board provided their recommendations in
2012 (SAB, 2012). The NDWAC provided extensive recommendations on
potential LCR revisions to the EPA in December 2015 (NDWAC, 2015).
This notice's proposal includes a suite of actions that approach
the problem of lead contamination in drinking water from different
perspectives but that taken together can further reduce lead exposure
in drinking water. This approach focuses on six key areas:
1. Identifying areas most impacted. To help identify areas most in
need of remediation, the EPA is proposing that all water systems
complete and maintain a lead service line (LSL) inventory and collect
tap samples from homes with LSLs if present in the distribution system.
To reduce elevated levels of lead in certain locations, the EPA
proposes to require water systems to ``find-and-fix'' the causes of
these elevated levels (see Section III.K. of this notice).
2. Strengthening treatment requirements. The EPA is proposing to
revise requirements for corrosion control treatment (CCT) based on the
tap sampling results. The EPA's proposal also establishes a new trigger
level of 10 [mu]g/L. At this trigger level, systems that currently
treat for corrosion would be required to re-optimize their existing
treatment. Systems that do not currently treat for corrosion would be
required to conduct a corrosion control study.
3. Replacing Lead Service Lines. The EPA is proposing to require
water systems to replace the water system-owned portion of an LSL when
a customer chooses to replace their customer-owned portion of the line.
The EPA is also proposing to require water systems to initiate full
lead service line replacement programs where tap sampling shows that
lead levels in tap water exceed the existing action level and the
proposed trigger level. The proposal requires systems that are above
the trigger level but at or below the lead action level to set an
annual goal for conducting replacements and for systems that are above
the action level to annually replace a minimum of three percent of the
number of known or potential LSLs in the inventory at the time the
action level exceedance occurs. The proposal also prevents systems from
avoiding LSLR by ``testing out'' with an LSL sample as is allowed in
the current LCR.
4. Increasing sampling reliability. The EPA is proposing to
prohibit tap sampling instructions that call for pre-stagnation
flushing, the cleaning or removing of faucet aerators, and a
requirement that tap samples be collected in bottles with a wide-mouth
configuration. The EPA is also changing the criteria for selecting
homes with LSLs when collecting tap samples. For example, the EPA is
proposing tap sample site selection focus on sites with LSLs rather
than copper pipe with lead solder.
5. Improving risk communication. The EPA is proposing to require
systems to notify customers of an action level exceedance within 24
hours. It also requires systems to conduct regular outreach to the
homeowners with LSLs. The EPA is also proposing to require that the LSL
inventory, which would include location identifiers, be made publicly
available.
6. Protecting children in schools. Since children risk the most
significant harm from lead exposure, the EPA is proposing that
community water systems (CWS) sample drinking water outlets at each
school and each child care facility served by the system. The system
would be required to provide the results to the school or child care
facility and to provide information about the actions the school or
child care facility can take to reduce lead in drinking water.
Through strengthened treatment procedures, expanded sampling, and
improved protocols for identifying lead, the EPA's proposed revisions
will require more water systems to progressively take more actions to
reduce lead levels at the tap. Additionally, by improving transparency
and communication, the proposed rule is expected to increase community
awareness and further reduce sources of lead through enhanced LSLR. By
taking the collective actions discussed throughout the proposal, the
EPA, States, and water systems will be implementing a proactive
holistic approach to more aggressively manage lead in drinking water.
A. What is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing revisions to the LCR that strengthen public
health protection and improve implementation of the regulation in the
following areas: Lead tap sampling; CCT; LSLR; consumer awareness; and
public education (PE). This proposal adopts a regulatory framework
recommended in part by State co-regulators through the Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and incorporates many
recommendations provided to the EPA by the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC). NDWAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that
provides EPA with advice and recommendations related to the national
drinking water program. The Council was established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974. The EPA is proposing revisions to the LCR
that would require water systems to take actions at lower lead tap
water levels than currently required to reduce lead in drinking water
and better protect public health. The agency is proposing to establish
a new lead ``trigger level'' of 10 [mu]g/L in addition to the 15 [mu]g/
L lead action level in the current LCR. Public health improvements
would be achieved by requiring more water systems to take a progressive
set of actions to reduce lead levels at the tap. These proposed actions
are designed to reduce lead and copper exposure by ensuring effective
CCT and re-optimization of CCT when water
[[Page 61687]]
quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter WQP) monitoring;
establishment of a ``find-and-fix'' provision to evaluate and remediate
elevated lead at a site where the individual tap sample exceeds the
lead action level requiring water systems to create an LSL inventory to
ensure tap sampling pools are targeted to the sites with elevated lead,
and making consumers aware of the presence of a LSL, if applicable, and
to facilitate replacement of LSLs. The LCR proposed revisions are
expected to improve tap sampling by better targeting higher risk sites
for lead contamination, i.e., sites with lead service lines or lead
containing plumbing materials and improving the sampling protocol. The
EPA also proposes revisions to the LCR PE and Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) requirements to improve communication with consumers. In
addition, this proposal includes requirements for community water
systems (CWSs) to conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE in
schools and child care facilities.
Together, these proposed revisions to the framework and specific
requirements of the current LCR would result in greater public health
protection at all sizes CWSs and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs). Implementation of the proposed revisions would
better identify when and where lead contamination occurs, or has the
potential to occur, and require systems to take actions to address it
more effectively and sooner than required under the current rule.
The following table compares the major differences between the
current Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and proposed Lead and Copper Rule
revisions (LCRR). In general, requirements that are unchanged are not
listed. Comparison of current LCR and proposed LCR revisions (LCRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Level (AL) and Trigger Level (TL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90th percentile (P90) level 90th percentile (P90)
above lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L or level above lead AL of 15
copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires [mu]g/L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/
additional actions. L requires more actions than
the current rule.
Defines trigger level
(TL) of P90 >10 and <=15 [mu]g/
L that triggers additional
planning, monitoring, and
treatment requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead and Copper Tap Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Site Selection: Sample Site Selection:
Prioritizes collection of Changes priorities
samples from sites with sources of for collection of samples
lead in contact with drinking with a greater focus on
water. lead service lines.
Highest priority given to Prioritizes
sites served by copper pipes with collecting samples from
lead solder installed after 1982 sites served by LSLs.
but before the State ban on lead No distinction in
pipes and/or lead service lines prioritization of copper pipes
(LSLs). with lead solder by
Systems must collect 50% installation date.
of samples from LSLs, if Systems must collect
available.. all samples from sites served
by LSLs, if available.
Collection Procedure: Collection Procedure:
Requires collection of a Adds requirement
one liter sample after water has that samples must be
sat stagnant for a minimum of 6 collected in wide-mouth
hours. bottles.
Prohibits sampling
instructions that include
recommendations for aerator
cleaning/removal and pre-
stagnation flushing prior
to sample collection.
Monitoring Frequency: Monitoring Frequency:
Samples are analyzed for Some samples may be
both lead and copper. analyzed for lead only when
Systems must collect lead monitoring is
standard number of samples, based conducted more frequently
on population; semi-annually than copper.
unless they qualify for reduced Copper follows the
monitoring. same criteria as the current
Systems can qualify for rule.
annual or triennial monitoring at Lead monitoring
reduced number of sites. Schedule schedule is based on P90 level
based on number of consecutive for all systems as follows:
years meeting the following [cir] P90 15 [mu]g/
criteria:. L: Semi-annually at the
[cir] Serves <=50,000 people and <= standard number of sites.
lead & copper ALs.. [cir] P90 10 to 15
[cir] Serves any population size, [mu]g/L: Annually at the
meets State-specified optimal standard number of sites.
water quality parameters (OWQPs), [cir] P90 <=10 [mu]g/L:
and <= lead AL.. [ssquf] Annually and
Triennial monitoring also triennially at reduced number
applies to any system with lead of sites using same criteria
and copper 90th percentile levels as current rule except copper
<=0.005 mg/L and <=0.65 mg/L, 90th percentile level is not
respectively, for 2 consecutive 6- considered.
month monitoring periods.. [ssquf] Every 9 years based on
9-year monitoring waiver current rule requirements for
available to systems serving a 9-year monitoring waiver.
<=3,300..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT: CCT:
Systems serving >50,000 Specifies CCT
people were required to install requirements for systems
treatment by January 1, 1997 with with P90 level >10 to <=15
limited exception. [mu]g/L:
Systems serving <=50,000 [cir] No CCT: Must conduct a
that exceed lead and/or copper AL CCT study if required by
are subject to CCT requirements Primacy Agency.
(e.g., CCT recommendation, study [cir] With CCT: Must follow the
if required by Primacy Agency, CCT steps for re-optimizing CCT,
installation). They can as specified in the rule.
discontinue CCT steps if no longer Systems with P90 level
exceed both ALs for two >15 [mu]g/L:
consecutive 6-month monitoring [cir] No CCT: Must complete CCT
periods.. installation regardless of
Systems must operate CCT their subsequent P90 levels.
to meet any Primacy Agency- [cir] With CCT: Must re-
designated OWQPs that define optimize CCT.
optimal CCT..
There is no requirement
for systems to re-optimize..
[[Page 61688]]
Community water
systems (CWSs) serving
<=10,000 people and non-
transient water systems
(NTNCWSs) can select an
option other than CCT to
address lead. See Small
System Flexibility.
CCT Options: Includes alkalinity and pH CCT Options: Removes calcium
adjustment, calcium hardness hardness as an option and
adjustment, and phosphate or silicate- specifies any phosphate
based corrosion inhibitor. inhibitor must be
orthophosphate.
Regulated WQPs: Regulated WQPs:
No CCT: pH, alkalinity, Eliminates WQPs
calcium, conductivity, related to calcium hardness
temperature, orthophosphate (if (i.e., calcium,
phosphate-based inhibitor is conductivity, and
used), silica (if silica-based temperature).
inhibitor is used).
With CCT: pH, alkalinity,
and based on type of CCT either
orthophosphate, silica, or calcium.
WQP Monitoring: WQP Monitoring:
Systems serving >=50,000 Systems serving
people must conduct regular WQP >=50,000 people must
monitoring at entry points and conduct regular WQP
within the distribution system. monitoring at entry points
Systems serving <=50,000 and within the distribution
people conduct monitoring only in system.
those periods > lead or copper AL.. Systems serving
Contains provisions to <=50,000 people must continue
sample at reduced number of sites WQP monitoring until they no
in distribution system less longer > lead and/or copper AL
frequency for all systems meeting for two consecutive 6-month
their OWQPs.. monitoring periods.
To qualify for reduced
WQP distribution monitoring,
P90 must be <=10 [mu]g/L and
the system must meet its
OWQPs.
Sanitary Survey Review: Sanitary Survey Review:
Treatment must be reviewed CCT and WQP data
during sanitary surveys; no must be reviewed during
specific requirement to assess CCT sanitary surveys against
or WQPs. most recent CCT guidance
issued by EPA.
Find and Fix: Find and Fix:
No required follow-up samples or If individual tap sample >15
additional actions if an [mu]g/L, systems must:
individual sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/ Collect a follow-up
L. sample at each location >15
[mu]g/L.
Conduct WQP monitoring
at or near the site >15 [mu]g/
L.
Perform needed
corrective action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL Inventory and LSLR Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial LSL Program Activities: Initial LSL Program Activities:
Systems were required to All systems must
complete a materials evaluation by develop an LSL inventory or
the time of initial sampling. No demonstrate absence of LSLs
requirement to update materials within first 3 years of
evaluation. final rule publication.
No LSLR plan is required.. LSL inventory must be
updated annually.
All systems with known
or possible LSLs must develop
an LSLR plan.
LSLR: LSLR:
Systems with LSLs with P90 Rule specifies
>15 [mu]g/L after CCT installation replacement programs based
must annually replace >=7% of on P90 level for CWSs
number of LSLs in their serving >10,000 people:
distribution system when the lead [cir] If P90 15
action level is first exceeded. [mu]g/L: Must fully replace 3%
Systems must replace the of LSLs per year (mandatory
LSL portion they own and offer to replacement) for 4 consecutive
replace the private portion at the 6-month monitoring periods.
owner's expense.. [cir] If P90 10 to
Full LSLR, partial LSLR, 15 [mu]g/L: Implement an LSLR
and LSLs with lead sample results program with replacement goals
<=15 [mu]g/L (``test-outs'') count in consultation with the
toward the 7% replacement rate.. Primacy Agency for 2
Systems can discontinue consecutive 1-year monitoring
LSLR after 2 consecutive 6-month periods.
monitoring periods <= lead AL.. Small CWSs and NTNCWSs
that select LSLR as their
compliance option must
complete LSLR within 15 years
if
P90 >15 [mu]g/L See Small
System Flexibility.
Annual LSLR rate is
based on number of LSLs when
the system first exceeds the
action level plus the current
number of service lines of
unknown materials.
Only full LSLR (both
customer-owned and system-
owned portion) count toward
mandatory rate or goal-based
rate.
All systems must
replace their portion of an
LSL if notified by consumer of
private side replacement
within 3 months of the private
replacement.
Following each LSLR,
systems must:
[cir] Provide pitcher filters/
cartridges to each customer
for 3 months after
replacement. Must be provided
within 24 hours for full and
partial LSLRs.
[cir] Collect a lead tap sample
at locations served by
replaced line within 3 to 6
months after replacement.
LSL-Related Outreach: LSL-Related Outreach:
When water system plans to Inform consumers
replace the portion it owns, it annually that they are
must offer to replace customer- served by LSL or service
owned portion at owner's expense. line of unknown material.
If system replaces its Systems subject to
portion only:. goal-based program must:
[cir] Provide notification to [cir] Conduct targeted outreach
affected residences within 45 days that encourages consumers with
prior to replacement on possible LSLs to participate in the
elevated short-term lead levels LSLR program.
and measures to minimize exposure.. [cir] Conduct an additional
[cir] Include offer to collect lead outreach activity if they fail
tap sample within 72 hours of to meet their goal.
replacement.. Systems subject to
[cir] Provide test results within 3 mandatory LSLR include
business days after receiving information on LSLR program in
results.. public education (PE)
materials that are provided in
response to P90 > AL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61689]]
Small System Flexibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No provisions for systems to elect an Allows CWSs serving <=10,000
alternative treatment approach but people and all NTNCWSs with
sets specific requirements for CCT and P90 >10 [mu]g/L to elect their
LSLR. approach to address lead with
Primacy Agency approval:
Systems can choose
CCT, LSLR, or provision and
maintenance of point-of-use
devices.
NTNCWSs can also elect
to replace all lead-bearing
materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Education and Outreach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All CWSs must provide CWSs must provide
education material in the annual updated health effects
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). language and information
Systems with P90 > AL must regarding LSLR program in the
provide PE to customers about lead CCR.
sources, health effects, measures to If P90 > AL:
reduce lead exposure, and additional [cir] Current PE requirements
information sources. apply.
Systems must provide lead [cir] Systems must notify
consumer notice to individuals served customers of P90 > AL within
at tested taps within 30 days of 24 hours.
learning results.. In addition, CWSs
must:
[cir] Improve public access to
lead information including LSL
locations and respond to
requests for LSL information.
[cir] Deliver notice and
educational materials to
customers during water-
related work that could
disturb LSLs.
[cir] Provide increased
information to healthcare
providers.
[cir] Provide lead consumer
notice to customers whose
individual tap sample is
>15 [mu]g/L within 24
hours.
Also see LSL-Related
Outreach in LSLR section of
table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Source or Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems on a reduced tap monitoring Systems on any tap monitoring
schedule must obtain prior Primacy schedule must obtain prior
Agency approval before changing their Primacy Agency approval before
source or treatment. changing their source or
treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Water Monitoring and Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic source water Primacy Agencies can
monitoring is required for systems waive continued source water
with: monitoring if the:
[cir] Source water treatment; or....... [cir] System has already
[cir] P90 > AL and no source water conducted source water
treatment.. monitoring for a previous P90
> AL;
[cir] Primacy Agency has
determined that source water
treatment is not required; and
[cir] System has not added any
new water sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not include separate CWSs must conduct lead
testing and education program for CWSs in drinking water testing and
at schools and child care facilities. PE at 20% of K-12 schools and
Schools and child cares that licensed child cares in
are classified as NTNCWSs must sample service area every year.
for lead and copper.. Sample results and PE
must be provided to each
sampled school/child care,
Primacy Agency and local or
State health department.
Excludes facilities
built after January 1, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primacy Agency Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primacy Agencies must report Expands current requirements to
information to EPA that includes but include:
is not limited to: All P90 values for all
All P90 levels for systems system sizes.
serving >3,300 people, and only levels The current number of
>15 [mu]g/L for smaller systems.. LSLs and service lines of
Systems that are required to unknown material for every
initiate LSLR and the date replacement water system.
must begin.. OCCT status of all
Systems for which optimal systems including Primacy
corrosion control treatment (OCCT) has Agency-specified OWQPs.
been designated..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Does this action apply to me?
Entities that could potentially be affected include the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public water systems...................................... Community water systems (CWSs) (a public water
system that (A) serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents of the
area served by the system; or (B) regularly serves
at least 25 year-round residents).
[[Page 61690]]
Non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs)
(a public water system that is not a community
water system and that regularly serves at least 25
of the same persons over 6 months per year).
State and tribal agencies................................. Agencies responsible for drinking water regulatory
development and enforcement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities that could be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility or activities could be
affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed
rule.
As part of this notice for the proposed rule, ``State'' refers to
the agency of the State or tribal government which has jurisdiction
over public water systems consistent with the definition of ``State''
in 40 CFR 141.2. During any period when a State or tribal government
does not have primary enforcement responsibility pursuant to section
1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the term ``State'' means
the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper
Exposure to lead is known to present serious health risks to the
brain and nervous system of children. Lead exposure causes damage to
the brain and kidneys and can interfere with the production of red
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has acute
and chronic impacts on the body. The most robustly studied and most
susceptible subpopulations are the developing fetus, infants, and young
children. Even low level lead exposure is of particular concern to
children because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults do,
and their brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging
effects of lead. The EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20
percent or more of a person's total exposure to lead (56 FR 26548, June
7, 1991). Infants who consume mostly mixed formula made from tap water
can, depending on the level of lead in the system and other sources of
lead in the home, receive 40 percent to 60 percent of their exposure to
lead from drinking water used in the formula. Scientists have linked
lead's effects on the brain with lowered IQ and attention disorders in
children. During pregnancy, lead exposure may affect prenatal brain
development. Lead is stored in the bones and it can be released later
in life. Even at low levels of lead in blood, there is an increased
risk of health effects in children (e.g., <5 micrograms per deciliter)
and adults (e.g., <10 micrograms per deciliter).
The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology
Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (National
Toxicology Program, 2012) have both documented the association between
lead and adverse cardiovascular effects, renal effects, reproductive
effects, immunological effects, neurological effects, and cancer. The
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment
Summary provides additional health effects information on lead (USEPA,
2004a). For a more detailed explanation of the health effects
associated with lead for children and adults see Appendix D of the
Economic Analysis (reference EA).
Acute copper exposure causes gastrointestinal distress. Chronic
exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with Wilson's
disease because they are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue,
which can lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric
symptoms.
B. Statutory Authority
The EPA is publishing these proposed revisions to the LCR under the
authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), including sections
1412, 1413, 1414, 1417, 1445, and 1450 of the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.
Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA authorizes the EPA to promulgate
a treatment technique ``which in the Administrator's judgment, would
prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons
to the extent feasible.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(A). Section 1412(b)(9)
provides that ``[T]he Administrator shall, not less often than every
six years, review and revise, as appropriate, each national primary
drinking water regulation promulgated under this subchapter. Any
revision of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be
promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision
shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of
persons.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(9). In promulgating a revised NPDWR, the
EPA follows the applicable procedures and requirements described in
section 1412 of the SDWA, including those related to (1) the use of the
best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies; (2)
presentation of information on public health effects; and (3) a health
risk reduction and cost analysis of the rule in 1412(b)((3)(A), B), (C)
of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A)-(C).
Section 1414(c) of the SDWA, as amended by the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act, requires public water systems to
provide notice to the public if the water system exceeds the lead
action level. 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c). The SDWA section 1414(c)(2) provides
that the Administrator ``shall, by regulation . . . prescribe the
manner, frequency, form, and content for giving notice'' under section
1414(c). 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(2). The SDWA section 1414(c)(2)(C)
specifies additional requirements for those regulations related to
public notification of a lead action level exceedance ``that has the
potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result
of short-term exposure,'' including requirements for providing
notification to the EPA.
Section 1417(a)(2) of the SDWA provides that public water systems
``shall identify and provide notice to persons that may be affected by
lead contamination of their drinking water where such contamination
results from the lead content of the construction materials of the
public water distribution system and/or corrosivity of the water supply
sufficient to cause leaching of lead. 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2).
Section 1445(a) of the SDWA authorizes the Administrator to
establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting regulations, to
assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under the SDWA,
determining compliance with the SDWA, and in advising the public of the
risks of unregulated contaminants. 42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a). In requiring a
public water system to monitor under section 1445(a) of the SDWA, the
Administrator may take into consideration the water system size and the
contaminants likely to be found in the system's drinking water. 42
U.S.C. 300j-4(a). The SDWA section 1445(a)(1)(C) of the SDWA provides
that ``every person who is subject to a national primary drinking water
regulation'' under the SDWA, section 1412 must provide such
[[Page 61691]]
information as the Administrator may reasonably require to assist the
Administrator in establishing regulations under section 1412. 42 U.S.C.
300j-4(a)(1)(C).
Under section 1413(a)(1) of the SDWA a State may exercise primary
enforcement responsibility (``primacy'') for NPDWRs when the EPA has
determined that the State has adopted regulations that are no less
stringent than the EPA's. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)(1). To obtain primacy for
this rule, States must adopt comparable regulations within two years of
the EPA's promulgation of the final rule, unless the EPA grants the
State a two-year extension. State primacy requires, among other things,
adequate enforcement (including monitoring and inspections) and
reporting. The EPA must approve or deny State primacy applications
within 90 days of submission to the EPA. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(b)(2). In
some cases, a State submitting revisions to adopt an NPDWR has primary
enforcement authority for the new regulation while the EPA's decision
on the revision is pending. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(c).
Section 1450 of the SDWA authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out his or
her functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j-9.
C. Regulatory History
The EPA published the LCR on June 7, 1991, to control lead and
copper in drinking water at the consumer's tap. The rule established a
NPDWR for lead and copper consisting of treatment technique
requirements that include CCT, source water treatment, LSLR, and PE.
The rule established an action level of 0.015 mg/L or 15 [micro]g/L for
lead and 1.3 mg/L or 1,300 [micro]g/L for copper. The action level is a
concentration of lead or copper in the water that determines, in some
cases, whether a water system must install CCT, monitor source water,
replace LSLs, and undertake a PE program. The action level is exceeded
if the concentration in more than 10 percent of tap water samples
collected during any monitoring period is greater than the action level
(i.e., if the 90th percentile level is greater than the action level).
If the 90th percentile value for tap water samples is above the action
level, it is not a violation, but rather compels actions, such as WQP
monitoring, CCT, source water monitoring/treatment, PE, and LSLR.
Failure to take these actions results in the water system being in
violation of the treatment technique or monitoring and reporting
requirements.
In 2000, the EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions or LCRMR, which streamlined requirements, promoted consistent
national implementation, and in many cases, reduced burden for water
systems. One of the provisions of the LCRMR required States to report
the lead 90th percentile to the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) database for all water systems serving greater than
3,300 persons. States must report the lead 90th percentile value for
water systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons only if the water system
exceeds the action level. The new reporting requirements became
effective in 2002. In 2004, the EPA published minor corrections to the
LCR to reinstate text that was inadvertently dropped from the rule
during the previous revision.
In 2004, the EPA undertook a national review of the LCR and
performed a number of activities to help identify needed actions to
improve implementation of the LCR. The EPA collected and analyzed lead
concentration data and other information required by the LCR, carried
out review of implementation by States, held four expert workshops to
further discuss elements of the LCR, and worked to better understand
local and State efforts to test for lead in school drinking water,
including a national meeting to discuss challenges and needs. The EPA
used the information collected during the national review to identify
needed short-term and long-term regulatory revisions to the LCR.
In 2007, the EPA promulgated a set of short-term regulatory
revisions and clarifications to strengthen implementation of the LCR in
the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness, LSLR, and
improve compliance with the PE requirements to ensure drinking water
consumers receive meaningful, timely, and useful information needed to
help them limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. Long-term
issues, requiring additional research and input, were identified for a
subsequent set of rule revisions. In this proposed rule, the EPA is
addressing those longer-term revisions to further improve public health
protection.
III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper
A. Lead Trigger Level
The EPA is proposing to establish a new lead ``trigger level'' of
10 [micro]g/L and retain the 15 [micro]g/L lead action level in the
current LCR. The EPA established the lead action level in the 1991
based on feasibility and not based on impact on public health. The
proposed trigger level is also not a health based standard. The EPA is
not revising the 1991 determination that achieving the action level of
15 [micro]g/L is feasible. The EPA is proposing the lead trigger level
because the Agency has determined that meaningful reductions in
drinking water lead exposure could be achieved by requiring water
systems to take a progressive set of certain actions to reduce lead
levels at the tap. The EPA proposes that 10 [micro]g/L is a reasonable
threshold to require water system to undertake actions. The concept of
including additional thresholds to compel actions before an action
level exceedance was suggested by the ASDWA during the federalism
consultation process (USEPA, 2018). This regulatory framework is
similar to other national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs),
such as the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2ESWTR), which requires increasing levels of remedial action based
on the concentration of the contaminant. The proposed LCRR sets the
fewest requirements for systems at or below the TL and the most
stringent requirements for systems above the lead AL. The Agency is
requesting comment on the appropriate level and other aspects relating
to the trigger level in Section VII.
In the event of a trigger level exceedance, the actions water
systems would be required to take vary based on characteristics of the
system. For example, small CWSs serving populations of 10,000 or fewer
persons and all sizes of NTNCWS that exceed the lead trigger level, but
not the lead action level, would evaluate the small system
flexibilities described in Section III.E. of this notice. Under this
proposal, medium and large CWSs that exceed the trigger level, but do
not exceed the action level, would be required to implement
requirements based on their CCT and LSL status as described below.
Water systems with CCT in place and with no LSLs or service lines
of unknown materials would be required to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section
III.B.2); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see
Section III.G.2)).
Water systems without CCT in place and with no LSLs or service
lines of unknown materials would be required to: Conduct a CCT study
and obtain State approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B.2); and
conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section
III.G.2)).
Water systems with CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines of
unknown
[[Page 61692]]
materials would be required to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section III.B.2);
notify customers with LSLs or unknowns (see Section III.F.1); implement
goal based LSLR program (see Section III.D.3); and conduct annual tap
sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G.2)).
Water systems without CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines
of unknown materials would be required to: Conduct a CCT study and
obtain State approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B.2. of this
notice) notify customers with an LSL or unknowns (see Section III.F.1);
implement goal based LSLR program (see Section III.D.3. of this
notice); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see
Section III.G.2 of this notice)).
B. Corrosion Control Treatment
Corrosion in water systems is defined as the electrochemical
interaction between a metal surface such as pipe wall or solder and
water. During this interaction, metal is oxidized and transferred to
the water. Metal release is a function of the reactions that occur
between the metal ions released due to corrosion, and the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the water and the metal
surface (USEPA, 2016c). Corrosion control treatment involves changing
water quality characteristics including alkalinity, pH, and dissolved
inorganic carbon or addition of a corrosion inhibitor such as
orthophosphate to reduce the rate of metal release into the water.
Under the current LCR, all water systems serving more than 50,000
people were required to install corrosion control treatment (CCT) soon
after the LCR went into effect, unless they were deemed to have
optimized corrosion control. Water systems serving fewer than 50,000
people are not required to install CCT under the current rule unless
the water system exceeds the lead or copper action level. Water systems
serving 50,000 or fewer people that exceed the action level and have
not yet installed CCT must begin working with their State to monitor
water quality parameters (WQPs) and install and maintain CCT. Those
systems may stop the process of identifying and installing CCT if they
meet both the lead and copper action levels during each of two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Given the critical role of CCT
in reducing lead in drinking water and protecting the health of all
water system consumers, the EPA is proposing several revisions to the
LCR to reflect current understanding of the efficacy of various
corrosion control treatments and to assure robust evaluation of
corrosion control treatment effectiveness at each system.
1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During Sanitary Surveys
The EPA is proposing changes to the current sanitary survey to
include requirements for states to include an evaluation of CCT as part
of the survey. States are required to regularly perform sanitary
surveys of public water systems in accordance with the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (Sec. 141.723) and the Ground Water Rule
(Sec. 141.401). The requirements for the sanitary survey may include
an evaluation of the drinking water source, operation and maintenance
of water system equipment, and compliance with local and national
drinking water standards. There are eight elements addressed during a
sanitary survey. These elements include: Source; treatment;
distribution system; finished water storage; pumps, pump facilities and
controls; monitoring, reporting, data verification; system management
and operation; and operator compliance with State requirements. These
sanitary surveys do not currently contain requirements specific to the
LCR.
EPA believes that the sanitary survey is a fitting opportunity for
states to review the system's implementation of OCCT and to assure
there are not deficiencies that could interfere with the capability of
the drinking water system to consistently and reliably deliver an
adequate quality and quantity of safe drinking water to the consumer.
The NDWAC (NDWAC, 2015) and ASDWA (USEPA, 2018) recommended a periodic
evaluation of CCT as a part of the sanitary survey.
States would be required to review CCT and to assess WQPs during
sanitary surveys for water systems that have installed CCT. The review
must consider any updated EPA guidance on CCT during the sanitary
survey. Reviewing updated EPA CCT guidance is consistent with the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC, 2015)
recommendations to reevaluate CCT and WQP based upon updated EPA
guidance and as best practices continue to evolve as new information
and science emerges. This proposed revision will promote regular review
of CCT and WQPs by states and will enhance consistency and efficacy by
allowing states to consider new information and CCT guidance, as
appropriate, during sanitary surveys. By combining the review of the
CCT with the existing sanitary survey requirement of the Public Water
System Supervision program, states and water systems can cost
effectively assure regular review of the treatment technique.
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements Based on Lead 90th
Percentile
The EPA is proposing revisions to the LCR provisions by requiring
the installation of CCT or optimization of CCT based on the lead 90th
percentile level. The current rule provisions for CCT are based
primarily on the water system size, and only require small and medium-
sized water systems (serving 50,000 or fewer people) to meet CCT
requirements if they exceed the lead or copper action level. Before
installing CCT, water systems must make an optimized CCT recommendation
to the state or conduct a CCT study, if required to do so. However,
these water systems can discontinue CCT steps if their 90th percentile
levels are at or below the lead and copper action levels for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. The CCT steps are only
commenced after a subsequent lead action level exceedance. Under the
current rule, once a water system has optimized CCT, there are no
requirements for water systems to adjust or re-evaluate CCT, even after
an action level exceedance or a failure to meet optimal water quality
parameters (OWQPs), unless directed to do so by the State. Under the
current LCR, States may, but are not required to, modify the designated
CCT on its own initiative or in response to a request by a water system
or other interested party, when it concludes that a change is necessary
to ensure the system continues to optimize corrosion control treatment.
The EPA is proposing to mandate additional CCT requirements based
on the water system's lead 90th percentile level and CCT status. All
water systems with CCT that have a lead trigger level exceedance (>10
[mu]g/L but <=15 [mu]g/L) or a lead action level exceedance (>=15
[mu]g/L) will be required to re-optimize their CCT. Water systems would
be required to make a re-optimization recommendation and receive state
approval following the procedures described in proposed Sec.
141.82(a). The state may require the water system to conduct a CCT
study.
This proposal would require water systems without CCT that exceed
the lead trigger level (10 [micro]g/L) to conduct a CCT study and make
a CCT recommendation in accordance with proposed revisions in Sec.
141.82(a). The CCT recommendation would be implemented if the water
system exceeds the lead action level in subsequent tap sampling. Water
systems without CCT that have previously
[[Page 61693]]
conducted a CCT study and made CCT recommendations would not be
required to prepare a new CCT study if they exceed the trigger level
again unless the state determines that a new study is required due to
changed circumstances, such as addition of a new water source or
changes in treatment or if revised CCT guidance has been issued by the
EPA since the study was conducted. The state may also determine that a
new CCT study is needed due to other significant information becoming
available.
The EPA is proposing changes to the CCT options that water systems
must consider and the methods by which water systems would evaluate
those options. As described later in this section, the EPA is proposing
to remove calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT option. The EPA is
also proposing to require water systems to evaluate two additional
options for orthophosphate-based corrosion control. The current
requirement for evaluating orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor
specifies that systems must evaluate maintaining an ``effective
residual concentration in all test tap samples.'' The EPA has
determined, based upon experience in implementing these requirements,
that systems may not be evaluating a full range of orthophosphate
residual concentrations to achieve optimal corrosion control.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add two new treatment options for
evaluation as a part of corrosion control studies: Maintaining a 1 mg/L
orthophosphate residual concentration and maintaining a 3 mg/L
orthophosphate residual concentration.
The EPA is also proposing changes to the methodologies by which
systems evaluate CCT options. The EPA is proposing to clarify that
metal coupon tests can only be used as a screen to reduce the number of
options that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops. Metal coupon tests
would no longer be able to be used as the basis for determining the
optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). The EPA is proposing this
change based upon experience with implementing the rule and the concern
that metal coupons are not representative of the existing condition of
the lead service lines (LSLs) or leaded plumbing materials that are
present in the distribution system and which have scales that have
formed as a result of being exposed to the drinking water over a number
of years (Ministry of Ontario, 2009).
The EPA is also clarifying cases when systems choose to conduct
coupon studies to screen potential options and/or pipe rig/loop
studies; these systems cannot exclude a treatment option from the study
based upon potential effects on other water quality treatment
processes. Systems that are conducting coupon screening studies and/or
pipe loop/rig studies should identify potential constraints, such as
the impact of CCT options or treatment chemicals may have on other
water quality treatment processes. Those impacts should be noted and
considered as part of the CCT study design. For example, water systems
conducting a corrosion control study would be required to consider pH
and alkalinity adjustment but must also consider how adjustment of pH
could affect compliance with other NPDWRs. Increased pH may result in
increased formation of total trihalomethanes and result in an
exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for those contaminants.
Conversely, decreases in pH may result in increased formation of
haloacetic acids and result in an exceedance of the maximum contaminant
level for those contaminants. Rather than rule out pH and alkalinity
adjustment as a CCT strategy because of simultaneous compliance
concerns, systems should determine an upper bound pH, where the
increase in pH would create increased trihalomethanes and incorporate
that into the corrosion control study design.
Similarly, the use of orthophosphate for corrosion control can
increase the phosphorus loading to wastewater treatment facilities.
Increased phosphorus loading may be a concern for wastewater systems
with phosphorus discharge limits or for systems that discharge into
water bodies where phosphorus is a limiting nutrient. However, the EPA
is proposing that water systems conducting corrosion control studies
would not be able to rule out orthophosphate simply based on the
increase in loading to wastewater treatment facilities. In designing
the CCT studies, water systems would evaluate the orthophosphate
treatment options in the coupon screening and/or pipe loop/rig studies.
When selecting the optimal CCT, States and water systems would consider
phosphorus removal treatment that may be needed by the receiving
wastewater treatment system to meet any phosphorus discharge limits or
otherwise prevent impacts to water quality. The EPA has examined the
potential costs of additional phosphorus usage on wastewater treatment
systems as described in section VI.C.9 of this notice. The EPA is
proposing that a water system that exceeds the lead action level (15
[micro]g/L), that has previously not exceeded the lead trigger level
and does not have CCT installed, would be required to conduct a CCT
study, make a treatment recommendation, and obtain State approval for
the treatment recommendation. The EPA proposes that systems be required
to complete these steps even if the system meets the lead action level
in two subsequent, consecutive 6-month monitoring periods over the
course of this process. Water systems that meet the action level for
two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods before installing the State-
approved treatment would be required to install that CCT upon any
subsequent action level exceedance. The EPA proposes to retain the
current LCR provision that allows a State to waive the requirement for
a CCT study. This proposal includes flexibilities for small systems
related to CCT (see section III.E. of this notice).
3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
The EPA is proposing to remove calcium carbonate stabilization as a
potential CCT technique and thus calcium as a regulated WQP. The EPA is
proposing to eliminate the option of calcium carbonate stabilization as
a CCT because literature indicates that calcium carbonate does not form
a film on lead and copper pipes to a level that makes it effective as a
CCT option (AwwaRF and DVGW--Technologiezentrum Wasser, 1996; Schock
and Lytle, 2011; Hill and Cantor, 2011). The EPA proposes the removal
of WQP monitoring related to calcium hardness in the current rule,
which includes monitoring for calcium, conductivity, and water
temperature. Under this proposal, water systems would also not be
required to analyze effects of calcium hardness adjustments during
their CCT evaluations. All other CCT options, including alkalinity and
pH adjustment and the addition of a phosphate- or silicate-based
corrosion inhibitor, will be maintained from the current rule. The best
available science has identified these as the most effective treatment
options at this time (USEPA, 2003; Wilczak et al., 2010; Schock and
Lytle, 2011). These changes are being proposed to assure the efficacy
of CCT, to the extent feasible, based upon best available peer-reviewed
science.
C. Lead Service Line Inventory
The EPA is proposing revisions to the current lead service line
inventory requirements of the LCR because the Agency believes that
better information regarding the number and locations of lead service
lines is critical to a water
[[Page 61694]]
system's ability to inform the public about the potential risks of lead
in drinking water and to assure reductions in drinking water lead
exposure. Numerous studies have evaluated the contribution of lead in
drinking water from different sources (e.g., service lines, faucets,
meters). A study published by American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Water Research Foundation (2008) ``Contributions of Service Line and
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues'' (Sandvig
et al., 2008) estimates that 50 percent-75 percent of lead in drinking
water comes from LSLs, while the remainder comes from leaded solder,
brass/bronze fittings, galvanized piping, faucets, and water meters.
Given that LSLs are the greatest contributor of lead in drinking water,
identifying the locations and, where necessary, removing this source of
lead from drinking water, is a critical component of this proposed
rule.
Under the current regulations, water systems are required to
identify construction materials of their drinking water distribution
system including lead and galvanized piping and to conduct a materials
evaluation to locate the requisite number of sampling sites, and to
seek to collect information on service line materials, where possible,
during normal operation such as reading water meters or performing
maintenance activities. In practice, many water systems have only
identified service line materials to fulfill the tap sampling tiering
requirement and have not done a full accounting of service line
materials throughout their entire distribution system. This has led to
uncertainty regarding local and national estimates of locations and
numbers of LSL. This uncertainty creates compliance challenges for
water systems that exceed the lead action level after installing CCT
because water systems are forced to concurrently determine the total
number of LSLs in the distribution system while replacing seven percent
of their LSLs, all within one year. Without an LSL inventory, water
systems also face challenges communicating the risk of lead in drinking
water to the public at large as well as to individual customers, who
may seek information about their own service line so they can take
measures to protect themselves and their family. Lack of an LSL
inventory also results in a lost opportunity to improve the cost
efficiency of LSLR by conducting replacements in tandem with main
replacement activities or in neighborhoods where LSLs are most
prevalent, or in accordance to policy goals, such as prioritizing LSLR
at schools, childcare facilities, and homes with children. For example,
the city of Galesburg, IL prioritizes LSLR at homes of low- to
moderate-income with children under the age of six (Galesburg, 2016).
In addition, even those systems that have made efforts to identify
their LSLs do not always make the information publicly available.
Informed customers are better able to take actions to limit exposure to
lead in drinking water and make decisions regarding replacement of
their portion of an LSL. For water systems publicly available
information is ``. . . important for successful, proactive outreach to
customers who are most likely to have a LSL'' (NDWAC, 2015). Making the
LSL inventories publicly available, including the total number of LSLs
in the distribution system and their general locations, would increase
water system transparency so customers can better understand the
prevalence of lead sources in drinking water.
Incomplete or non-existent LSL inventories also lead to uncertainty
in developing a national estimate, which could range from 6.3 million
(Cornwell et. al., 2016) to 9.3 million (USEPA, 1991) LSLs in place.
Information about the numbers of LSLs in public water systems is
critical to supporting various actions focused on reducing exposure to
lead in drinking water. For example, the EPA is targeting funding and
financing programs such as the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act (United States, 2016) grant programs, the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to reduce lead exposure through
infrastructure projects that include full LSLR. Water systems that have
prepared an LSL inventory will be better able to demonstrate their
priority for infrastructure financing assistance. In America's Water
Infrastructure Act (United States, 2018), Congress recognized the
importance of increasing the understanding about the extent of LSLs in
the nation by mandating the EPA include an assessment of costs to
replace all LSLs, including the customer-owned portion of the LSL to
the extent practicable, in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey and Assessment (DWINSA). Moreover, an LSL inventory will lead to
increased awareness of consumers regarding whether they are served by
an LSL, which could improve public health protection if affected
consumers take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water.
Other organizations have recognized the benefits of LSL inventories
and expressed support for a requirement that water systems create a LSL
inventory. The Association of Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
published a white paper titled ``Developing Lead Service Line
Inventories Presented by the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators'' with recommendations for developing LSL inventories
and examples of States that already have implemented mandatory and
voluntary LSL inventory programs (Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, 2019). The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommended that EPA ``require states to report available information
about lead pipes to EPA's SDWIS/Fed (or a future redesign such as SDWIS
Prime)'', in its revision of the LCR (GAO-18-620, 2018). The National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) recommended that water systems
create and update LSL inventories and ``establish a clear mechanism for
customers to access information on LSL locations (at a minimum)''
(NDWAC, 2015).
The EPA is proposing that all water systems create an inventory of
all water system-owned and customer-owned LSLs in its distribution
system. The inventory could be submitted in one of a variety of
formats, for example a list, table, or map with a corresponding LSL
status (i.e., LSL, non-LSL, unknown) with a location identifier of the
LSL (e.g., street, intersection, landmark). The EPA is not proposing
that addresses be used in making the LSL inventory publicly available
however, the Agency is requesting comment on this issue in Section VII.
A water system would not be precluded by the proposed regulation, from
choosing to include specific addresses served by LSLs in their
inventory. An example of this is DC Water's LSL map (DC Water, 2016).
Large systems, serving greater than 100,000 persons, would be required
to post the inventory to a publicly-accessible site on the internet to
facilitate easier access for their customers. This is consistent with
requirements for community water systems related to their annual
Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR 141.155(f)). All other systems (i.e.
those serving 100,000 persons or fewer), would simply be required to
make the inventory available to the public (e.g., available for review
at the water system's headquarters).
Under this proposal, a water system would submit an initial
inventory to their Primacy Agency by three years after the final rule
publication date. To create the initial LSL inventory water
[[Page 61695]]
systems would review plumbing codes, permits, and records in the files
of the building department(s) that indicate the plumbing materials that
are installed within publicly and privately-owned structures. In
addition, inspections and records of the distribution system that
indicate the material composition of the service connections that
connect a structure to the distribution system would be utilized.
Because water systems may not have complete records to enable them to
identify the material for every service line, the EPA is proposing that
systems identify the service lines of unknown material and update the
inventory on an annual basis to reflect LSLRs that have occurred, or
verifications of service lines of unknown material through the course
of normal operations or targeted inventorying efforts. In addition to
updating the inventory on an annual basis, EPA recommends, but does not
require, that water systems update the inventory as new information
becomes available. Improving the inventory over time in tandem with
other infrastructure work will minimize the cost of inventory
completion, since projects like main replacement require excavation of
the street and exposure of service lines underneath. The water system
could choose to speed inventory development by devoting resources to
determine service line materials independent of other water system
work. The EPA recommends, but does not require, that the material of
non-LSLs be identified, such as plastic or copper. While not required,
water systems could benefit from recording the material of all service
lines to improve its accounting of water system assets and help plan
for capital improvement activities.
These proposed requirements are consistent with the ASDWA white
paper on LSL inventories. ASDWA recommends that a ``one-time,
preliminary inventory report [be] followed by a comprehensive inventory
report a few years later''. ``The preliminary report would be completed
in three years, and the water system would update its inventory each
year to work towards a comprehensive inventory by verifying service
lines of unknown material.'' ASDWA also recommends that reports should
be made publicly available through a user-friendly, online portal, with
the option to download all inventory reports in a single file. The EPA
is proposing this requirement while allowing additional flexibilities
to smaller systems who wish to submit the inventory in paper format.
Water systems using a paper format would still be required to make the
inventory available to the public. The EPA is proposing the initial
inventory be completed by the rule compliance date, three years after
promulgation, so that other proposed rule requirements, such as tap
sample site selection, PE delivery, and LSLR requirements, can be
implemented on the final rule compliance date.
The EPA has determined it is feasible for water systems to prepare
LSL inventories because the current regulations required water systems
to identify these construction materials in their distribution system
to identify tap sampling sites, and to collect information on service
line materials where possible in the course of normal operation, such
as reading water meters or performing maintenance activities. In
addition, any water system that was required to begin LSLR under the
current rule would also have been required to identify the initial
number of LSLs in its distribution system at the time the replacement
program begins pursuant to Sec. 141.84(b)(1). However, the Agency
requests comment in Section VII of this notice on the proposed
inventory.
ASDWA's white paper lists several examples of states that have
mandatory or voluntary LSL inventory programs, and notes that even
voluntary LSL inventory programs have had response rates that cover
over 90% of service lines (Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, 2019). Many states have already begun requiring water
systems to create and maintain LSL inventories. In particular,
Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have such requirements and are estimated
to rank first, second, and third, respectively, of States with the
highest number of LSLs in the nation (Cornwell et. al., 2016).
Illinois CWSs were required to create their LSL inventory in one
year and report a count of all known water system-owned and customer-
owned LSLs. Water systems in Illinois are required by the State of
Illinois to update their inventory annually until it is complete (State
of Illinois, 2017). Ohio CWSs and NTNCWSs with LSLs had six months to
map their LSLs and are required to update it every five years. If a
water system in Ohio certifies it has no LSLs, it is not required to
create a map (State of Ohio, 2016). Michigan's updated LCR promulgated
in June 2018 requires water systems to create an inventory of all
materials in their distribution system by January 1, 2020, based on
existing information. The inventory includes both the water system-
owned and customer-owned portions of the LSL and requires service lines
of unknown material to be designated as such. The inventory must also
identify lead materials present in ``piping, storage structure, pumps,
and controls used to deliver water to the public, including service
lines'' (State of Michigan, 2017), the scope of which could cover
goosenecks and several other sources of lead. By January 1, 2025, water
systems must submit a complete inventory, along with material
verification methodology, including any instances of customer denial to
access private property to inspect the customer-owned service line. The
inventory must be updated every five years (State of Michigan, 2017).
Other States with LSL inventory requirements include Wisconsin and
California. Since 2004, Wisconsin has required annual reporting of the
number of service lines of each material (grouped by pipe diameter)
owned by the water system. In 2018, the requirement was changed to
include the customer-owned portion of the service line (Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). California water systems
were required to inventory known LSLs and areas that may contain LSLs
in their distribution systems (State of California, 2016).
As recommended by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-18-620,
2018), the EPA has identified several techniques that can be used to
identify lead and galvanized service lines. The current rule lists
several sources of information that may indicate or confirm the
presence of an LSL, including plumbing codes; permits and records;
inspections and records of distribution system materials; existing
water quality information to indicate locations that are most likely to
have higher lead levels; and relevant legal authorities (i.e.,
contracts and local ordinances). Under this proposal, the EPA expects
water systems to create their initial inventory using these available
information sources and to update LSL inventories with information on
service line materials discovered in the course of normal operation,
such as maintaining water meters.
Under this proposal, a State could establish additional inventory
development methods, such as allowing consumers to self-identify and
report their service line material, using sequential tap sampling to
identify LSLs, or using other techniques such as physical inspection or
scratch tests, hydrovacing, or trenching (ANSI C810-17 Replacement and
Flushing of Lead Service Lines, 2017).
The EPA is proposing that water systems designate any service line
whose material cannot be confirmed by
[[Page 61696]]
the rule compliance date as unknown. The EPA believes that water
systems need accurate information about the number and locations of
lead service lines in order to effectively implement actions to reduce
drinking water lead exposure. The Agency also recognizes that many
systems do not have complete records and that excavating test pits can
be expensive and may disturb lines, resulting in lead release. The
Agency believes that treating unknown lines as lead will provide an
incentive for water systems to collect information on the composition
of service lines through their normal maintenance activities such as
meter calibration, because doing so would reduce the burden associated
with other aspects of the rule, such as LSLR and notification to LSL
customers. If a service line of unknown material is determined to be
non-lead, it would reduce the number of LSLs required to be replaced
each year should the water system exceed the action level. Fewer
service lines of unknown material would also result in reduced burden
associated with delivery of customer LSL notification and fewer goal-
based or mandatory LSLR should the water system exceed the lead trigger
level or action level, if the unknowns are identified as non-lead. If
any service lines originally inventoried as non-lead are later
discovered to be LSLs, these service lines would be included for
establishing replacement rates and for conducting outreach to customers
with LSLs. This requirement follows the recommendation provided to the
EPA by the NDWAC, to grant water systems the flexibility to create an
inventory that allows for the uncertainty of service line materials
that cannot be verified by records or other means within three years,
while at the same time ensuring that consumers potentially served by an
LSL are provided adequate protections. For example, water systems would
provide targeted public education to consumers served by a service line
of unknown material, informing them that their service line may be an
LSL and advising them about actions they can take to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water. Without this public education,
consumers drinking water delivered by a service line of unknown
material may not have any awareness of the potential risk of lead
exposure from their drinking water or how to reduce their risk.
Under this proposal, while water systems would assume unknown
service lines are LSLs for purposes of establishing replacement rates
and for conducting outreach to customers with LSLs, they would not
include these sites in their Tier 1 tap sampling pool. The proposed tap
sample tiering requirements designate sites served by an LSL as Tier 1
to assure prioritization of sites that are the most likely to yield
elevated lead levels in drinking water, therefore the EPA is proposing
to exclude service lines of unknown material from Tier 1 classification
to prevent the dilution of the Tier 1 sample pool with potential non-
LSL sites. ASDWA's white paper on LSL inventories summarizes how
service lines of unknown material are treated in inventories around the
country. Illinois, California, and Michigan allow water systems to
designate service lines as ``unknown'' in their inventories. In
California, water systems must include service lines of unknown
material in their LSLR plan ``to encourage water systems to investigate
their unknown lines.'' (Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, 2019). Michigan water systems can include service lines
of unknown material in their initial inventory due January 1, 2020,
however by January 1, 2025, they must have verified all service line
materials, with the option to document any instances of customer denial
to access private property to inspect the customer-owned service line
(State of Michigan, 2017). The EPA requests comment in Section VII of
this notice on the appropriate treatment of unknown lines in an
inventory.
Galvanized service lines can contribute to lead in drinking water
due to lead in the zinc coating, or absorption of lead particles in
corrosion scales if they are or have ever been downstream of an LSL
(McFadden et. al., 2011; HDR, 2009). The proposed rule would define
galvanized service lines that are currently or were formerly downstream
of an LSL, as an LSL. Therefore, these lines would be listed in the LSL
inventory, counted in the replacement rate calculation, and included in
the notifications delivered to consumers of LSLs. Michigan's updated
LCR takes a similar approach, requiring replacement of galvanized
service lines ``if the service line is or was downstream of lead
piping'' (State of Michigan, 2017). The proposed tap sample tiering
requirements would not allow these galvanized service lines to be
considered LSLs for purposes of collecting tap samples to assure
prioritization of sites that are the most likely to yield elevated lead
levels in drinking water, such as those made of one hundred percent
lead.
D. Lead Service Line Replacement
The current rule requires water systems with optimized corrosion
control treatment (OCCT) to replace LSLs after exceeding the lead
action level. Although the water system must meet an annual LSLR rate
of seven percent, the current rule allows for water systems to meet the
requirement without conducting any full LSLRs because a water system
can count an LSL as replaced if the service line is ``tested out'' or
partially replaced. LSLs are ``tested out'' when sampling shows lead
concentrations at or below 15 [micro]g/L throughout the entire profile
of the service line. Additionally, many communities around the country
split ownership of the service line between the water system and the
customer, which can often result in a partial LSLR being conducted when
the customer does not agree to have his or her portion removed. ``Test
outs'' and partial LSLR both count as replacements under the current
rule, but neither are as effective at reducing lead in drinking water
as full LSLR.
Additionally, the current rule does not require the water system to
plan for its LSLR program before it is required to conduct mandatory
LSLR. Water systems must work out the technical, financial, customer
coordination, and other logistics of starting a LSLR program in the
same period they must begin replacement of LSLs. This approach can
create challenges for the water system because planning for LSLR takes
time, which jeopardizes the system's ability to meet the seven percent
replacement rate. It could also render LSLR more expensive if the water
system has not evaluated and optimized the operational and financial
aspects of LSLR.
1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan
The EPA is proposing that all water systems with LSLs or service
lines of unknown material, and regardless of their 90th percentile lead
level, must prepare an LSLR plan. Under this proposal, a water system
would submit the plan by three years after the final rule publication
date. Developing an LSLR plan while creating an LSL inventory provides
efficiencies in the planning process and will prepare water systems to
quickly commence a goal-based, or mandatory full LSLR program should
they exceed the lead trigger or action level, or to coordinate a
replacement with an emergency repair or a customer initiating a
replacement of their line.
Under this proposal, the plan would include procedures to conduct
full LSLR and to alert and inform consumers before a full or partial
lead service line replacement. It must also include a lead service line
replacement goal rate,
[[Page 61697]]
developed in coordination with the State, should the water system
exceed the lead trigger level. To address short term increases in lead
levels following LSLR, the plan must include a pitcher filter tracking
and maintenance system and flushing procedures for the service line and
premise plumbing inside the home. Water system organizations, such as
AWWA, have developed guidance and procedures for LSLR and flushing that
a water system could use or reference in its LSLR plan. The plan must
also include a funding strategy for conducting lead service line
replacements.
In the plan's funding strategy, the water system would identify how
it will pay for the replacement of the water system-owned portion of
the LSL, such as through its capital improvement fund or the use of a
low-interest rate loan from the DWSRF. Although water systems are not
required to pay for replacement of customer owned lead service lines,
the EPA encourages water systems to develop programs to financially
assist these customers in replacing their lead service lines. The EPA
has identified several types of assistance, such as loans and grants
from the federal government or funded by rate revenue, as well as
private funding partnerships (Strategies for Achieving Full LSLR,
docket EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).
The LSLR plan would include a procedure for customers to flush
service lines and premise plumbing of particulate lead. Flushing
reduces particulate lead that may have been released into drinking
water after LSL disturbance or replacement. For purposes of the
flushing requirements in the proposed rule, the EPA considers a service
line disturbance as planned work or an emergency repair that requires
water service to the consumer be shut off. Water shutoffs can disturb
lead pipes due to hydraulic scouring as the water is turned back on,
and if shut off for an extended period of time, can cause the lead
scales on the pipe interior to dry and flake off. Under this proposed
rule, these disturbances would require consumer flushing instructions
to be delivered to the consumer before their water is turned back on.
Although other types of pipe disturbances may occur, such as vibration
from the work of other utilities (for example, gas and electric
utilities), the water system may not always be aware of the other
utilities' activities. Defining pipe disturbance based on when water
service is temporarily shut off ensures the water system is aware of
the disturbance and can execute the proposed flushing requirement. For
disturbances caused by other utilities, the EPA encourages water
systems to inform other utilities of the potential for LSL disturbance
to cause elevated lead levels in drinking water and attempt to
coordinate with them on development and implementation of measures to
reduce disturbances and mitigate impacts.
The replacement of a meter, gooseneck, pigtail, or connector
entails disconnecting and reconnecting the LSL, it is expected to be a
more significant disturbance of the LSL than when the water service is
temporarily shut off. Therefore, the EPA is proposing additional risk
mitigation measures for these disturbances. Under this proposal the
water system would be required to provide flushing instructions, as
well as deliver the consumer a pitcher filter certified to remove lead
along with three months of replacement cartridges for risk mitigation.
The EPA is proposing that regardless of their 90th percentile lead
level, water systems must replace lead goosenecks, pigtails, and
connectors owned by the water system as they are encountered in the
course of planned or emergency infrastructure work, such as main
replacement. This proposed requirement was recommended by the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2015). Water systems that
replace lead goosenecks, pigtails and connectors would be required
within 24 hours to notify consumers of the replacement and provide
flushing instructions and a pitcher filter and replacement cartridges
to last for three months. Water systems would be required to collect a
follow up tap sample after three months but no later than six months
after the gooseneck, pigtails, or connector is replaced. In many cases,
routine infrastructure work involves the excavation of the water main
under the street and exposure of the goosenecks, which then undergo
reconnection to the new main. The EPA expects that mandatory
replacement of these connectors as they are encountered would provide a
beneficial and lower burden opportunity for the water system to remove
a lead source from its distribution system. The water system is
encouraged but not required to engage with the customer to coordinate
replacement of a customer-owned lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector;
however, the water system would not be required to bear the cost of
replacement of the customer-owned materials under this proposal.
Replacement of a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector regardless of
ownership would not count towards goal-based or mandatory LSLR rates.
2. Partial Lead Service Line Replacement
The EPA sought an evaluation by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of
current scientific data to assess the effectiveness of partial LSLRs in
reducing water lead levels. The SAB determined that the quality and
quantity of data was inadequate to fully evaluate the effectiveness of
partial LSLR in reducing drinking water lead concentrations. However,
the SAB concluded that partial LSLRs have not been shown to reliably
reduce drinking water lead levels and may even increase lead exposure
in the short-term of days to months, and potentially even longer. The
NDWAC recommended requiring full LSLR except during emergency repairs
or infrastructure improvement projects when a customer is unable or
unwilling to replace their portion of the LSL (NDWAC, 2015).
Based upon the SAB's and the NDWAC's recommendations, the EPA is
proposing to eliminate current requirements for water systems to only
replace the portion of the LSL that is owned by the water system, if
any, in situations where customers do not choose to replace the portion
of the line that is owned by the customer. Typically, if a water system
owns a portion of the service line, it is the portion that connects the
water main under the street to the customer-owned portion of the
service line, which often begins at the curb-box or water meter. The
proposed changes to the LSLR requirements would remove the compliance
incentive to conduct partial LSLR that is inherent in the current rule.
The EPA recognizes that certain activities, such as emergency repairs
(i.e., a water main break that must quickly be repaired) or planned
infrastructure improvements (i.e., a water main replacement program)
may still need to proceed regardless of customer participation and may
result in unavoidable pipe disturbances and at times, partial LSLR. For
example, a water system replacing a water main as part of its capital
improvement program may encounter LSLs on both the water system- and
customer-owned portions of the service line. If a single customer
served by an LSL does not accept the water system's offer to replace
the customer-owned portion (the water system is not required to bear
the cost of replacement), the water system may proceed to conduct a
partial LSLR at that location in order to complete the main replacement
project. In another scenario, a water system-owned portion
[[Page 61698]]
of an LSL could fail, requiring emergency replacement. In this case,
the water system would be allowed to replace just the water system-
owned portion should the customer refuse or is unable to have his or
her portion replaced.
Whenever a water system conducts partial LSLR, it would be required
to notify the affected consumers and follow the risk mitigation
procedures in their LSLR plan to ensure that customers are promptly
alerted and informed of the actions they can take to reduce their
exposure to lead following the partial LSLR, when concentrations of
lead in drinking water are expected to be the highest. These proposed
risk mitigation steps required after partial LSLR include customer
notification, delivering flushing guidance to remove particulate lead,
providing a pitcher filter certified to remove lead in accordance with
applicable standards established by the American National Standards
Institute, as well as replacement cartridges to last no less than three
months, and taking a tap sample after three months, but no more than
six months after the partial LSLR. Tap sample results would be provided
to the consumer within 30 days, unless the tap sample exceeds the lead
action level, in which case the EPA proposes notifying the customer
within 24 hours. The same mitigation steps would also be required if a
water system undertook a full lead service line replacement (see
section III.D.3 of this notice).
The EPA is proposing that all water systems with LSLs, regardless
of their 90th percentile level, must replace the water system-owned
portion of the LSL when a customer replaces their portion of the LSL.
Water systems would have to include information about this requirement
in their annual notification to LSL customers. In those cases where a
customer notifies the system in advance of replacing the customer
portion of an LSL, the EPA is proposing that the water system make a
good faith effort to coordinate replacement with the customer to
minimize disturbances that may result in particulate lead release and
to prevent a partially replaced LSL from being left in place. The water
system would also have 45 days from learning of the customer's
replacement or intention to replace his or her-owned portion of the LSL
to replace the portion owned by the water system. Given that water
systems routinely perform construction involving installation and
replacement of water mains and service lines, and that the logistics of
LSLR have been established in its LSLR plan, the EPA believes that it
is feasible for water systems to replace their portion of a lead
service line within 45 days of notification of the customer-initiated
replacement, however the Agency requests comment in Section VII of this
notices on whether a longer or shorter time frame is appropriate. In
cases where the water system learns that a customer has replaced the
customer-owned portion of LSL and the replacement has occurred more
than three months in the past, the water system is not required to
complete the lead service line replacement.
After a LSLR, the EPA proposes that water systems deliver flushing
instructions to the customer, provide a pitcher filter certified to
remove lead with replacement cartridges to last three months (the
expected timeframe for lead levels to decrease following a lead service
line replacement), and collect a follow-up tap sample after three
months, but no later than six months after the LSLR.
The EPA is proposing that any water system that becomes aware that
a customer has already replaced his or her portion of the LSL in the
last three months be required to provide a filter to the home within 24
hours to mitigate the elevated lead levels associated with customer-
initiated partial LSLR. Additionally, the water system would have 45
days after learning of the customer-owned LSLR to replace its portion
of the LSL. If a water system is conducting goal-based or mandatory
LSLR in the period which these replacements occur, the water system
would count these replacements towards its goal or mandatory
replacement rate. If the water system is notified of the customer-
initiated replacement more than three months after the replacement
occurred, it would not be required to replace its portion or provide a
pitcher filter and replacement cartridges because the elevated lead
levels associated with partial LSLR would be expected to have subdued.
3. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Trigger Level Exceedance
The EPA is proposing that, in addition to any requirements relating
to CCT under 141.82(d) or 141.81(e) discussed above, CWSs serving more
than 10,000 persons that exceed the trigger level for lead (10
[micro]g/L) but do not exceed the action level for lead (15 [micro]g/L)
would be required to implement a full LSLR program with an annual
replacement goal rate approved by the State, as stated in its LSLR
plan. The goal rate would be established to require actions that will
promote the elimination of a significant source of lead in those water
systems with 90th percentile concentrations that are approaching the
action level. This provision is designed to require water systems with
higher lead levels to take steps to reduce lead exposure and upgrade
their infrastructure.
There is widespread support at all levels for upgrading American's
water infrastructure, including lead service line replacement.
President Trump's 2020 budget proposes significant investment in
infrastructure, directing $200 billion for priorities such as water
infrastructure (The White House, 2019a). Lead service line replacement
represents an opportunity to replace water infrastructure which can be
over one hundred years old, constructed with material specifications
not lawful for use in new plumbing products today, which can create
risk of lead exposure to Americans. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler
signaled the Agency support of water infrastructure projects and their
ability to create jobs, noting that since 2017 the EPA water
infrastructure loans have totaled over $2 billion and will create 6,000
jobs (The White House, 2019b). In a policy statement, the American
Water Works Association encouraged communities to ``develop a lead
reduction strategy that includes identifying and removing all lead
service lines over time'' and supported the NDWAC's recommendations for
the ``complete removal of lead service lines while ensuring optimal
corrosion control measures'' (AWWA, 2017). The EPA is also aware of
many communities and water systems across the country that are choosing
to conduct LSLR proactively. The proposed LCR incorporates actions that
water systems can take to encourage full LSLR irrespective of the lead
action level, helping to spur removal of lead sources rather than
waiting to act only after consumers have already been exposed to
greater levels of lead.
The flexibility of the goal based LSLR provision allows water
systems with higher lead levels make manageable progress in reducing
lead exposure and upgrading their infrastructure. The State could take
multiple factors into account when setting the goal rate, such as the
number of LSLs in the distribution system, planned infrastructure
improvement programs, as well as the financial circumstances of the
water system and its customers. The EPA believes that as communities
conduct projects to replace aging infrastructure, they can replace lead
service lines as part of these projects. This will reduce costs and
minimize the disruption to their customers. Madison, WI stated in its
Federalism letter to the EPA that it
[[Page 61699]]
``achieved cost-saving efficiencies through effective planning that
concentrated capital improvement projects in the lead service area.
Lead service replacement costs never exceeded 20% of our annual capital
budget. In addition, the compressed schedule and coordination with
local plumbing contractors led to reduced mobilization costs.'' The EPA
expects that systems that exceed the trigger level will consider
integrating lead service line replacements into their planned
infrastructure replacement activities.
The EPA is proposing that a water system may discontinue its goal-
based LSLR program after two consecutive annual monitoring periods at
or below the lead trigger level, which equates to two years where the
lead 90th percentile is consistently at or below the trigger level. The
EPA is also proposing that a water system that does not meet its annual
LSLR goal must conduct proposed outreach activities as described in
141.85(g). (See Section III.F.2. of this notice). The proposed rule
also provides the EPA authority to determine a different goal-based
replacement rate, if appropriate.
4. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
The EPA is proposing that CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons
that exceed the lead action level would be required to conduct
mandatory full LSLR at a minimum rate of three percent annually. Small
CWSs serving 10,000 persons or fewer people as well as Non-Transient,
Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) of all sizes have compliance
alternatives, outlined in Section C below. The mandatory replacement
rate would be applied to the number of inventoried LSLs at the time the
action level is first exceeded plus the number of service lines of
unknown material.
The EPA is proposing to reduce the mandatory minimum LSLR rate from
seven percent to three percent, but to allow only full LSLRs to count
towards the replacement rate. This differs from the current rule, which
allows for ``test-outs'' and partial LSLR to count as ``replaced.''
Partial LSLR removes only a portion of the LSL, usually the water
system-owned portion and may, in the short-term, increase lead
concentrations at the tap (USEPA, 2011). Test-outs allow an individual
LSL to remain in place but be counted as ``replaced'' if the lead
concentration in all service line samples from that line are less than
or equal to 15 [micro]g/L. Studies have shown that LSLs which have been
``tested-out'' may contribute to lead release in drinking water at a
later date (Del Toral et. al., 2013). Due to concerns that the
practices of both ``test-outs'' and partial LSLR contribute to lead
exposure, the EPA is proposing to eliminate these practices. While the
current rule requires seven percent LSLR after a lead ALE, the EPA is
aware that compliance is not necessarily achieved by conducting full
LSLR. A Black and Veach survey of water systems found that LSLR was
comprised of 72 percent partial replacements (USEPA, 2004b). The EPA
best professional judgement used in the proposed rule's economic
analysis assumes that due to the cost-savings of test-outs over LSLR,
that 25 percent of CWSs serving more than 10,000 people would take an
LSL sample before replacing the LSL, and that 80 percent of LSLs would
meet the test-out criteria. Given these assumptions, the proposed rule
requirement of three percent full replacement would likely result in a
greater number of full LSLR in comparison to the current rule's seven
percent replacement. Similar to the current rule, the State would be
required to set a shorter LSLR schedule, taking into account the number
of LSLs in the system, where such a shorter replacement schedule is
feasible. For example, if the water system has a very low number of
LSLs compared to its total number of service lines, the State would
determine it is feasible for the water system to replace greater than
three percent of full LSLs per year and require the water system to do
so.
The mandatory LSLR rate would be applied to the number of
inventoried LSLs when the water system first exceeds the action level,
plus the number of service lines of unknown material. Should the water
system subsequently exceed the lead action level again, the water
system would continue to use the original number of LSLs and unknowns,
used following the first exceedance of the lead action level, for the
LSLR rate calculation. In other words, the water system would not
revise the LSLR rate using the number of LSLs at the time of the
subsequent lead action level exceedance. The minimum mandatory three
percent LSLR rate is intended to eliminate LSLs within approximately 33
years of exceeding the action level. If the water system updated the
LSLR rate based on its current number of LSLs whenever it exceeded the
lead action level, the replacement timeframe would reset to an
additional 33 years each time, significantly delaying LSLR. Service
lines of unknown material discovered to be non-lead would not be
considered replaced nor contribute to the LSLR rate. Verifying that a
service line of unknown material is non-lead would, however, reduce the
total number of replacements required per year by adjusting the initial
number of LSLs in the distribution system. If verifying a service line
of unknown material as non-lead was counted as a LSLR, the water system
could effectively remove less than three percent of its actual number
of LSLs per year. It could also incentivize water systems against
creating a thorough LSL inventory upfront, because should they exceed
the lead action level, they could achieve compliance with the less
costly service line verification as opposed to full LSLR. For these
reasons, the proposed rule would not count verifying service lines of
unknown material as non-lead as a LSLR. The proposed rule allows
flexibility for water systems to include service lines of unknown
materials in their inventory and verify them at their own pace, while
avoiding disincentivizing or discouraging full LSLR.
The EPA is aware of several full LSLR programs throughout the
nation that have been largely successful (EDF, 2019), sometimes
achieving a significant number of full LSLR at replacement rates well
above three percent. Even when LSLR is coupled with the pace of a water
system's capital improvement work, communities are conducting LSLR
rates between 1 and 17 percent annually (USEPA, 2019a).The State of
Michigan's revised LCR requires all water systems to fully remove LSLs
proactively at the rate of five percent, and at the rate of seven
percent when the lead action level is exceeded (State of Michigan,
2017).
Under this proposal, a water system that has exceeded the action
level may cease its mandatory LSLR program after four consecutive six-
month monitoring periods below the lead action level. This equates to
two years of six-month monitoring with 90th percentile values
consistently at or below the lead action level, which provides the
water system assurance that distribution system chemistry has
stabilized, especially if CCT was installed or re-optimized after the
exceedance. The water system would be in violation of the LCR treatment
technique if it fails to meet the annual three percent full replacement
rate unless the water system obtains documented refusals from all
customers served by an LSL to participate in the replacement program.
This mechanism is intended to be used towards the end of a LSLR
program, where a small number of customers remain who do not consent to
have the customer-owned portion of the LSL
[[Page 61700]]
replaced. The EPA is proposing this provision to allow for situations
where customers' decisions are outside of the system's control but is
not meant as a substitute for the water system making a meaningful
effort to engage with customers to meet the three percent full
replacement rate.
Although this proposal lowers the required LSLR rate from seven
percent to three percent, the elimination of ``test-outs'' and partial
LSLRs and the requirement for full LSLR will result in greater
reductions in exposure to lead in drinking water. The EPA estimates
that the proposed mandatory three percent and the goal-based LSLR
requirements of the rule would result in an incremental increase of
205,452 to 261,701 full LSLRs over a 35-year period compared to the
current rule (see Appendix C, Exhibit C.1 of the Economic Analysis for
the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019)). The EPA is also
requesting comment in Section VII of this notice on an alternative
sampling technique for sampling locations with lead service lines. As
indicated in section VI.F.2 of this notice, this alternative would
increase the numbers of systems that would be required to take actions
including LSLR. The EPA has estimated that other proposed rule
provisions may also influence LSLR. For example, consumers will learn
from their water system if they are served by an LSL, about the risks
of lead in drinking water, and about the actions they can take to
reduce lead in drinking water and remove their LSL. Some of these
customers are expected to voluntarily initiate LSLR, regardless of the
water system's 90th percentile lead level. These provisions are
expected to result in approximately 214,000 to 350,000 LSLRs over the
next 35 years. The EPA has not evaluated to what extent these
anticipated voluntary LSLRs may be additional to the LSLRs undertaken
in systems with 3% or goal-based LSLR requirements. The EPA also
estimates that the availability of DWSRF program loans and subsidies to
fund customer-side LSLRs is expected to result in an estimated 149,200
full LSLRs over 35 years with approximately 91% of the funds used for
proactive LSLR as opposed to mandatory LSLR that is required after
exceeding the lead action level (USEPA, 2019d). As the proposed
requirements in this section require the water system to complete any
consumer-initiated LSLR, these replacements are expected to result in
full replacements.
E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small
Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
Under the current LCR, small and medium water systems (i.e.,
systems serving 50,000 or fewer people) are not required to implement
CCT unless the water system exceeds the lead action level. The EPA has
determined that greater flexibility is needed for small Community Water
Systems (CWSs) and all Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
(NTNCWSs) because they tend to have more limited technical, financial,
and managerial capacity to implement complex treatment techniques. Many
small public water systems face challenges in reliably providing safe
drinking water to their customers and consistently meeting the
requirements of the SDWA and the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs). These challenges include, but are not limited to:
(1) Lack of adequate revenue or access to financing; (2) aging
infrastructure; (3) retirement of experienced system operators and the
inability to recruit new operators to replace them; (4) managers and
operators who lack the requisite financial, technical or managerial
skills; (5) lack of planning for infrastructure upgrades or the ability
to respond to and recover from natural disasters (e.g., floods or
tornadoes); and (6) lack of understanding of existing or new regulatory
requirements and treatment technologies. As a result, some small
systems may experience frequent or long-term compliance challenges in
reliably providing safe water to their customers while others may be in
compliance now but lack the technical capacity to maintain compliance
(OIG, 2006).
The EPA is proposing three compliance alternatives for a lead
action level exceedance to allow increased flexibility for small CWS
that serve 10,000 or fewer people and four compliance alternatives for
NTNCWS of any size. The proposed rule would allow these water systems
to choose among options, which would allow them to select the most
financially and technologically viable strategy that is effective in
reducing lead in drinking water. The EPA is proposing the following
compliance alternatives for small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) installation
and maintenance of OCCT, or (3) installation and maintenance of point-
of-use (POU) devices. The EPA is proposing the above three
flexibilities for NTNCWS and an additional option of replacement of all
lead bearing plumbing fixtures at every tap where water could be used
for human consumption. The NTNCWS must have control of all plumbing
materials to select this option.
Under this proposal, small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the
lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead and copper action levels
would need to evaluate the compliance alternatives and make a
recommendation to the State within six months on which compliance
alternative the water system would implement if the water system
exceeds the lead action level. The State would need to approve the
recommendation within six months of submittal. In the event these water
systems exceed the lead action level, they must implement the State-
approved compliance option.
Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for
implementation of optimized CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action
level would be required to implement the State-approved option for CCT
in accordance with proposed requirements in Sec. 141.81(e). Small CWSs
and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for the POU option and
subsequently exceed the lead action level, would be required to
implement a POU program on a schedule specified by the State, but not-
to-exceed three months. Small water systems that select and are
approved for LSLR and subsequently exceed the lead action level would
be required to replace all LSLs on a schedule specified by the State,
not-to-exceed 15 years.
Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead action level
but not the copper action level, had not previously exceeded the
trigger level, would need to evaluate the compliance alternatives and
make a recommendation to the State within six months. The State must
approve the system's recommendations within six months; these water
systems would then implement the State-approved compliance option on a
schedule specified by the State.
1. Lead Service Line Replacement
The EPA is proposing that NTNCWSs and small CWSs with LSLs that
exceed the lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L may choose to fully
replace all of their LSLs until none remain. Those that choose this
compliance alternative would need to ensure they have the authority or
consent to remove the customer-owned portion of every LSL in its
distribution system. If the water system's 90th percentile drops below
the lead action level, the water system must continue to replace LSLs
until none remain. This
[[Page 61701]]
option is projected to be a practical choice for small systems that
have few LSLs that could be removed within a few years, thus
potentially avoiding the need to add a CCT process that would need to
be continually operated and maintained. Rather than split resources
between installing CCT and conducting LSLR, this proposal allows
resources to be focused on LSLR to accelerate completion of the program
and permanently remove a significant potential source of lead in
drinking water. Water systems would have to replace LSLs on a schedule
approved by the State not to exceed 15 years. The EPA has determined in
its analysis that water systems with a small number of LSLs may find
that removing relatively few LSLs is more cost effective than
installing and maintaining optimized CCT indefinitely, and logistically
less burdensome than installing and maintaining POU devices (see
section VI.C.4 of this notice).
2. Corrosion Control Treatment
The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and
maintain optimized CCT as a compliance alternative after exceeding the
lead action level. The EPA has determined in its analysis that some
water systems may choose this alternative as the most effective and
viable strategy for reducing lead in drinking water (e.g., small water
systems with many LSLs to replace or a large number of households that
would make installation and maintenance of POU devices logistically
challenging) (see section VI.C.4 of this notice). The EPA is proposing
to require water systems, including small water systems, that have
already installed CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action level to
re-optimize CCT.
3. Point-of-Use Devices
The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and
maintain POU devices certified to remove lead as a compliance
alternative to a lead action level exceedance in lieu of CCT and LSLR.
The EPA proposes to require small CWSs to provide a minimum of one POU
device per household, regardless of whether that household is served by
an LSL, to ensure the residents can access filtered water from at least
one tap. Since system-wide CCT is not being provided under this option,
even homes without LSLs would need to be provided with a POU device to
address lead leaching from old lead solder or brass plumbing fittings
and fixtures. The EPA proposes to require NTNCWSs to provide a POU
device for every tap intended for drinking or cooking to ensure all
building users can easily access filtered water. The water system would
be responsible for maintenance of the device, including changing filter
cartridges and resolving operational issues experienced by the
customer. Small CWSs that serve relatively few households, or NTNCWSs
that are responsible for the facility's plumbing, may find this to be
the most effective and viable compliance alternative (see section
VI.C.4 of this notice). Small CWSs would need to ensure water system
personnel have access to the homes of the residents to install and
maintain the POU devices, including changing the filters.
4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
The EPA is proposing to provide an additional compliance
alternative for NTNCWS. Under this proposal, a NTNCWS that has control
over all plumbing in its buildings may choose to replace all lead
bearing plumbing in response to a lead action level exceedance.
Research has shown that corrosion of lead bearing premise plumbing has
the potential to leach higher levels of lead in drinking water (Elfland
et. al., 2010). Lead from premise plumbing contributes on average 20-35
percent of lead in drinking water where an LSL is present (AwwaRF,
2008), and could potentially represent an even greater percentage where
no LSL is present. The EPA proposes that the replacement of all lead
bearing plumbing occur on a schedule set by the State which must not
exceed one year. The EPA is proposing this compliance alternative only
apply to NTNCWS, because it is highly unlikely that a small CWS has
access to every residence and building it serves or that the CWS has
the authority to inspect and require replacement of all lead-bearing
plumbing materials in these locations.
F. Public Education
Under the current LCR, water systems that exceed the lead action
level must initiate a public education program within 60 days of the
end of the monitoring period in which the action level exceedance
occurred. The purpose of public education is to inform consumers that
the water system has exceeded the action level, provide information
about the health effects of lead, the sources of lead in drinking
water, actions consumers can take to reduce exposure, and explain why
there are elevated levels of lead and actions the water system is
taking. Targeted public education for customers with an LSL or a
service line of unknown material is intended to raise awareness of
people in a household that may have higher lead exposures so that
consumers may take actions to reduce exposure to lead and participate
in LSLR programs.
The EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory health effects
language required for public education materials as follows.
Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could have
decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning and
behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases
prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become pregnant has
similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is released during
pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water
containing lead have increased risks of heart disease, high blood
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
The EPA is also proposing enhancements to improve consumer
awareness and collaboration efforts with community organizations to
communicate lead risks. Proposed enhancements include a requirement for
systems to update public education materials with revised mandatory
health effects language and for systems with lead service lines to
include information about lead service line replacement programs and
opportunities available to customers for replacement. In addition, the
EPA is proposing to modify requirements to provide customers with their
tap sample results within 24 hours if the sample is greater than the
action level of 15 [mu]g/L, while maintaining the current rule
requirement to provide tap sample results within 30 days for samples
less than or equal to the action level. The EPA is proposing these
additional actions while retaining the current rule requirements for
public education following a lead action level exceedance.
1. Notification for Customers With a Lead Service Line
The EPA is proposing to require water systems to conduct an LSL
inventory and provide public access to the inventory information (see
section III.C.1 of this notice). The EPA is proposing a new requirement
for water systems with LSLs to provide notification to households
served by an LSL and with unknown service line material, to include
information on: The health effects and sources of lead in drinking
water (including LSLs), how to have water tested for lead, actions
[[Page 61702]]
customers can take to reduce exposure to lead, and information about
the opportunities for LSLR, including the water system's requirement to
replace its portion of an LSL when notified by a customer that they
intend to replace the customer-owned portion of the LSL. The EPA is
proposing that a water system provide this notification to existing
customers served by an LSL and service lines of unknown material within
30 days of completing its LSL inventory and for new customers that
initiate new water service from a home or building with an LSL or a
service line of unknown material at the time service (i.e., billing) is
initiated. This proposal would require CWSs to send a notification on
an annual basis to customers until the LSL is replaced or the unknown
service line is determined not be an LSL. This notification must
include a section describing programs that provide innovative financing
solutions for customers seeking to replace their portion of a lead
service line. Small systems may wish to refer to a national information
source, such as one provided by EPA; large systems may wish to tailor
such information to their circumstances. This section must also include
a clear explanation of how the water system defines ownerships of lead
service lines, who has financial responsibility for the replacement,
and the legal basis for that determination. Additionally, the EPA
proposes that CWSs provide notification to LSL and unknowns service
line customers informing them of actions consumers can take to reduce
their exposure including replacing their lead service line when they
exceed the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L but do not exceed the
lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L. The EPA believes that these
proposed notification requirements have value for both occupants of
rental properties as well as homeowners. Information regarding the
existence of an LSL will provide important information for renters on
potential lead exposure in their home and could prompt a communication
with their landlord regarding lead service line replacement. Occupants
of rental properties will also benefit from the information on other
actions they can take to reduce lead exposure in drinking water. The
CWS must provide the same information noted above and include an
invitation to participate in the LSLR program and repeat the notice
annually until it is at or below the lead trigger level.
2. Outreach Activities After Failing To Meet a Lead Service Line
Replacement Goal
The EPA is proposing to require CWSs serving more than 10,000
persons that fail to meet their annual LSLR goal to conduct public
outreach activities. Failure to meet the LSLR goal would not be a
violation, however, failure to conduct public outreach activities would
result in a treatment technique violation. To increase customer
awareness of the potential higher exposure to lead from a LSLR and
advance customer interest in participating in the goal based LSLR
program, the EPA proposes that water systems conduct annual public
outreach activities until the water system meets its replacement goal.
Water systems can stop their goal LSLR program when tap sampling shows
that the 90th percentile of lead is at or below the trigger level for
two consecutive monitoring periods. To enhance community engagement and
allow water system flexibility as suggested by the NDWAC, the EPA is
proposing to provide options to meet this requirement, so water systems
can conduct effective community engagement. A water system that does
not meet its LSLR goal rate would select one of the proposed outreach
activities that would be most appropriate for that community. Outreach
activities include one or more of the following activities: (1) A
social media campaign (e.g., face book, twitter), (2) outreach to
organizations representing plumbers and contractors to discuss
identification of LSLs during home repair, (3) certified mail to LSL
customers inviting them to participate in the LSLR program, (4) conduct
a town hall meeting or participate in a community event to provide
information on the LSLR program, (5) direct contact (by phone or in
person) to customers to discuss LSLR program and opportunities for
LSLR, or (6) obtain written refusal from all LSL customers to
participate in the LSLR program. Water systems would be required to
complete at least one activity in the year following failure to meet
the replacement goal. If the water system continues to fail to meet the
annual replacement goal in the following year, the EPA is proposing
that the number of efforts be increased to two per year to promote
participation in the LSLR program. The NDWAC recommended this approach
to enhance engagement with homeowners and promote their participation
in LSLR programs. Water systems would provide written certification to
the State that they have conducted the required outreach activities
under this proposal.
3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach
The EPA proposes for any individual tap sample that exceeds the
lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L, the water system would notify
consumers at the site within 24 hours of learning of the lead tap
sampling result. This is in addition to the current LCR requirement to
provide a notice of the individual tap sample results from lead testing
to persons served at the sampling site, which must be sent within 30
days of receiving results. For tap samples that do not exceed the lead
action level, the 30-day notice will remain in effect. Under this
proposal, water systems that have individual tap samples greater than
15 [micro]g/L would also be required to implement the ``find-and-fix''
provisions as described in section III.K. of this notice.
In addition, the EPA is proposing that community water systems
conduct annual outreach to State and local health agencies to explain
the sources of lead in drinking water, discuss health effects of lead,
and explore collaborative efforts. This annual outreach would help to
ensure that caregivers and health providers hear and respond
appropriately to information about lead in drinking water and for water
utilities to participate in joint communication efforts, led by state
health departments, state lead poisoning prevention agencies, and/or
state drinking water primacy agencies (NDWAC, 2015).
G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water Sampling
Unlike most contaminants that are found in sources of drinking
water, lead and copper enter drinking water as it moves through the
distribution system and comes into contact with leaded materials, such
as lead service lines, leaded solder, brass/bronze fittings, galvanized
piping, faucets, and water meters. Therefore, measurements of lead and
copper are taken at the consumers tap. Tap sampling is a fundamental
part of the LCR designed to target sites expected to have the highest
lead levels and is used to assess the effectiveness of corrosion
control treatment and/or source water treatment in the water system.
This is done through targeted site selection (i.e., sampling locations
with lead service lines) and the use of a tap sample collection
protocol.
All CWSs and NTNCWSs must collect lead and copper tap samples. The
water system may choose to have staff collect the samples if feasible,
or have residents collect the samples. Due to the required six hour
stagnation period prior to sample collection, it is often less
[[Page 61703]]
disruptive for the customer to collect the tap sample themselves. The
frequency of monitoring and number of samples to be collected and
analyzed is based primarily on how many people the water system serves
and previous tap water monitoring results. If residents are collecting
tap samples, the water system must recruit volunteers at the sites that
are most likely to have elevated lead based on the tiering criteria
described in the section below.
To the extent feasible, water systems should use the same tap
sample sites each monitoring period. If a resident decides to
discontinue participation in tap sampling, the water system must select
a similarly ``tiered'' site. Due to potential non response from
resident volunteers, the EPA recommends including more sampling sites
in the pool of targeted sampling sites than the minimum number of tap
samples required be identified. Under the proposed rule, water systems
would be required to provide resident volunteers must be provided with
a wide-mouth collection bottle each time and a tap sample collection
protocol, including instructions on how the water system will pick up
samples for laboratory analysis, which must be done within two weeks
after the tap sample is drawn. The water system would then be required
to calculate a 90th percentile separately for lead and copper at the
end of each monitoring period. This 90th percentile value would be
reported to the State and is used to determine whether the system must
comply with other requirements of the rule, such as corrosion control
treatment, public education and LSLR.
This proposal describes several revisions to the current LCR to
improve tap sampling requirements in the areas of site selection
tiering criteria, sample collection, and frequency provisions based on
the lead 90th percentile level. The current LCR requires water systems
to obtain samples from consumer's taps and use these samples to
calculate their 90th percentile value. The EPA is proposing revisions
to tap sampling procedures to increase the likelihood of capturing
elevated lead levels by revising tap sample site selection criteria,
i.e., tiering, and ensuring tap sample protocols contain accurate
instructions that will capture elevated lead levels at the tap. In
addition, to improve transparency and raise consumer awareness, the EPA
proposes to require water systems to make the results of all tap
samples collected in accordance with 141.86(b) publicly available
within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period.
1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites
The LCR requires water systems to select sites for tap sampling
based on certain characteristics (i.e., single family home, multi-
family residence) and material of the service line (i.e., lead, copper
pipes with lead solder). Tiers establish the priority of sites selected
for tap sampling, with tier 1 being the highest priority, or highest
potential for elevated lead and tier 3 being the lowest priority. The
EPA is proposing to revise the tiering criteria for selection of tap
sampling sites to better target locations most likely to have higher
levels of lead in drinking water.
The EPA is proposing that Tier 1 sampling sites for CWSs consist of
single-family structures (SFS) that are served by an LSL. When
multiple-family residences (MFRs) comprise at least 20 percent of the
structures served by a water system, the water system may include these
types of structures in its sampling pool as Tier 1 sampling sites, as
provided in the current LCR. The EPA is proposing that Tier 2 sampling
sites for CWSs are buildings, including MFRs that are served by an LSL.
The EPA also proposes that Tier 3 sampling sites for CWSs consist of
single SFSs that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before
the effective date of the applicable State's lead ban. The EPA is
proposing that NTNCWS Tier 1 sampling sites consist of buildings that
are served by an LSL and the remaining tap samples be taken at
buildings with copper pipe and lead solder installed before the
effective date of the applicable State's lead ban (Tier 3 sites). The
EPA is not modifying the definition of a ``representative site'' but is
referring to it as a ``Tier 4'' site. The revised tiering structure is
outlined below.
Exhibit 1--Revised Lead and Copper Site Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier CWSs NTNCWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................. Collect samples from Collect samples from
SFSs served by LSLs. building.
Tier 1 samples can be
collected from MFRs if
they represent at
least 20 percent of
structures served by
the water system.
Tier 2................. Collect samples from N/A.
buildings and MFRs
served by LSLs.
Tier 3................. Collect samples from Collect samples from
SFSs with copper pipes buildings with copper
with lead solder pipe and lead solder
installed before the installed before the
effective date of the effective date of the
State's lead ban. State's lead ban.
Tier 4................. Representative sample Representative sample
where the plumbing is where the plumbing is
similar to that used similar to that used
at other sites served. at other sites
served.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LSL = lead service line; MFR =
multi-family residence; N/A = not applicable; NTNCWS = non-transient
non-community water system; SFS = single family structure.
The 1991 LCR made a clear distinction between the copper pipes with
lead solder installed after 1982, but before the effective date of
applicable state lead ban and designated these sites as Tier 1.
However, copper pipe with lead solder installed before 1983 are
designated as Tier 3 sites. In the 1991 LCR, the EPA based this
distinction on studies in which lead leaching from solder was found to
decrease with age (USEPA, 1990; Oliphant, 1982) and, as a result,
samples from copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983 were
expected to have lower lead levels.
The EPA is basing its current proposal to revise the tiering
criteria for lead solder on the increased understanding of corrosion
mechanisms and sources of lead, in particular, lead from solder, as a
result of the studies conducted since the 1991 rulemaking (for example,
De Rosa and Williams, 1992; Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007; Nguyen
et al., 2010). Additionally, given that it has been over 30 years since
lead solder was banned in all jurisdictions, and considering lead
solder's ability to leach lead is reduced by age (USEPA, 1990), lead
levels in samples collected from sites containing copper pipe with lead
solder installed between 1983 and 1988 no longer present as significant
a source of lead as assumed in 1991. Based on the most recent science,
the EPA is proposing the above revisions to the tap sample site
selection tiering criteria to assure prioritization of sites that are
[[Page 61704]]
currently the most likely to yield elevated lead levels in drinking
water.
2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling
The EPA is proposing additional requirements for LSL water systems
to enable prioritization of LSL sites in tap sampling. All water
systems with LSLs or potential LSLs must re-evaluate their lead
sampling sites based on their LSL inventory, prepared in accordance
with this proposal. These water systems would also be required to
update their inventory annually and ensure tap sampling sites are
served by an LSL. Under the current LCR, water systems with LSLs must
collect at least half of their tap samples from sites with known LSLs.
However, in this proposal, water systems with LSLs must collect all tap
samples from sites with known LSLs if possible, increasing the
likelihood of detecting elevated lead levels in the water system. The
EPA is proposing that water systems use the most up-to-date information
to select their tap sampling sites and prioritize sites with a higher
likelihood of elevated lead. Under this proposal, water systems with an
adequate number of LSL sites to meet the required minimum number of tap
sampling sites outlined in exhibit 2 below, must calculate their lead
90th percentile using only tap samples from LSL sites (100 percent
LSLs), as opposed to the current rule which allows water systems to use
samples from at least half LSL sites.
Exhibit 2--Minimum Number of Lead and Copper Tap Samples by Water System
Size, 40 CFR 141.86(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
sites sites
System size (number of people served) (standard (reduced
monitoring) monitoring)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000.................................... 100 50
10,001 to 100,000........................... 60 30
3,301 to 10,000............................. 40 20
501 to 3,300................................ 20 10
101 to 500.................................. 10 5
<=100....................................... 5 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing that if a water system does not have an
adequate number of LSL sites to meet the minimum number of tap samples
to calculate the 90th percentile level, outlined in Sec. 141.86(c), it
may collect the remainder of the samples from non-LSL sites after all
the LSL tap sampling sites are utilized. If the water system conducts
tap sampling at non-LSL sites beyond what is required under Sec.
141.86(c), the water system must include only the tap samples with the
highest lead concentrations to meet the number of sites required for
the 90th percentile calculation. This provision would ensure that
additional tap samples collected above the minimum required, at sites
that are less likely to detect lead at similar levels as LSL sites,
cannot be used to ``dilute'' the lead 90th percentile level. Studies
demonstrate that when present, LSLs represents the largest source of
lead in tap water (Sandvig et al., 2008). Requiring use of only the
highest lead levels from non-LSL sites for the 90th percentile
calculation would increase the likelihood that sites with other major
sources of lead, such as lead-bearing brass or bronze fixtures and
galvanized service lines formerly downstream of an LSL, are captured in
the calculation. Using non-LSL sites as part of the 90th percentile
calculation is proposed to be utilized solely by water systems with
fewer LSL tap sample sites than the number required under Sec.
141.86(c). The EPA proposes that tap samples collected that are not
used in the lead 90th percentile calculation must still be reported to
the State.
The EPA is proposing to permit the use of grandfathered data to
meet initial lead monitoring requirements if the data are from sites
that meet the proposed tiering requirements. Water systems that collect
lead tap samples after the publication date of the final rule, but
before the rule compliance date (three years after final rule
publication), in accordance with the proposed revised tap sample site
selection criteria, may use these data to satisfy the initial
monitoring requirement. Initial tap sampling establishes the water
system's sampling schedule and the number of tap samples it is required
to collect. The EPA is proposing to permit grandfathered data for an
LSL water system only if the data are from sites that meet the proposed
tiering requirements (i.e., all samples collected from LSL sites, if
available). Any water system that is conducting tap monitoring every
six months and intends to use these data for purposes of
grandfathering, must use the higher lead 90th percentile level to
establish the monitoring frequency and number of tap samples. The EPA
is proposing that water systems that do not have qualifying
grandfathered data must use the lead 90th percentile results from the
first tap sampling period after the compliance date of the final rule.
Following the establishment of the initial sampling schedule and number
of tap samples (based on either grandfathered data or data collected
during the first tap sampling period after the rule compliance date),
the system would be required to commence the appropriate tap sampling
schedule. The proposed criteria for using grandfathered data would
ensure that historical data are used only if they are from samples with
the highest potential lead concentrations.
No changes are being proposed to the copper sampling requirements
in the current LCR. However, due to proposed increased tap sampling
requirements for lead, each tap sample collected may not be required to
be analyzed for both lead and copper. This is a result of the lead and
copper tap sampling schedules diverging for some water systems. Under
the current rule, any water system that exceeds either the lead or
copper action level (15 [micro]g/L or 1.3 mg/L, respectively), would
conduct tap monitoring every six months for both lead and copper. Once
a water system measures 90th percentile tap concentrations at or below
the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive rounds of
monitoring, the water system may reduce to annual monitoring for lead
and copper. Water systems that meet the lead and copper action levels
for three consecutive rounds of annual monitoring may reduce to
triennial sampling at a reduced number of sites.
As discussed above, the EPA is proposing to establish a lead
trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L that would affect the tap sampling
frequency. Under this proposal, water systems that exceed the lead
trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L but do not exceed the copper and lead
action levels and that are conducting tap sampling on a triennial
basis, would be required to begin annual tap sampling at the standard
number of sites for lead but may remain on triennial sampling for
copper at the reduced number of sites. Water systems that meet the lead
trigger level for three consecutive years of annual monitoring and have
also met the copper action level, may reduce their lead and copper tap
sampling to a triennial basis at the reduced number of sites. Water
systems that exceed the lead trigger level and are on annual monitoring
would not be eligible for triennial monitoring for lead at a reduced
number of sites until the lead 90th percentile result is at or below
the lead trigger level for three consecutive years.
In this proposal, changes to reduced monitoring are contingent upon
several factors, including but not limited to: Results of lead and
copper tap sampling, the size of the water system (i.e., small water
system flexibilities), and maintaining water quality parameters (WQPs)
if CCT is installed. The schedule for tap sampling may be affected when
these factors change.
[[Page 61705]]
Opportunities for reduction in tap sampling frequency and number of
sites are more stringent under this proposal compared to the current
rule. A water system must not exceed the trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L
to move into a triennial monitoring schedule at the reduced number of
tap sample sites for lead. The proposed revisions to tap sampling
frequency and locations are meant to ensure more frequent tap sampling
is occurring at the most representative sites to identify elevated lead
levels.
3. Sample Collection Methods
The EPA is proposing several changes to the tap sampling protocol,
consistent with the Agency's February 2016 memorandum (USEPA, 2016d).
Under the current LCR, a one-liter sample is collected from the tap
after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing system for at
least six hours (i.e., stagnation). This is a called a first-draw
sample. Water systems provide residents with a protocol for carrying
out tap sampling in accordance with the LCR, if the water system itself
is not collecting the tap samples. The EPA is aware that some water
systems have provided sampling procedures to residents that included
recommendations that may inadvertently reduce the lead levels detected,
including a recommendation to run water from the tap, called flushing,
prior to initiating the required minimum 6-hour stagnation time. This
practice is referred to as pre-stagnation flushing. With pre-stagnation
flushing, the water from the tap is run until water from the LSL is
flushed out, then the water is turned off for at least six hours prior
to sample collection. Based on historical data and more recent studies
(e.g., Katner, et al. 2018; Del Toral et al., 2013), it is evident that
pre-stagnation flushing may reduce measured lead levels at the tap
compared to when it is not practiced. Flushing, or running taps, has
long been understood to decrease water lead levels overall, and thus
has been a recommendation by Federal, State and local authorities as a
way to reduce lead exposure prior to water use, especially in
residences of higher risk (e.g., houses containing LSLs). In addition,
flushing removes water that may be in contact with LSLs for extended
periods of time, which is when lead typically leaches into drinking
water (USEPA, 2016). As a general matter, the EPA recommends consumers
flush taps as a regular public health protective practice to reduce
household exposure to lead in drinking water. However, in the case of
collecting samples to determine water system compliance with the LCR,
this practice may mask potential higher lead exposure that may be
representative of exposure in households that do not regularly flush
taps before use. Therefore, EPA is proposing to prohibit pre-stagnation
flushing in tap sampling protocols.
The EPA is also aware that some tap sampling protocols contain a
recommendation to remove or clean the faucet aerator prior to sampling.
The taps used for monitoring likely contain an aerator as part of the
faucet assembly, and particulate matter, including lead, may accumulate
within these aerators. Thus, removing and/or cleaning these aerators
prior to or during sample collection could mask the contribution of
particulate lead. It is advisable to regularly remove and clean faucet
aerators to avoid particulate matter build-up. However, if customers
only remove and clean the aerators prior to or during sample
collection, the sample results will not be representative of household
use, given residents are not cleaning or removing their aerators before
every use. The EPA proposes to prohibit the recommendation to remove
and/or clean the faucet aerator prior to or during the collection of
lead and copper tap samples.
Based on current information, the EPA endorses best practices to
optimize the tap sampling protocol, so that sample results represent
the highest lead levels occurring at high risk locations. The EPA is
proposing to require tap samples be collected in wide-mouth bottles.
Wide-mouth bottles are advantageous for lead and copper tap samples
because they allow for a higher water flow rate compared to a narrow-
necked bottle. Collection of tap samples using a wide-mouth bottle is
more characteristic of faucet water flow when filling a glass of water,
therefore, water systems will be responsible for providing those
conducting sampling with wide-mouth, one-liter sample bottles.
In summary, the EPA is proposing to prohibit the inclusion of pre-
stagnation flushing in all tap sampling protocols, thereby preventing
the systematic running of water from taps or faucets prior to beginning
the minimum 6-hour stagnation time needed for sample collection. The
EPA also proposes the prohibition of cleaning or removing of the faucet
aerator in the tap sampling protocol, and a requirement that tap
samples be collected in bottles with a wide-mouth configuration. The
inclusion of a pre-stagnation flushing step, cleaning or removal of the
faucet aerator, and/or using a narrow-necked bottle for collection, is
inconsistent with the purpose of lead tap sampling, which is to target
sites and collect tap samples in a manner the is likely to capture the
highest lead levels. The EPA is also proposing that all water systems
submit their sampling protocol to the State for approval prior to the
compliance date. In addition, the EPA is also requesting comment on
alternative changes to the sampling technique for sampling locations
with lead service lines in section VII of this notice.
H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
Under the current LCR, water systems that have CCT must monitor
water quality parameters (WQPs) to ensure effective CCT. WQP samples
must be collected at taps every six months and at entry points to the
distribution system every six months prior to CCT installation and
every two weeks thereafter.
1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
The EPA is proposing several revisions to the WQP monitoring
requirements of the current rule. Because the EPA is proposing to
eliminate calcium carbonate stabilization as a potential option for CCT
(see section III.B.3. of this notice), the WQPs associated directly
with this CCT option will also be removed. These include all parameters
related to calcium hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water
temperature). The remaining WQP monitoring requirements from the
current rule will be maintained. This change is due to recent evidence
demonstrating that calcium carbonate stabilization is ineffective at
preventing corrosion in lead and copper pipes (see section III.B.3.).
The EPA is proposing to remove the three WQPs related to calcium
hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water temperature) because the EPA
is proposing to no longer allow calcium carbonate stabilization as a
potential CCT option. In the current rule, after the water system
selects their CCT choice, the State designates OWQPs and the water
system must maintain these levels in the ranges determined by the
State. In this proposal, the EPA is prioritizing the most effective CCT
options and the associated WQPs. Thus, the less effective CCT option
currently available, calcium carbonate stabilization, is proposed to be
eliminated, together with the associated WQPs.
2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
The EPA is proposing that additional WQP monitoring samples be
collected by water systems that have CCT and that have any individual
tap sample(s) with
[[Page 61706]]
lead results exceeding 15 [mu]g/L. The additional WQP monitoring is a
part of proposed revisions described under ``find-and-fix'' (see
section III.K. of this notice) and would require water systems to
collect follow-up lead tap samples at every sampling site that has an
individual lead sample greater than 15 [mu]g/L. This is proposed to be
completed within 30 days of obtaining results of the individual sample
greater than 15 [mu]g/L. The EPA is also proposing a WQP sample be
collected at a location on the same size water main located within a
half mile of the residence with the lead result greater than 15 [mu]g/
L. This WQP monitoring is proposed to be completed within five days of
receiving results of the individual lead sample greater than 15 [mu]g/
L. Water systems with existing distribution system WQP monitoring sites
that meet the main size/proximity requirements can conduct the sampling
at that location.
The EPA is proposing that any water system which adds sites for the
purposes of WQP monitoring specified in this paragraph includes those
additional sites in future WQP monitoring. The follow-up WQP samples
will aid in determining whether OWQPs set by the State are being met by
the water system. If any of the WQPs are off-target, such as pH or
indicators of CCT, then the water system may be able to determine how
large the problem is, and if it includes the whole water system, a
specific area, or the sole residence with the lead action level
exceedance. The additional WQP sample taken will aid in the
determination of the potential cause of elevated levels of lead so that
appropriate actions can be carried out.
3. Review of Water Quality Parameters During Sanitary Surveys
The EPA is proposing that both CCT and WQPs be assessed during
sanitary surveys for water systems with CCT. The EPA proposes that
States conduct a periodic review of WQP results and tap sampling
results to ensure the water system is maintaining the optimal CCT and
to assess if there should be modifications to the CCT to further reduce
lead and copper levels in tap samples.
4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Requirements
In addition to the updates for WQP requirements previously
specified, the EPA is proposing several supplementary changes to the
current rule. First, water systems with CCT would continue collecting
one sample for each applicable WQP at each entry point in the
distribution system as required in the current rule with the added
requirement to do so no less frequently than once every two weeks.
Water systems with CCT need to continue bi-weekly monitoring to ensure
their treatment techniques are optimal for reducing lead and copper
corrosion.
The EPA is also proposing revisions to the prerequisites that are
required for water systems to reduce the number of sites sampled and
the frequency of WQP sampling. In order to reduce the number of sites
used in water quality parameter monitoring, the current rule requires
the water system to maintain the range of water quality parameters for
two 6-month monitoring periods. The EPA is proposing that water systems
would also need to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level for
those two 6-month monitoring periods to be eligible for a reduction in
the number of sites for WQP sampling. In order for the water system to
reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters, under
the current rule, the water system must maintain the range of WQP
values for three consecutive years to reduce to annual monitoring.
Under the proposal, the water system would need to also meet the lead
90th percentile trigger level for those three consecutive years in
order to be eligible for yearly monitoring. Under the current rule, if
the water system meets the WQP requirements determined by the State and
the lead 90th percentile trigger level for three additional annual
monitoring periods, it may reduce its WQP monitoring frequency to once
every three years. The EPA is proposing that for every phase of
potential reduced WQP monitoring, the water system would also be
required to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level in addition to
the current requirements. This would ensure that the required WQP
monitoring sites and frequency continue when water systems have a high
lead 90th percentile level. For a water system on reduced monitoring,
the use of grandfathered data may be used if collected in accordance
with the proposed revisions and its 90th percentile in either
grandfathered data or initial tap sampling is at or below the trigger
level.
I. Source Water Monitoring
The current rule requires water systems to conduct source water
monitoring following an action level exceedance. Based on the results
of the source water monitoring, the State must decide whether it is
necessary for the water system to install source water treatment to
reduce lead and/or copper tap levels. Regardless of whether a State
decides that treatment is needed or not, the water system is still
required to conduct source water monitoring following the State
decision. The EPA is proposing to discontinue additional source water
monitoring requirements if (a) a water system has conducted source
water monitoring for prior lead and/or copper action level exceedance,
(b) the State has determined that source water treatment is not
required, and (c) a water system has not added any new water source(s).
The EPA is proposing these changes to eliminate monitoring
requirements that are not necessary to protect public health. Lead and
copper are rarely found in the source water in significant quantities
(USEPA, 1988b), thus, where the State has decided that source water
treatment is not needed, the EPA is proposing to allow the State to
waive source water monitoring for any subsequent action level
exceedance under the conditions listed above and to eliminate the
regular monitoring currently required for source water lead and copper.
J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities
The EPA is proposing to require all CWSs to conduct targeted
sampling and public education at schools and child care facilities that
they serve. Currently the EPA does not require public water systems to
conduct sampling in schools and child care facilities because the
Agency established the voluntary 3T's program--Training, Testing and
Taking Action (3Ts) that was designed to assist states, schools, and
child care facilities with conducting their own testing program,
conducting outreach, and taking action to address elevated levels of
lead. The EPA is proposing these requirements because the Agency sees
an opportunity for water systems to assist schools and child care
facilities with sampling and testing for lead. Large buildings such as
schools can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels because,
even when served by a water system with well operated OCCT, may have
longer periods of stagnation due to complex premise plumbing systems
and inconsistent water use patterns. In such situations, there may not
be technical improvements that can be made to the OCCT, but risk can be
mitigated through public education and voluntary actions such as
replacement of premise plumbing. Water systems have developed the
technical capacity to do this work in operating their system and
complying with current drinking water standards.
In addition, the EPA is proposing to expand the LCR sampling and
education requirements because students and
[[Page 61707]]
young children spend a large portion of their day in schools and child
care facilities. Lead in drinking water can be a significant
contributor to overall exposure to lead, particularly for infants whose
diet consists of liquids made with water, such as baby food, juice, or
formula. Young children and infants are particularly vulnerable to lead
because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower
exposure levels in children than in adults. In children, low levels of
exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral
nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired
hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells.
Children spend on average over six hours per day at school (USDA
National Center for Education Statistics), with many spending more time
at on-site before- or after-school care or activities. Across the
country, about 100,000 schools participate in the national school lunch
program, serving daily lunch to 30 million students. Ninety thousand
schools serve breakfast to 14.6 million students every day (USDA). The
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which authorizes funding and
sets policy for USDA's child nutrition programs, requires schools
participating in federally funded meal programs to make water available
during meal periods at no cost to students (section 202 of HHFKA (42
U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)). The Act also mandates that child care facilities
provide free drinking water throughout the day (section 221 of HHFKA
(42 U.S.C. 1766(u)(2)). The EPA is proposing a new requirement for all
CWSs to provide public education on lead in drinking water and sample
for lead at schools and child care facilities within its distribution
system every five years. The intent of the requirement is to inform and
educate targeted CWS customers and users about risks from lead in
premise plumbing at schools and childcare facilities.
The EPA is proposing new public education requirements for all CWSs
that provide water to schools and child care facilities. The CWS would
be required to provide information about the health risks and sources
of lead in drinking water, collect samples for lead at schools and
child care facilities within its distribution system, and share that
data with the facilities and health departments to raise awareness and
increase knowledge about the risks and likelihood of the presence of
lead in drinking water. Prior to conducting sampling in schools
(discussed in further detail in this section), the CWS would compile a
list of schools and child care facilities served by the water system.
The list would contain both customers and other users to ensure
inclusion of non-billed users. The CWS would then use that list to
communicate with the schools and child care facilities about the health
risks of lead and the specifics of the sampling program.
Prior to conducting sampling, the CWS would send information to the
school and child care facilities to notify them of their plans to
perform sampling and to provide them with the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water Toolkit (EPA 815-B-18-007), or a subsequent guidance
issued by the EPA. A CWS's distribution of the 3Ts document would
initiate or contribute to active communication with child care
facilities and schools, who are critical customers that serve a
vulnerable population. The information in the 3Ts document provides
tools for the facility to consider using, including expanded sampling,
stakeholder communication, and remediation options.
Under the proposal, a CWS would then be required to collect samples
from five drinking water outlets at each school and two drinking water
outlets at each child care facility served by the CWS. The CWS would be
expected to complete sampling at all schools and child care facilities
in its distribution system every five years. The samples would be first
draw after at least 8 hours but not more than 18 hours stagnation of
the building and be 250 ml in volume. The EPA is proposing this
sampling protocol to be consistent with recommended sampling protocols
under the EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit
(EPA815-B-18-007). These sampling protocols enable school and child
care facility officials to identify the outlets that may be sources of
lead (e.g., the fixture, interior plumbing). The smaller sample size is
more representative of the amount of water consumed per serving. The
results of the samples would not be used as part of the CWS's
calculation of the 90th percentile value in Sec. 141.80(c)(4) because
these samples are being collected in a manner to inform whether action
is needed at a specific school or child care facility and whether
corrosion control is effective system-wide. The CWS would be required
to provide each school and child care facility with the results of the
samples taken in that facility. The CWS would be required to provide
the sampling results as soon as practicable but no less than 30 days
after receipt of the results. The CWS would also be required to provide
the results for all samples collected in schools and child care
facilities to the drinking water primacy agency and local health
department where the school or child care facility is located.
CWS sampling in schools and child care facilities would be part of
a targeted public education effort to educate CWS customers about risks
from lead in premise plumbing and the actions customers can take to
address sources of lead in their plumbing. Individual outlets, such as
water fountains, can leach lead even when a water system has optimized
corrosion control and/or has lead levels at or below the action level
in its tap sampling. School and child care facility sampling
contributes to increased public awareness of the potential for elevated
levels of lead in premise plumbing independent of a water system's 90th
percentile value.
The CWS would not be required under this proposed rule for taking
any remedial action at the school or child care facility following the
sampling and notification requirements of this proposal. The managers
of these facilities have the established lines of communication with
the occupants of these buildings (and their parents or guardians) and
have control over the plumbing materials that may need to be addressed.
The school or child care facility would be able to use the 3T's
guidance and make decisions about communication of the sampling results
to the parents and occupants of the facility and as well as any follow-
up remedial actions.
Some State and local agencies have drinking water testing
requirements for lead in schools and child care facilities. In this
proposal, the EPA is including an opportunity for a State or primacy
agency to waive school and child care facility sampling for individual
CWSs to avoid duplication of effort. If a State has in place a program
that requires CWSs to sample at all schools and child care facilities,
or a program requiring schools and child care facilities to collect
samples themselves, that is at least as stringent as the proposed LCR
requirements, the State may use that program in lieu of the proposed
requirement. If a State or other program is limited to a subset of
schools and child care facilities as defined in this proposal, then the
State may consider the requirement for individual CWSs whose customers
or users are already included in the State or other program as being
met. For example, if a State has a required program for testing lead in
drinking water in public schools but not in other types of schools or
in child care facilities, then a CWS serving only public schools can
receive a waiver. If that CWS serves public and non-public schools,
then the CWS would be required to notify and conduct testing at
[[Page 61708]]
the non-public schools and child care facilities and could receive a
partial waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is not responsible for
notifying and testing public schools. With a partial waiver, the CWS
would be required to test at schools or child care facilities that are
not otherwise covered by a program that requires testing and is at
least as stringent as this proposal.
In section VII of this notice, the EPA is requesting comment on an
alternative to the proposed requirements for public education and
sampling at schools and child care facilities described in this
section.
K. Find-and-Fix
The EPA is proposing an additional requirement to the current LCR,
known as ``find-and-fix'' when an individual tap sample exceeds 15
[mu]g/L. Under the current rule, up to 10 percent of lead tap samples
used to calculate the 90th percentile may exceed the lead action level.
However, if the water system's 90th percentile does not exceed the lead
action level, the only action required by a water system is to provide
the tap sample results to the consumer within 30 days of receiving the
result. A ``find-and-fix'' approach requires water systems to perform
additional actions (as described in this section); when an individual
tap sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, water systems are required to identify
and remediate the source of the elevated lead at the tap sample site.
Also, as part of the proposed public education requirements (described
in section III.F of this notice), water systems would be required to
provide notification to affected consumers within 24 hours. This
proposed change will improve consumer awareness and provide information
necessary to take actions to limit exposure to lead in drinking water.
Under this proposal, the ``find-and-fix'' approach would require
the water systems to collect a follow-up sample for each tap sample
site that exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. The follow-up tap sample must be
collected within 30 days of receiving the tap sample result. These
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead levels
based on the characteristics of the site. The results of the ``find-
and-fix'' follow-up samples would be submitted to the State but would
not be included in the 90th percentile calculation. If the water system
is unable to collect a follow-up sample at a site, the water system
would have to provide documentation to the State for why it was unable
to collect a follow-up sample. The water system must provide the
follow-up tap sample results to consumers within 30 days of receiving
the result (consistent with the current rule), unless that follow-up
sample also exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, in which case, the EPA proposes the
water system must notify the consumer within 24 hours of learning of
the result. Water systems should anticipate the requirement that
customers must be notified within 24-hours of results for many of the
``find-and-fix'' follow-up samples. Any water system that is unable to
regain access to the same site to collect a follow-up tap sample may
decide to sample at another site within close proximity of the original
site and with similar structural characteristics.
As described in section III.H of this notice, the EPA is proposing
that water systems with CCT that have an individual tap sample that
exceeds the lead action level, would be required to collect an
additional WQP sample within five days of obtaining the lead tap sample
result. For a CWS, this WQP sample must be collected from a site in the
same water pressure zone, on the same size or smaller water main within
0.5 miles of the residence with the tap sample exceeding the lead
action level. Water systems with an existing WQP site that meets these
criteria would be able to sample at that location. Since WQP sites are
more accessible sites and do not require coordination with customers,
this sample can be collected in a shorter timeframe. It is also
important to try to sample close to when the lead tap sample with the
high results was collected so that the water quality will more closely
match the conditions at the site that exceeded 15 [micro]g/L. The
follow-up tap sample collected for lead can help the water system
determine the potential source of lead contamination (e.g., premise
plumbing, LSL) and the WQP sample required for water systems with CCT
will help determine if CCT is optimized, if additional WQP sites are
needed, and/or WQPs set by the State are being met. Such steps will
help identify the source of the elevated lead to initiate appropriate
mitigation. Where the water system is unable to identify and/or
mitigate the risk, it must submit a justification to the State.
Under this proposal, the water system would be required to
determine if problems with the CCT are leading to elevated levels of
lead in the tap samples and then implement a mitigation strategy if
necessary. In addition to the follow-up tap sample and the WQP
sampling, the water system can review distribution system operations or
other factors to determine the cause of elevated lead level. CCT
adjustment may not be necessary to address every exceedance. Water
systems shall note the cause of the elevated lead level if known in
their recommendation to the State.
Mitigation strategies could include a water system-wide adjustment
to CCT, flushing portions of the distribution system, or other
strategies to improve water quality management to reduce lead levels.
Under this proposal, water systems would be required to recommend a
solution to the State for approval within six months of the end of the
monitoring period in which the site(s) first exceeded 15 [mu]g/L and
the State would have six months to approve the recommendation. If the
water system does not have CCT and recommends installation of it, the
system would be required to follow the proposed schedule in Sec.
141.81(e). A water system with CCT that recommends re-optimization of
CCT would be required to follow the steps in accordance with Sec.
141.81(d).
A water system may identify a fix that is out of its control. For
example, if the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet
owned by the customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the
faucet, the water system would provide documentation to the State under
this proposal. All other fixes recommended by a water system would be
implemented on a schedule specified by the State.
L. Reporting and Recordkeeping
The EPA is proposing changes to water system reporting requirements
in conjunction with corresponding changes to the regulatory
requirements being proposed by the EPA in this rulemaking. These
changes in reporting requirements will help inform State decision-
making and improve implementation and oversight.
1. Reporting Requirements for Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper and for
Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
In addition to the proposed tap sample revisions, as described in
section III.G.3 of this notice, a water system would also be required
to submit for State approval its tap sampling protocol that is provided
to residents or other individuals who are conducting the tap sampling,
to ensure that the sampling protocol does not include pre-stagnation
flushing, instructions to clean or remove the aerator, or use narrow-
mouth sample collection bottles. Under this proposal, water systems
would also need to provide annual certification to the State that the
approved sampling protocol has not been modified.
[[Page 61709]]
Additionally, calcium results would no longer be subject to
reporting requirements because under the proposed rule, calcium would
no longer be a CCT option or regulated WQP.
2. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing to incorporate new reporting requirements in
conjunction with the proposed revisions to the LSLR requirements in
Sec. 141.84. Under this proposal, by the rule's compliance date, the
water system would have to submit an inventory of LSLs and service
lines of unknown material to the State and would have to annually
thereafter submit an updated inventory that reflects LSLs replaced and
service lines of unknown material that have been evaluated in the
distribution system.
3. Lead Trigger Level Notification Requirements
The EPA proposes that any water system that has LSLs with 90th
percentile tap sampling data that exceed the lead trigger level would
annually certify to the State that it conducted notification in
accordance with proposed LSL customer notification provisions. The
notification would ensure that these consumers were properly alerted
about the trigger level exceedance, potential risks of lead in drinking
water, and informed about the water system's goal-based LSLR program.
4. Reporting Requirements for School and Child Care Public Education
and Sampling
The EPA is proposing to incorporate the following reporting
requirements:
A CWS would have to certify that it has completed the
notification and sampling requirements (proposed in section III.J. of
this notice) at a minimum of 20 percent of schools and child care
facilities served by the water system. The certification would include
the number of schools and child care facilities served by the water
system, the number of schools and child care facilities sampled in the
calendar year, and the number of schools and child care facilities that
have refused sampling.
A CWS would have to certify that individual sampling
results were shared with the respective school and child care facility,
and that all results were shared with local or State health
departments. The proposed certification would include information
identifying the number of attempts to gain entry for sampling that were
declined by a customer.
If a CWS does not serve any school or licensed child care
facilities, the water system would have to annually certify to the
State that it made a good faith effort to identify schools and child
care facilities in accordance with proposed requirements in Sec.
141.92 and confirm that no schools or child care facilities are served
by the water system. The good faith effort could include reviewing
customer records and requesting lists of schools and child care
facilities from the State or other licensing agency.
Certification would be sent to the State by July 1 of each
year for the previous calendar year's activity.
5. What are the State record keeping requirements?
The EPA is proposing to require the State to retain all record
keeping requirements from the current LCR as well as to add new
requirements related to corrosion control treatment (CCT) and lead
service line inventory (LSL) and replacement. The EPA proposes to
require the State to maintain a record of all public water systems LSL
inventories, as well as annual updates to their inventories as LSLs are
verified and replaced over time. This information is necessary for the
State to calculate goal and mandatory LSLR rates, as well as verify
correct tap sample site selection tiering. The proposal would also
require the State to maintain records on changes to source water or
treatment, as these changes could affect the optimized corrosion
control treatment approved by the State. The State would also be
required to maintain records regarding ``find-and-fix,'' specifically
where a problem was identified, and the action taken to address it.
States would review and maintain these records to ensure compliance
with find-and-fix requirements, to evaluate if appropriate actions were
taken by the water system, and if additional follow up is necessary by
the water system. When no remedial action was taken, the State would
need to keep a record of the decision for no action. For example, if
the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet owned by the
customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the faucet, the
State would maintain a record of that decision by the customer as
justification for no remedial action taken to address a high lead
sample result. Finally, under this proposal, the State would be
required to maintain records of the compliance alternative the State
has approved for the non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS)
and small community water systems (CWSs). This information would allow
the State to track water systems' progress with corrosion control
treatment, complete lead service line replacement, use of point-of-use
(POU) devices, and replacement of leaded premise plumbing.
6. What are the State reporting requirements?
In addition to the reporting requirements in the current rule, the
EPA is proposing that the State report several additional data elements
to the EPA. The State would be required to report the OCCT status of
all water systems, including the parameters that define the
optimization (for example, orthophosphate residual or target pH and
alkalinity values). While 90th percentile lead levels at or below the
lead action level are not currently required to be reported by States
for small water systems, the EPA is proposing that all water systems
regardless of size and or lead levels report their lead 90th percentile
value. The EPA has found that many States already voluntarily report
90th percentile lead values for all systems to the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS). The EPA also proposes that States report
the current number of LSLs at every water system. National information
about the numbers of LSLs in public water systems will support the EPA
and other Federal agencies in targeting programs to reduce lead
exposure, such as the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
Act (United States, 2016) and America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA,
2018).
IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
A. Consumer Confidence Report
In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among
other things, this amendment added a provision requiring that all
community water systems deliver to their customers a brief water
quality report annually called a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). CCRs
summarize information water systems collect to comply with regulations.
The CCR includes information on source water, the levels of any
detected contaminants, compliance with drinking water rules (including
monitoring requirements), and some educational language, including a
mandatory health effects statement regarding lead.
As recommended by the NDWAC (see section VIII.L.2 of this notice),
the EPA consulted with risk communication experts to revise the
mandatory health effects language in the Consumer
[[Page 61710]]
Confidence Report (CCR). To improve clarity, the EPA is proposing to
require Community Water Systems (CWSs) to include a revised mandatory
health effects statement that would inform consumers that lead is
harmful for all age groups and to include a mandatory statement about
lead service lines (LSLs) (e.g., their presence and how to replace
them) for water systems with LSLs. The proposed mandatory statement is
below.
Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could
have decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning
and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant
increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become
pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is
released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who
drink water containing lead have increased risks of heart disease,
high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
To increase transparency and improve public access to information,
the EPA is also proposing to require CWS to report the range of lead
tap sample results in addition to the currently required 90th
percentile and the number of samples that are greater than the lead
action level for each monitoring period. Reporting the range of tap
sample lead levels would allow consumers to understand how high tap
sample levels were at individual sites.
B. Public Notification
The Public Notification Rule (PN) is part of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The rule ensures that consumers will know if there is a
problem with their drinking water. These notices alert consumers if
there is risk to public health. They also notify customers: If the
water does not meet drinking water standards; if the water system fails
to test its water; if the system has been granted a variance (use of
less costly technology); or if the system has been granted an exemption
(more time to comply with a new regulation). In 2000, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) revised the existing Public Notification Rule.
The revisions matched the form, manner, and timing of the notices to
the relative risk to human health. The revised rule makes notification
easier and more effective for both water systems and their customers.
In 2016, section 2106 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act (WIIN Act) amended section 1414 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) to, among other things, require water systems to
provide ``Notice that the public water system exceeded the lead action
level under section 141.80(c) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(or a prescribed level of lead that the Administrator establishes for
public education or notification in a successor regulation promulgated
pursuant to section 1412 of the SDWA).'' The Act also provided that
notice of violations or exceedances ``with potential to have serious
adverse effects on human,'' which are types of violations and
exceedances currently categorized as ``Tier 1'' under the current
public notification rules (see Table 2 to Sec. 141.201), must ``be
distributed as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours, after
the public water system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' The
WIIN Act also requires that such notifications ``be provided to the
Administrator and the head of the State agency that has primary
enforcement responsibility under section 1413 of the SDWA, as
applicable, as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after
the public water system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' The
EPA is proposing to incorporate these requirements for CWSs and non-
transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) with a lead action
level exceedance as part of proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule incorporates the amendments
to section 1414 of the SDWA in the 40 CFR 141 subpart Q-Public
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (and as necessary into any
provisions cross-referenced therein) and adds exceedances of the lead
action level under Sec. 141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 violations
subject to the new 24-hour notice requirements discussed above. The EPA
proposes to categorize lead action level exceedances as Tier 1 based on
the conclusion that such exceedances ``have the potential to have
serious adverse health effects on human health as a result of short-
term exposure''. Since exposure to lead can result in serious health
effects, the EPA is proposing a lead AL exceedance result in Tier 1
public notification because the Agency cannot define the subset of lead
AL exceedances that could result in serious adverse health effects due
to short-term exposure, therefore the EPA proposes that a lead AL
exceedance would require Tier 1, 24 hour notification. In addition, the
EPA proposes to update the mandatory health effects statement as
follows to be consistent with the proposed CCR revisions:
Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could
have decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning
and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant
increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become
pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is
released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who
drink water containing lead have increased risk of heart disease,
high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
C. Definitions
The EPA is proposing new and revised definitions to clarify new and
updated terminology in this proposed rule in Sec. 141.2. Definitions
for ``aerator,'' ``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,''
``tap sampling protocol,'' ``monitoring period,'' and ``sampling
period'' are added to correspond with proposed rule changes regarding
tap sampling methodology and the monitoring period. In addition, the
population size criterion have changed for the definitions of small and
medium-size water systems to reflect the 1996 changes to SDWA for
small-system flexibility.
Definitions have been added to ensure readers understand the
criteria that identify a ``child care facility,'' and a ``school,''
related to additional sampling requirements for CWSs. In addition, new
definitions for ``trigger level,'' ``find-and-fix,'' and ``consumer''
have also been added because ``trigger level'' and ``find-and-fix'' are
new requirements for this proposal, while ``consumer'' refers to a
defined group impacted by the rule proposal. Further, in this proposal,
terms related to lead service lines, such as ``galvanized service
line,'' ``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector,'' ``potholing,''
``hydrovacing,'' and ``trenching'' have been defined as these are
processes or objects associated with the lead service line replacement
requirements of the rule proposal. Also, to ensure appropriate
implementation of this rule definitions for ``pitcher filter'' and
``point of use (POU) device'' are proposed because they relate to
compliance alternatives for small community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems in this proposal. Finally,
analytical definitions for a ``method detection limit'' (MDL) and a
``practical quantitation level'' (PQL)'' have been provided to better
explain analytical methods in the current and proposed rule.
V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
The NDWAC recommended that the EPA create an on-line portal for
[[Page 61711]]
guidance, templates and other tools to support implementation of the
final LCRR by water systems and States. The EPA provides all applicable
guidance and tools on CCT, PE, and other aspects of the rule on the
Agency website at https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/water-system-implementation-resources to support implementation of the current LCR
and will continue to rely on the website to implement any revisions
finalized as a result of this proposed rule. The Lead Action Plan has
an objective to ``[c]reate an online portal to enhance, consolidate and
streamline federal-wide communication to the public. Links will direct
the public to the EPA and other Federal Agencies specific information.
The EPA would utilize this mechanism to promote broader access to the
EPA website for new and revised guidance and tools to support the LCRR.
The EPA is proposing requirements that would improve oversight and
enforcement of the LCRR. For example, the GAO in its report ``Drinking
Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's
Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule'', recommended the EPA should
require states to report available information about lead pipes to the
EPA's SDWIS (or a future redesign) database and should require states
to report all 90th percentile sample results for small water systems
(GAO-17-424, 2017).
A. What are the requirements for primacy?
This section describes the regulations and other procedures and
policies that States must adopt, or have in place, to implement the
proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), while continuing to meet all other
conditions of primacy in 40 CFR part 142. Section 1413 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes requirements that primacy
entities (States or Indian Tribes) must meet to maintain primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy) for its public water systems.
These include: (1) Adopting drinking water regulations that are no less
stringent than Federal national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs) in effect under sections 1412(a) and 1412(b) of the Act, (2)
adopting and implementing adequate procedures for enforcement, (3)
keeping records and making reports available on activities that the EPA
requires by regulation, (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if
allowed by the State) under conditions no less stringent than allowed
by SDWA sections 1415 and 1416, and (5) adopting and being capable of
implementing an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking water
under emergency situations.
40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific program implementation
requirements for States to obtain primacy for the Public Water Supply
Supervision Program, as authorized under section 1413 of the SDWA. To
continue to implement the LCR, States would be required to adopt
revisions at least as stringent as the proposed provisions in 40 CFR
Subpart I--Control of Lead and Copper; Sec. Sec. 141.153 and 141.154;
Sec. Sec. 141.201 and 202; Appendix A to Subpart O ([Consumer
Confidence Report] Regulated contaminants); Appendix A to Subpart Q
(NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice; and
Appendix B to Subpart Q (Standard Health Effects Language for Public
Notification). Under Sec. 142.12(b), all primacy agencies would be
required to submit a revised program to the EPA for approval within two
years of promulgation of any final LCR revisions, or States may be able
to request an extension of up to two years in certain circumstances.
B. What are the special primacy requirements?
The EPA is proposing to retain the existing special primacy
requirements as well as to establish additional requirements. Regarding
LSL inventories, States would be required to provide a description of
acceptable methods for verifying service line material under this
proposal. Verification methods could include consultation of existing
records or the physical examination of the service line. The State
would also be required to submit the criteria it would use for
determining a water system's goal-based rate for the system's LSLR,
which a water system must implement after a lead trigger level
exceedance. The State would be required to describe how it would
determine a feasible goal-based rate, which would reduce lead exposure.
States could consider several relevant factors, including but not
limited to the percentage of LSLs as well as the financial
circumstances of the water system and its customers.
The EPA also proposes special primacy requirements regarding
testing at schools for lead in drinking water. The EPA is aware of
several States that have instituted their own lead in drinking water
testing programs in schools. If the State has an existing testing
program at schools and child care facilities, the State would be
required to demonstrate that their program is at least as stringent as
the testing program proposed by the EPA.
Under this proposal, the State would also need to demonstrate how
it will verify compliance with ``find-and-fix'' requirements. For
example, the State would need to determine the acceptability of the
water system's corrective actions and timeliness of the corrective
action implementation. Finally, the State would need to describe the
approach it would take in reviewing any change in source water or
treatment at a water system. Such a change could impact the optimized
corrosion control treatment as well as have an impact on other national
primary drinking water regulations.
VI. Economic Analysis
This section summarizes the Economic Analysis (EA) supporting
document (USEPA, 2019a) for the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
revisions, which is written in compliance with section
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). This section of the Act states that when proposing a national
primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) that includes a treatment
technique, the Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on
an analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to
be experienced as the result of compliance with the treatment technique
and alternative treatment techniques that are being considered, taking
into account, as appropriate, the factors required under section
1412(b)(3)(C)(i). Clause (i) lists the analytical elements required in
a Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) which is applicable
to a NPDWR that includes a maximum contaminant level. The prescribed
HRRCA elements include: (1) Quantifiable and non-quantifiable health
risk reduction benefits; (2) quantifiable and non-quantifiable health
risk reduction benefits from reductions in co-occurring contaminants;
(3) quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs that are likely to occur
solely as a result of compliance; (4) incremental costs and benefits of
rule options; (5) effects of the contaminant on the general population
and sensitive subpopulations including infants, children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and individuals with a history of serious illness;
(6) any increased health risks that may occur as a result of
compliance, including risks associated with co-occurring contaminants;
and (7) other relevant factors such as uncertainties in the analysis
and factors with respect to the degree and nature of the risk.
Costs discussed in this section are presented as annualized present
values
[[Page 61712]]
in 2016 dollars, which is consistent with the timeframe for the EPA's
water system characteristic data used in the analysis. The EPA
estimated the year or years in which all costs occur over a 35-year
time period. Thirty-five years was selected to capture costs associated
with rule implementation as well as water systems installing and
operating corrosion control treatment and implementing lead service
line replacement (LSLR) programs. The EPA then determined the present
value of these costs using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
Benefits, in terms of health risk reduction for the proposed LCR
revisions are characterized by the activities performed by water
systems, which are expected to reduce risk to the public from exposure
to lead and copper in drinking water at the tap. The EPA quantifies and
monetizes some of this health risk reduction from lead exposure by
estimating the decrease in lead exposure resulting to children from 0
to 7 years of age from the installation and re-optimization of
corrosion control treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the implementation of
point-of-use (POU) filter devices.
A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize the
Sample Universe
The entities potentially affected by the proposed LCR revisions are
public water systems (PWSs) that are classified as either community
water systems (CWSs) or non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs). These water systems can be publicly or privately owned. In
the economic analysis modeling performed in support of this proposal,
the EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in the Safe
Drinking Water Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) as its
foundational data set.
The EPA used a variety of data sources to develop the drinking
water industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 6-
1 lists the major data sources, describes the data used from each
source, and explains how it was used in the EA. Additional detailed
descriptions of these data sources and how they were used in the
characterization of baseline industry conditions can be found in
Chapter 4 of the EA.
Exhibit 6-1--Data Sources Used To Develop the Baseline Industry
Characterization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data source Baseline data derived from the source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016 Public water system inventory,
``frozen'' dataset \1\. including population served, number of
service connections, source water type,
and water system type. Also used to
identify water systems that are schools
and child care facilities.
Status of CCT, including
identification of water systems with CCT
and the proportion of water systems
serving <=50,000 people that installed
CCT in response to the current LCR.
Analysis of lead 90th percentile
concentrations to identify water systems
at or below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
above the TL, and above the AL of 15
[micro]g/L at the start of the proposed
rule implementation by water system
size, water system type, source water
type, and CCT status.\2\
The proportion of water systems
that are on various reduced monitoring
schedules for lead and copper tap and
WQP monitoring.
The frequency of source and
treatment changes and those source
changes that can result in additional
source water monitoring.
Length of time that water
systems replace LSLs if required under
the current LCR.
2006 CWSS.................... Number of distribution system
entry points per system.
PWS labor rates.
Geometries and Design and average daily flow
Characteristics of Public per water system.
Water Systems (USEPA, 2000).
1988 AWWA Lead Information LSL inventory, including the
Survey. number of water systems with LSLs, and
the average number of LSLs per water
system, as reported in the 1991 LCR RIA
(Weston and EES, 1990).
2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of LSL inventory, including the
Lead Service Line Occurrence number of water systems with LSLs and
(as summarized in Cornwell the average number of LSLs per water
et al., 2016). system.
Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking Individual lead tap sampling
Water Standards. results used to estimate percent of
samples above 15 [micro]g/L.
Baseline distribution of pH for
various CCT conditions.
Baseline orthophosphate dose for
CCT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association;
CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System
Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LSL = lead service line; RIA =
regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water
Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water
quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Note:
\1\ Contains information reported through June 30, 2016.
\2\ As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Proposed
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a), a system's lead 90th
percentile level is a key factor in determining a system's
requirements under the current rule and proposed LCR.
B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
Under the regulatory provisions of the proposed rule, PWSs will
face different compliance scenarios depending on the size, the type of
water system, the presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion controls. In
addition, PWSs will also face different unit costs based on water
system size, type, and number of entry points (e.g., labor rates and
CCT capital, and operations and maintenance (O&M) unit costs). PWSs
have a great deal of inherent variability across the water system
characteristics that dictate both compliance activities and cost.
Because of this variability, to accurately estimate the national
level compliance costs (and benefits) of the proposed LCR revisions, as
well as describe how compliance costs are expected to vary across types
of PWSs, the cost-benefits model creates a sample of representative
``model PWSs'' by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/
Fed with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at
the PWS category level. In some cases, the categorical data are simple
point estimates. In this case, every model PWS in a category is
assigned the same value. In other cases, where more robust data
representing system variability are available the
[[Page 61713]]
category-level data includes a distribution of potential values. In the
case of distributional information, the model assigns each model PWS a
value sampled from the distribution, in order to characterize the
variability in this input across PWSs. The model follows each model PWS
in the sample through each year of analysis--determining how the PWS
will comply with each requirement of the proposed rule, estimating the
yearly compliance cost, and tracking the impact of the compliance
actions on drinking water lead concentrations. It also tracks how other
events, such as changing a water source or treatment affect the water
system's compliance requirements for the next year.
The model's detailed output provides results for 36 PWS categories,
or strata. Each PWS reporting category is defined by the water system
type (CWS and NTNCWS), primary source water (ground and surface), and
size category (there are nine). This proposal presents summarized
national cost and benefit totals by regulatory categories. The detailed
output across the 36 PWS categories can be found in Appendix C of the
EA.
In constructing the initial model PWS sample for the cost-benefit
analysis, the EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in
SDWIS/Fed. Also, from SDWIS/Fed, the EPA knows each water system's type
(CWS or NTNCWS); primary water source (surface water or groundwater);
population served; CCT status (yes/no); ownership (public or private);
and number of connections.
The available LCR data limited the EPA's ability to quantify
uncertainty in the cost-benefit model. During the development of the
model, it became clear that not only were many of the inputs uncertain,
but for many LCR specific inputs, the EPA only has limited midpoint,
high, and low estimates available and does not have information on the
relative likelihood of the available estimates. This includes major
drivers of the cost of compliance including: The baseline number of
systems with LSLs and the percent of connections in those system that
are LSLs; the number of PWSs that will exceed the AL and/or TL under
the proposed revised tap sampling requirements; the cost of LSL
replacement; the cost of CCT; and the effectiveness of CCT in PWSs with
LSLs. Therefore, the EPA estimated proposed LCRR compliance costs under
low and high bracketing scenarios. These low and high cost scenarios
are defined by the assignment of low and high values for the set of
uncertain cost drivers listed above. Detailed descriptions of these
five uncertain variables and the derivation of their values under the
low and high cost scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2
of the EA (USEPA, 2019a). With the exception of the five uncertain
variables which define the difference between the low and high cost
scenarios the remaining baseline water system and compliance
characteristics are assigned to model PWSs, as described above, and
remain constant across the scenarios. This allows the EPA to define the
uncertainty characterized in the cost range provided by the low and
high scenarios and maintains consistency between the estimation of
costs for the current and proposed rules (e.g., percentage of lead tap
water samples that will be invalidated). Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA
describe in greater detail the baseline and major cost driving data
elements, their derivation, and the inherent sources of uncertainty in
the developed data elements. Section 5.2 and 5.3 of the EA discuss how
each data element is used in the estimation of costs and provides
examples and references to how these data were developed.
Because PWS baseline characteristics are being assigned from
distributional source data to capture the variability across PWS
characteristics, the EPA needed to ensure that its sample size was
large enough that the results of the cost-benefit model were stable for
each of the 36 PWS categories. To insure stability in modeled results,
the EPA oversampled the SDWIS/Fed inventory to increase the number of
water systems in each PWS category. For every PWS category, the EPA set
the target minimum number of model PWSs to 5,000. To calculate the
total estimated costs for each PWS category, the model weights the
estimated per water system costs so that when summed the total cost is
appropriate for the actual number of water systems known to be in the
category.
The exception to the assignment of water system characteristics
discussed above are the 21 very large water systems serving more than
one million people. Because of the small number of water systems in
this size category, the uniqueness of their system characteristics, and
the potential large cost for these systems to comply with the proposed
regulatory requirements, using the methods described above to assign
system attributes could result in substantial error in the estimation
of the national costs. Therefore, the EPA attempted to collect
information on very large water systems' CCT practices and chemical
doses, pH measurements and pH adjustment practices, number of LSLs,
service populations, and average annual flow rates for each entry point
to the distribution system. The EPA gathered this information from
publicly available data such as SDWIS/Fed facility-level data, Consumer
Confidence Reports, and water system websites. In addition, the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) provided additional data from
member water systems to fill in gaps. When facility-specific data was
available, the EPA used it to estimate compliance costs for the very
large water systems. If data was not available, the EPA assigned
baseline characteristics using the same process as previously
described. See Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2.6 of the EA for a summary of
the data the EPA collected on these very large systems (USEPA, 2019a).
The cost model estimates the incremental cost of the proposed LCR
revisions over a 35-year period. In accordance with the EPA's policy,
and based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
when calculating social costs and benefits, the EPA discounted future
costs (and benefits) under two alternative social discount rates, 3
percent and 7 percent.
When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs and households, the
EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs, as
this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems
would incur over time. The EPA used data from the 2006 Community Water
System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of capital. The EPA
calculated the overall weighted average cost of capital (across all
funding sources and loan periods) for each size/ownership category,
weighted by the percentage of funding from each source. The cost of
capital for each CWS size category and ownership type is shown in
Exhibit 5-14 of the EA. Since similar cost of capital information is
not available for NTNCWS, the EPA used the CWS cost of capital when
calculating the annualized cost per NTNCWS. Total estimated cost of
capital may be greater than actual costs water systems bear when
complying with future regulatory revisions because financing support
for lead reduction efforts may be available from State and local
governments, EPA programs (e.g., the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF), the WIFIA Program, and the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 (WIIN Act) grant programs), and
other federal agencies (e.g., HUD's Community Development Block
Grants).
The availability of funds from government sources, while
potentially reducing the cost to individual PWSs,
[[Page 61714]]
does not reduce the social cost of capital to society. See Chapters 4
and 5 of the EA for a discussion of uncertainties in the cost
estimates.
The EPA projects that rule implementation activities will begin
immediately after rule promulgation. These activities will include one-
time PWS and State costs for staff to read the rule, become familiar
with its provisions, and develop training materials and train employees
on the new rule. States will also incur burden hours associated with
adopting the rule into State requirements, updating their LCR program
policies and practices, and modifying data record keeping systems. PWSs
will incur costs to comply with the lead service line materials
inventory requirements and develop an initial lead service line
replacement plan in years one through three of the analysis. The EPA
expects that water systems will begin complying with all other proposed
rule requirements three years after promulgation, or in year four of
the analysis.
Some requirements of the proposed rule must be implemented by water
systems regardless of their water quality and tap sampling results
(e.g., CWS school and child care facilities sampling programs),
however, most of the major cost drivers are a function of a water
systems 90th percentile lead tap sample value. The 90th percentile
value, and if it exceeds the lead trigger level or action level,
dictates: The tap water sampling and water quality parameter (WQP)
monitoring schedules, the installation/re-optimization of CCT, ``find-
and-fix'' adjustments (triggered by single lead tap sample exceedances
of the 15 [mu]g/L action level, which has an increasing likelihood in
the model as 90th percentile tap sample results increase) to corrosion
control treatment, the installation of point-of-use filters at water
systems selecting this treatment option as part of the small water
system flexibilities of the proposed rule, the goal-based or mandatory
removal of lead service lines and water system and State administrative
costs. Because of uncertainty in the estimation of the 90th percentile
values the Agency developed low and high estimates for this cost
driving variable. The EPA used both the minimum and maximum 90th
percentile tap sample values from SDWIS/Fed over the period from 2007
to 2015, to assign a percentage of PWSs by size, and CCT and LSL status
to each of three groups, those at the trigger level (TL) or below,
those above the lead trigger but at or below the action level (AL), and
those above the lead action level. These assignments represent the
status of systems under the current rule. See Chapters 4 and 5 of the
EA for additional information.
Because the tap sampling requirements under the proposed LCR
revisions call for 100% of lead tap samples to be taken from sites with
LSLs, for water systems with LSLs, the likelihood that a PWS would have
a lead 90th percentile greater than the TL or AL is higher under the
proposed rule compared to under the current LCR. The EPA used
information from Slabaugh et al. (2015) to develop two adjustment
factors, the lower being applied to the low cost scenario LSL system
90th percentile values and the greater factor being used to adjust the
high cost scenario 90th percentile values for LSL systems. The EPA then
reassigned the LSL system to the three 90th percentile value groups,
those without a TL or AL exceedance, those with a TL but not an AL
exceedance, and those with an AL exceedance. A detailed discussion of
the development of the 90th percentile value group placement, the
adjustment made for the LSL water systems given the proposed tap
sampling requirements, and the percentages of systems assigned to the
90th percentile value groups under both the current and proposed LCRR
for the low and high cost scenarios are found in Chapter 5, section
5.2.4.2.2 of the EA.
Once water systems are assigned to the groupings based on their CCT
and LSL status, individual 90th percentile lead tap sample values are
assigned from the distribution of 90th percentile values within each
grouping.
Several proposed regulatory compliance activities are assumed to
not affect a water system's 90th percentile value. These include, for
example, developing an inventory of LSLs, CWS sampling at schools and
child care facilities, and public education. In the model, the only
compliance activities that will change a water system's 90th percentile
lead tap sample are: Installation of CCT; re-optimization of existing
CCT; removal of LSLs; and a water system-wide ``find-and-fix'' activity
(assumed to be a system-wide increase in pH). In addition to these
proposed rule compliance activities, changing a water source or
treatment technology can also result in a change in a water system's
90th percentile tap sample value.
Because a water system's 90th percentile value is so important to
determining regulatory requirements and cost under the proposed rule,
the cost model, under both the low and high cost scenarios, tracks each
water system's 90th percentile value over each annual time step in the
model. Based on the initial 90th percentile values, a number of
proposed rule compliance actions are triggered. With the implementation
of CCT, LSLR, and ``find-and-fix'' corrections, 90th percentile tap
sample values are expected to decrease. The model allows for future
increases in 90th percentile values as a result of changes in source
water and treatment. The likelihood of these events occuring have been
derived from SDWIS/Fed data (see Chapter 4 of the EA). When a change in
source or treatment occurs in a modeled year, a new 90th percentile
value is assigned to the water system. This value may be higher or
lower than the current value thus potentially triggering new corrective
actions. In the model, if a water system already has ``optimized'' CCT
in place, it is assumed that no additional action is needed and that
the current treatment is adequate, therefore the 90th percentile will
not change.
C. Cost Analysis
This section summarizes the cost elements and estimates total cost
of compliance for the existing LCR, the proposed LCR revisions and the
incremental cost of the proposed rule, under both the low and high cost
scenarios, by the major regulatory components and discounted at 3 and 7
percent. These components include sampling costs, CCT costs, LSL
inventory and replacement costs, POU costs, public education and
outreach costs, and implementation and administrative costs for water
systems and States. This section also quantifies the potential increase
in phosphates that would result from the increased use of corrosion
inhibitors under the proposed rule, the resulting cost for treating to
remove the additional phosphates at downstream waste water treatment
plants that may be constrained by nutrient discharge limits, and
discusses the ecological impacts that may result from increased
phosphorus loads to surface waters.
1. Sampling Costs
The proposed LCR revisions affect most of the LCR's sampling
requirements, including: Lead tap sample monitoring, lead WQP
monitoring, copper WQP monitoring, and source water monitoring. The
proposed rule also includes new requirements for CWS to sample at
schools and child care facilities within their distribution systems.
Only the copper tap sampling requirements of the current rule are not
impacted by the proposed regulatory changes and therefore do not appear
in the summarized sampling costs. Additional lead WQP monitoring and
lead tap
[[Page 61715]]
sampling that is specifically required by the current rule and proposed
revisions after the installation or re-optimization of corrosion
control treatment is accounted for in the CCT costs and not in the WQP
monitoring or tap sampling costs.
Lead tap sampling site selection tiering requirements have been
strengthened under the proposed rule, increasing the cost to water
systems with lead service lines for the development of a tap sampling
pool that consists of all LSL sites. The other cost components of lead
tap sampling remain unchanged and generally include sample collection,
analysis, and reporting cost. The frequency of required lead tap
sampling will also increase based on lead tap sample 90th percentile
values.
Both the lead and copper WQP monitoring cost totals represent
collection and lab analysis cost of samples both at entry points and
taps within the distribution system, as well as PWS reporting costs.
The schedules for conducting these activities at modeled water systems
are dependent on a water system's projected lead 90th percentile value,
the presence of CCT, and past sampling results.
The proposed rule will require source water monitoring the first
time a PWS has an action level exceedance. This monitoring will not be
required again unless the water system has a change in source water.
Sampling at schools and child care facilities represents totally
new requirements for CWSs under the proposed LCR revisions. Unlike the
other sampling requirements of the proposed rule, school and child care
facility sampling is not affected by a water system's 90th percentile
lead tap sample value. The proposed rule requires that all schools and
child care facilities must be sampled every five years (schools and
child care facilities may refuse the sampling, but the water system
must document this refusal to the State). This program's costs are
reported with sampling cost, but they also represent public education
costs and requirements of the proposed LCRR. The costs of complying
with the proposed rule include water systems: (1) Identifying schools
and child care facilities in their service area and preparing and
distributing an initial letter explaining the sampling program and the
3Ts Toolkit, (2) coordinating with the school or child care facility to
determine the sampling schedule and the logistics of collecting the
samples, (3) conducting a walkthrough at the school or child care
facility before the start of sampling, (4) sample collection from the
school or child care facility, (5) sample analysis, and (6) providing
sampling results to the school or child care facility, the State, and
the local or State health department.
Exhibit 6-2 and 6-3 show the national annualized sampling costs for
both the low and high estimate scenarios, under the current LCR, the
proposed LCRR, and the incremental cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent,
respectively. Additional information on the estimation of sampling cost
can be found in the Chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the EA. An alternative
option to the school and child care facility sampling program can be
found in section VI.F of this notice and in Chapter 9 of the EA (USEPA,
2019a).
Exhibit 6.2--National Annualized Sampling Costs at 3% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring........................... $33,803,000 $37,672,000 $3,869,000 $33,780,000 $42,944,000 $9,164,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring............... 7,396,000 7,536,000 140,000 8,823,000 9,274,000 451,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring............. 163,000 179,000 16,000 158,000 178,000 20,000
Source Water Monitoring................................ 15,000 4,321 -10,679 47,000 17,000 -30,000
School Sampling........................................ 0 28,540,000 28,540,000 0 28,540,000 28,540,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Sampling Costs........................ 41,376,000 73,931,000 32,555,000 42,809,000 80,955,000 38,146,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring........................... 32,736,000 36,959,000 4,223,000 32,718,000 43,977,000 11,259,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring............... 7,156,000 7,242,000 86,000 9,106,000 9,583,000 477,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring............. 156,000 170,000 14,000 151,000 170,000 19,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring............... 7,156,000 7,242,000 86,000 9,106,000 9,583,000 477,000
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring........................... 32,736,000 36,959,000 4,223,000 32,718,000 43,977,000 11,259,000
Source Water Monitoring................................ 17,000 5,496 -11,504 64,000 25,000 -39,000
School Sampling........................................ 0 27,520,000 27,520,000 0 27,520,000 27,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Sampling Costs........................ 40,064,000 71,897,000 31,833,000 42,039,000 81,276,000 39,237,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
Under the proposed LCRR, drinking water systems may be required to
install CCT, re-optimize their existing CCT, or perform a ``find-and-
fix'' adjustment to their CCT based on their current level of CCT in
place, if their lead tap sample 90th percentile exceeds the trigger
level or action level, and/or individual lead tap samples exceed 15
[mu]g/L. In the cost model, a 90th percentile lead tap sample
exceedance can be triggered by a change in water system source water or
treatment technology. Small CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all
NTNCWSs may also elect to conduct LSLR or implement POU filters as part
of the regulatory flexibilities proposed in the LCRR. See section III.E
of this notice for additional information on the compliance
alternatives available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs, and section VI.C.4
for a discussion of the modeling and a summary of the number of systems
selecting each alternative compliance option.
The capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for water
systems installing or optimizing CCT are based on the assumption that
water systems will obtain the finished water characteristics of 3.2 mg/
L of orthophosphate and pH at or above 7.2 (for water systems with
starting pH values less than 8.2). For those water systems assigned
higher initial pH values in the model, between 8.2 and 9.2, the EPA
assumed the CCT optimization would require adjusting pH to meet or
exceed 9.2 (no orthophosphate addition would be needed). The
distributions of water system starting values for orthophosphate and
pH, used in the cost model, are both drawn from SDWIS and
[[Page 61716]]
Six-Year Review ICR data (see Chapter 4, section 4.3.6 of the EA).
All capital cost equations are a function of design flow, and all
O&M costs are a function of average daily flow. Since CCT is conducted
at the water system's entry points (EPs), the cost model calculates the
design flow and average daily flow of each EP. The cost model uses two
different sets of unit cost functions representing the low and high
capital cost scenarios developed in the engineering Work Breakdown
Structure models for CCT (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2.5 and Appendix A,
Section 1 of the EA). Using these bracketing capital cost values is
designed to characterize uncertainty in the cost model estimates and
when combined with O&M costs and EP flow values, are used to calculate
the low and high CCT cost estimates per model PWS. Note that
optimization O&M costs are obtained through an incremental cost
assessment. The cost model calculated the O&M existing cost and
subtracts them from the optimized O&M cost to obtain the incremental
re-optimization costs.
In the cost model, water systems are assumed to always install and
optimize their CCT, to the standards described above, before making any
adjustment to CCT as a result of being triggered into the ``find-and-
fix'' requirements of the proposed rule. If a water system is required
to implement ``find-and-fix,'' one of two things are assumed to occur
at a single-entry point: A water system that has orthophosphate dosing
and the pH target of 7.2 or greater will increase pH to 7.5, or a water
system that previously optimized to a pH value of 9.2 will increase pH
to 9.4. If ``find-and-fix'' is triggered again after an adjustment at a
single EP, a water system is assumed to adjust all EPs to the new
target pHs of 7.5 or 9.4, depending on the current treatment in place.
Using O&M cost functions estimated for the ``find-and-fix'', see
Appendix A of the EA, the cost model first calculates the total annual
O&M cost for treating to the ``find-and-fix'' standards previously
listed as if no CCT was installed, then subtracts the PWS's current CCT
annual O&M cost from the new ``find-and-fix'' annual O&M cost, to
derive the share of the PWS's annual CCT O&M costs attributable to
``find-and-fix'' actions. The model also calculates the capital cost to
retrofit the CCT water system for additional pH adjustment under both
the low and high cost model scenarios. If a water system is triggered
into a second round of ``find-and-fix'' CCT adjustment, the 7.5 or 9.4
pH requirements will be applied to all entry points. Individual entry
point costs are summed to obtain total water system costs under the low
and high model runs.
In addition to the capital and O&M cost of CCT installation, re-
optimization, or ``find-and-fix,'' water systems will also face several
ancillary costs associated with changes in CCT status. Before the
installation or re-optimization of CCT at a water system, a CCT study
would need to be conducted or revised and the water system would
consult with the State on the proposed changes to CCT (these costs also
apply to water systems undergoing source water or treatment changes).
After the change in CCT, a water system would conduct follow-up tap
sampling, WQP monitoring at entry points and at taps in the
distribution system, report the results of the initial post CCT change
findings to the State, and review WQP data with the State on an ongoing
basis as part of the water system's sanitary surveys.
Water systems with individual lead tap samples over 15 [mu]g/L
must: Collect and analyze a follow-up tap sample from the location that
exceeded the 15 [mu]g/L value, coordinate with the State on the
location for a follow-up WQP sample in proximity to the location that
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L, collect and analyze the WQP sample, and review
with the State the collected data to determine ``find-and-fix'' CCT
required changes.
Exhibits 6-4 and 6-5 show the range of estimated national costs for
CCT under the current LCR, the proposed LCR revisions, and the
incremental cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. Note
that a range of CCT capital costs are used in this assessment but the
total range in Exhibits 6-4 and 6-5 is impacted by all five of the
uncertain variables which enter the model as low and high estimates.
See Section VI.B of this notice and Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2 of the
EA, for additional information on the variables that define the low and
high cost scenarios. The CCT Operation and Maintenance (Existing)
category in these exhibits are the EPA's estimate of the ongoing cost
of operating corrosion control at PWS where CCT was in place at the
beginning of the period of analysis. Additional information on the
estimation of CCT costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the
EA.
Exhibit 6-4--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs at 3% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Installation....................................... $13,364,000 $6,847,000 $-6,517,000 $38,857,000 $16,566,000 $-22,291,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities.................. 1,360,000 1,440,000 80,000 1,506,000 1,986,000 480,000
CCT Optimization....................................... 5,106 11,287,000 11,281,894 163,000 44,199,000 44,036,000
CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing).............. 313,830,000 313,830,000 0 314,091,000 314,091,000 0
CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities.................. 10,000 327,000 317,000 132,000 722,000 590,000
Find and Fix Installation.............................. 0 12,912,000 12,912,000 0 47,837,000 47,837,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities...................... 0 5,234,000 5,234,000 0 6,465,000 6,465,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs.... 328,569,000 351,877,000 23,308,000 354,750,000 431,866,000 77,116,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-5--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs at 7% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Installation....................................... $11,687,000 $5,938,000 $-5,749,000 $37,547,000 $15,739,000 $-21,808,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities.................. 1,312,000 1,405,000 93,000 1,496,000 2,155,000 659,000
CCT Optimization....................................... 8,474 9,515,000 9,506,526 268,000 44,128,000 43,860,000
[[Page 61717]]
CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing).............. 299,344,000 299,344,000 0 299,593,000 299,593,000 0
CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities.................. 13,000 328,000 315,000 172,000 846,000 674,000
Find and Fix Installation.............................. 0 10,655,000 10,655,000 0 45,834,000 45,834,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities...................... 0 5,123,000 5,123,000 0 6,672,000 6,672,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs.... 312,364,000 332,309,000 19,945,000 339,077,000 414,967,000 75,890,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Costs
The proposed LCR revisions require all water systems to create an
LSL materials inventory during the first three years after rule
promulgation or demonstrate to the State that the water system does not
have LSLs. Because many water systems have already complied with State
inventory requirements (e.g., Ohio, see http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/6109.121) that are at least as stringent as those required under the
proposed LCRR, the EPA adjusted the probability of conducting an
inventory downward to reflect the State requirements. Water system
inventory costs also reflect the development, by all water systems with
LSLs, of an initial LSLR plan. The plan would include procedures to
conduct full lead service line replacement, a strategy for informing
customers before a full or partial lead service line replacement, a
lead service line replacement goal rate in the event of a lead trigger
level exceedance, a pitcher filter tracking and maintenance system, a
procedure for customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of
particulate lead, and a funding strategy for conducting lead service
line replacements.
Depending on a water system's 90th percentile lead tap sample
value, it may be required to initiate a LSLR program. Small CWSs,
serving 10,000 or fewer people, and NTNCWSs have flexibility in the
selection of a compliance option if the trigger or action levels are
exceeded. These water systems may select to implement CCT or POU
devices and not receive LSLR costs in the model. See section III.E of
this notice for additional information on the compliance alternatives
available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs. The cost model under both the low
and high scenarios applies the estimated LSLR costs to those CWS
serving 10,000 or fewer people and any NTNCWSs for which the LSLR
option is determined to be the least cost compliance alternative. Under
both the low and high cost scenarios, the model estimates the cost for
implementing LSLR, CCT, and POU for each water system that meets the
small water system flexibility criteria and maintains only the cost
associated with the least costly option for each system. See section
VI.C.4 of this notice for a discussion of the modeling and a summary of
the number of systems selecting each alternative compliance option.
The EPA collected LSLR unit cost information primarily from four
surveys. Given the small number of observations collected and lack of
systematic sampling techniques utilized in the surveys the resultant
estimates of replacement costs based on these data were highly
uncertain. Therefore, the EPA develop low- and high-end LSLR cost
values that are used in the cost model to provide a low/high cost range
to inform the understanding of uncertainty (Note four other factors
used to produce the low and high cost estimates also influence the LSLR
total cost estimates). See Chapter 5, section 5.2.3.2.4 and Appendix A,
Section 3 for more information on the development of the LSLR unit cost
range.
LSLR cost includes not only the physical replacement of the service
line but also prior notification of LSLRs as part of water system
maintenance operations; contacting customers and site visits to confirm
service line material and site conditions before replacement; providing
customers with flushing procedures following a replacement; delivering
pitcher filters and cartridges concurrent with the LSLR, and
maintenance for three months; collecting and analyzing a tap sample
three to six months after the replacement of a LSL; and informing the
customer of the results.
Under the proposed rule, water systems with a 90th percentile lead
tap sample value greater than 10 [mu]g/L and less than or equal to 15
[mu]g/L are considered to have a trigger level exceedance. These water
systems are required to develop and implement a ``goal-based'' LSLR
program where the annual replacement goal is set locally through a
water system and State determination process. Ancillary costs incurred
by these water systems include: The development and delivery of
outreach materials to known and potential LSL households and submitting
annual reports to the State on program activities. For water systems
that do not meet the annual ``goal-based'' replacement rate, the
proposed rule requires that additional outreach to lead service line
customers be conducted. The additional outreach conducted is determined
in conjunction with the State and is progressive, increasing with
additional missed annual goals.
Under this proposal, water systems with 90th percentile tap sample
data that exceed 15 [mu]g/L (action level) are required to fully
replace 3 percent of their LSLs per year for as long as the water
system remains above the action level for any portion of a monitoring
year. These water systems must also submit to the State an annual
report on program activities.
In order to estimate the share of the LSLR cost that is paid by
customers, the EPA made the conservative assumption that customers
under the ``goal-based'' plan always pay for the part of the LSL
belonging to them both when a full LSL is replaced and when the
customer side is being replaced after a water system had completed a
partial LSLR in the past. Customers do not pay for pig tail/gooseneck
replacements in the model. Under mandatory replacement the EPA assumes
that the system pays for all replacements both full and partial.
Exhibits 6-6 and 6-7 show the estimated annualized national cost
for both the low and high cost scenarios, discounted at 3 and 7
percent, respectively, of water systems developing the LSL inventory,
water systems conducting the goal-based and mandatory LSLR programs,
and household removal costs for the customer-owned portion of the LSL
under the current LCR, the proposed LCRR, and the incremental cost. The
EPA did not estimate costs to CWSs for replacing the water system-owned
[[Page 61718]]
portion of an LSL in response to receiving notification that a
customer-owned portion of an LSL was replaced outside of a water system
replacement program. The EPA expects that a small number of these types
of replacements would happen annually. Detailed information on the
estimation of LSLR costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.3 of
the EA.
Exhibit 6-6--National Annualized Lead Service Line Replacement Costs at 3% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Service Line Inventory............................ $0 $5,068,000 $5,068,000 $0 $8,075,000 $8,075,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement................... 579,000 8,235,000 7,656,000 22,399,000 68,264,000 45,865,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities..... 59,000 3,206,000 3,147,000 715,000 4,879,000 4,164,000
Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Voluntary Target... 0 4,149,000 4,149,000 0 16,138,000 16,138,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs.... 638,000 20,658,000 20,020,000 23,113,000 97,357,000 74,244,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Lead Service Line Replacement................ 234,000 5,478,000 5,244,000 9,063,000 20,003,000 10,940,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs........ 872,000 26,137,000 25,265,000 32,176,000 117,359,000 85,183,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-7--National Annualized Lead Service Line Replacement Costs at 7% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Service Line Inventory............................ $0 $5,633,000 $5,633,000 $0 $8,617,000 $8,617,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement................... 520,000 8,197,000 7,677,000 30,793,000 86,480,000 55,687,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities..... 53,000 4,314,000 4,261,000 983,000 6,726,000 5,743,000
Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Voluntary Target... 0 4,191,000 4,191,000 0 20,447,000 20,447,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs.... 573,000 22,335,000 21,762,000 31,776,000 122,270,000 90,494,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Lead Service Line Replacement................ 210,000 5,290,000 5,080,000 12,459,000 22,501,000 10,042,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs........ 783,000 27,625,000 26,842,000 44,234,000 144,771,000 100,537,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Point-of-Use Costs
Under the proposed rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and NTNCWS with a 90th percentile lead value above the
action level of 15 [mu]g/L may choose between LSLR, CCT installation,
or POU device installation and maintenance. See section III.E of this
notice for additional information on the compliance alternatives
available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs. In addition to the cost to provide
and maintain POU devices, water systems selecting the POU compliance
option face additional ancillary costs in the form of: (1) POU
implementation planning for installation, maintenance, and monitoring
of the devices, (2) educating customers on the proper use of the POU
device, (3) sampling POU devises to insure the device is working
correctly, and (4) coordination and obtaining approvals from the State.
The cost model applies these POU costs to those CWS serving 10,000
or fewer people and any NTNCWSs for which the POU option is estimated
to be the least cost compliance alternative. The determination of the
least cost compliance alternative is computed across each
representative model PWS in the cost model based on its assigned
characteristics including: the number of lead service lines, cost of
LSLR, the presence of corrosion control, the cost and effectiveness of
CCT, the starting WQPs, the number of entry points, the unit cost of
POU, and the number of households. For a larger discussion on the
assignment of system characteristics, see section VI.B of this notice
and Chapter 5 of the EA. These characteristics are the primary drivers
in determining the costs once a water system has been triggered into
CCT installation or re-optimization, lead service line replacement, or
POU provision and maintenance. The model estimates the net present
value for implementing each compliance alternative and selects the
least cost alternative to retain in the summarized proposed rule costs.
The EPA is estimating low and high cost scenarios, to characterize
uncertainty in the cost model results. These scenarios are functions of
assigning different low and high input values to a number of the
variables that affect the relative cost of the small system compliance
choices (see Chapter 5 section 5.2 of the EA for additional information
on uncertain variable value assignment). Therefore, as the model output
shows, the choice of compliance technology is different across the low
and high cost scenarios.
Exhibits 6-8 and 6-9 show the total number of CWS serving 10,000 or
fewer people and NTNCWSs, the total number of systems by type and
population size that would select one of the small system compliance
options, the number of NTNCWSs selecting each compliance alternative in
the model, and the number of CWSs by population size selecting each
compliance alternative in the model, under both the low and high cost
scenarios. In general, the exhibits show across both the low and high
scenarios that the majority of water systems would select re-optimizing
under the small system compliance options. If a system has CCT in
place, the incremental costs of re-optimization are low compared to all
other alternatives. The POU device implementation seems to be the least
cost alternative when the number of households in the system is low as
demonstrated by the decrease in the
[[Page 61719]]
selection of the POU option as CWS population size increases in the
model. The pattern seen in the selection of LSLR between the low and
high cost scenarios demonstrates that the choice of compliance by small
systems is driven by relative costs. Under the low cost scenario far
greater numbers of systems select LSLR given the assumed lower numbers
of LSLs per system and lower cost of replacement under this scenarios.
While CCT installation cost is also lower under the low cost scenario
the difference in cost between the high and low scenarios is relatively
small compared to the reduction in cost for LSLR between the scenarios.
POU cost remains unchanged between the low cost and high cost
scenarios. The installation of CCT becomes more cost effective as
system population size increases, but in the larger system size
categories you can also see the effect of the relative cost of LSLR in
the low cost scenario.
Exhibit 6-8--NTNCWS and Small System Counts Impacted Under Flexibility Option--Low Cost Scenario
[Over 35 year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTNCWS CWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
501- 1,001- 3,301-
All Systems <=100 101- 500 1,000 3,300 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PWS Count in System Size Category.. 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974
Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, 1,453 1,521 2,498 1,148 1,544 2,037
POU, or CCT activity....................
Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line 34 474 975 541 608 1,535
Removals................................
Number of PWSs that Install CCT.......... 15 25 438 189 288 80
Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT...... 287 398 851 410 649 423
Number of PWSs that Install POU.......... 1,117 625 234 8 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-9--NTNCWS and Small System Counts Impacted Under Flexibility Option--High Cost Scenario
[Over 35 year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTNCWS CWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
501- 1,001- 3,301-
All Systems <=100 101- 500 1,000 3,300 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PWS Count in System Size Category.. 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974
Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, 2,354 1,938 2,782 1,677 3,274 1,314
POU, or CCT activity....................
Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line 94 139 118 476 1,246 86
Removals................................
Number of PWSs that Install CCT.......... 14 10 491 327 477 195
Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT...... 347 368 1,319 813 1,540 1,032
Number of PWSs that Install POU.......... 1,900 1,422 855 61 10 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated national annualized point-of-use device installation
and maintenance costs for the proposed rule, under the low cost
scenario, are $3,995,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $3,492,000 at
a 7 percent discount rate. The POU impacts of the proposed rule for the
high cost scenario are $16,400,000 discounted at 3 percent and
$15,485,000 discounted at 7 percent. Since POU costs are zero under the
current LCR, the incremental costs range from $3,995,000 to $16,400,000
at a 3 percent discount rate and from $3,492,000 to $15,485,000 at a 7
percent discount rate, under the low and high cost scenarios
respectively. Additional information on the estimation of POU costs can
be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.4 of the EA.
5. Public Education and Outreach Costs
In addition to the current LCR public education requirements for
water systems with a lead action level exceedance, the cost model
includes proposed rule requirements for ongoing lead education that
applies to all water systems with LSLs, regardless of the 90th
percentile level, and requirements in response to a single tap sample
exceeding the 15 [mu]g/L lead action level.
The proposed rule requires a number of updates to existing public
education and additional outreach activities associated with LSLs. The
public education requirements costed for all water systems, regardless
of their lead 90th percentile tap sample levels, include: (1) Updating
Consumer Confidence Report language, (2) developing a lead outreach
plan and materials for new customers, (3) developing an approach for
improved public access to lead information, (4) participating in joint
communication efforts with the State to provide increased information
on lead education to health care providers, and (5) providing annual
documentation and certification to the State that public outreach on
lead has been completed. The costed proposed LCR public education
requirements applying to all water systems with lead service lines are:
(1) The planning, initially implementing and maintaining customer and
public access to LSL location information, and (2) the development of
lead educational materials for water-related utility work and delivery
of those materials to affected households during water-related work
that could result in service line disturbance.
The proposed rule public education costs that are applied to water
systems that exceed the 15 [mu]g/L action level include: (1) The
development of lead language for public education in response to a lead
action level exceedance, (2) delivery of education materials to
customers for CWSs and posting of lead information for NTNCWs, (3)
water systems contacting public health agencies to obtain a list of
additional community organizations that should receive PE materials,
(4) water systems notifying public health agencies and other community
organizations, (5) large water systems posting a lead notice on their
website, (6) water system issuing a press release, (7) water systems
consulting with the State on the materials development and appropriate
activities while the action level is exceeded, and (8) annually
[[Page 61720]]
certifying public education activities have been completed.
The proposed rule also includes a requirement for water systems to
notify affected customers within 24 hours of becoming aware of an
individual tap sample exceeding the 15 [mu]g/L lead action level. The
model includes the development cost of the notification and education
materials to be delivered to affected households and the incremental
cost of expedited delivery of the notification. Note that materials
costs related to follow-up testing when a sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/L are
included in the tap sampling costs in section VI.C.1 of this notice.
The estimated annualized national water system public education and
outreach costs for the current LCR range from $48,000 to $1,093,000 at
a 3 percent discount rate under the low and high cost scenarios
respectively. At a 7 percent discount rate the annualized estimated
current rule PE cost range is from $65,000 to $1,513,000. Under the
proposed rule low cost scenario, the estimated impacts are $29,364,000
at a 3 percent discount rate and $28,765,000 at a 7 percent discount
rate. Under the high scenario the estimated annualized costs are
$35,491,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $35,525,000 at a 7 percent
discount rate. Therefore, the incremental estimated public education
and outreach costs for water systems range from $29,316,000 to
$34,398,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $28,700,000 to 34,012,000
at a 7 percent discount rate. See Chapter 5, section 5.3.5 of the EA
for additional detailed information on the estimation of public
education and outreach costs.
6. Drinking Water System Implementation and Administrative Costs
All water systems will have one-time start-up activities associated
with the implementation of the proposed rule. These compliance costs
include: Water system burden to read and understand the revised rule;
water systems assigning personnel and resources for rule
implementation; water system personnel time for attending trainings
provided by the State; and clarifying regulatory requirements with the
State during rule implementation. This category of cost is not impacted
by the variable that define the low and high cost scenarios, therefore
only one set of estimated costs exist in the category. The estimated
annualized national PWS implementation and administrative costs for the
proposed LCR revisions are $1,863,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and
$3,092,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. Since there are no costs under
the current LCR, the PWS implementation and administrative incremental
costs are also $1,863,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $3,092,000
at a 7 percent discount rate. Additional information on the estimation
of water system implementation and administrative costs can be found in
Chapter 5, section 5.3.6 of the EA.
7. Annualized per Household Costs
The cost model calculates the annualized cost per household, by
first calculating the cost per gallon of water produced by the CWS.
This cost per gallon represents the cost incurred by the system to
comply with the requirements of the proposed LCRR. This includes CCT
cost, inventory creation, system payed customer-side LSLR, tap
sampling, public education, and administrative costs. Because of
uncertainty in five important LCRR cost driver input variables,
discussed in section VI.A. of this notice, the Agency developed low and
high cost scenarios. These scenarios produce a range in the estimated
cost per gallon and two estimates for annualized per household costs.
The model multiplies this low and high scenario costs per gallon by
the average annual household consumption (in gallons) to determine the
cost per household per year associated with increased costs borne by
the CWS. The EPA then adds to both these values the total consumer-side
lead service line replacement cost borne by households in the system,
divided by the number of households served by the system, to derive the
CWS's average annual household low and high scenario cost estimates.
Exhibits 6-10 and 6-11 show the distributions of incremental annualized
costs for CWS households by primary water source and size category.
Note, the percentiles represent the distribution of average household
costs across CWSs in a category, not the distribution of costs across
all households in a CWS category. Some households that pay for a
customer-side LSLR will bear a much greater annual household burden.
The EPA estimates the cost of removing the customer-owned side of a
service line range from $1,480 to $4,440, with a central tendency of
$2,960. The percentage of customers in each water system paying the
higher customer-side LSL costs depends on the number of LSL in the
water system, the rate of replacement, and the details of the water
systems LSLR program.
Exhibit 10--Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by CWS Category--Low Cost Scenario
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10th 25th 50th 75th 90th
Source water Size Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground....................... 100 or Fewer.... $-5.36 $5.33 $8.61 $13.79 $23.01
Ground....................... 101 to 500...... 0.85 1.43 2.62 4.20 6.85
Ground....................... 501 to 1,000.... 0.28 0.35 0.47 0.67 1.57
Ground....................... 1,001 to 3,300.. 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.34 0.76
Ground....................... 3,301 to 10,000. 0.19 0.26 0.39 0.52 1.00
Ground....................... 10,001 to 50,000 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.21 0.38
Ground....................... 50,001 to 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.25 0.30
100,000.
Ground....................... 100,001 to 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.34 0.48
1,000,000.
Ground....................... Greater than 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.26
1,000,000.
Surface...................... 100 or Fewer.... 2.87 4.96 8.86 15.52 23.87
Surface...................... 101 to 500...... 0.73 1.31 2.17 3.66 7.56
Surface...................... 501 to 1,000.... 0.26 0.34 0.52 0.81 2.11
Surface...................... 1,001 to 3,300.. 0.11 0.15 0.25 0.39 0.82
Surface...................... 3,301 to 10,000. 0.20 0.26 0.43 0.78 1.56
Surface...................... 10,001 to 50,000 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.38 1.55
Surface...................... 50,001 to 0.08 0.11 0.25 0.32 1.07
100,000.
Surface...................... 100,001 to 0.06 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.84
1,000,000.
Surface...................... Greater than 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.32
1,000,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61721]]
Exhibit 11--Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by CWS Category--High Cost Scenario
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10th 25th 50th 75th 90th
Source water Size Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground....................... 100 or Fewer.... $-10.22 $4.78 $8.60 $15.22 $28.73
Ground....................... 101 to 500...... -1.06 1.36 2.87 4.85 11.54
Ground....................... 501 to 1,000.... -0.19 0.36 0.55 1.30 4.72
Ground....................... 1,001 to 3,300.. 0.10 0.16 0.28 0.56 2.61
Ground....................... 3,301 to 10,000. 0.19 0.28 0.45 0.91 3.53
Ground....................... 10,001 to 50,000 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.29 2.61
Ground....................... 50,001 to 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.27 2.44
100,000.
Ground....................... 100,001 to 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.59 3.17
1,000,000.
Ground....................... Greater than 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.26
1,000,000.
Surface...................... 100 or Fewer.... -9.24 4.09 10.29 18.82 40.74
Surface...................... 101 to 500...... -2.99 1.13 2.73 5.82 15.96
Surface...................... 501 to 1,000.... -3.18 0.33 0.89 1.62 4.98
Surface...................... 1,001 to 3,300.. -1.80 0.16 0.31 0.65 2.30
Surface...................... 3,301 to 10,000. -0.24 0.29 0.72 1.28 4.49
Surface...................... 10,001 to 50,000 0.05 0.11 0.24 1.25 4.61
Surface...................... 50,001 to 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.53 2.61
100,000.
Surface...................... 100,001 to 0.10 0.20 0.34 1.31 3.46
1,000,000.
Surface...................... Greater than 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.32
1,000,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Primacy Agency Costs
For each of the drinking water cost sections previously described,
primacy agencies (i.e., States) have associated costs. These include
start-up and implementation costs; reviewing water quality parameter,
source water, and school monitoring reports; reviewing and approving
lead tap sampling plans, sampling frequencies, results, and reports;
consultation and reviews during CCT, LSLR, and POU device installation;
and reviewing and approving the lead public education materials and
consulting on specific outreach requirements. In the EPA cost model,
the majority of the costs associated with States are determined on a
per water system basis. State actions and costs are largely driven by
the proposed rule required actions that are triggered for the
individual water systems. These per water system primacy agency costs
are then summed to obtain aggregate costs for this category.
The State implementation and administration costs of complying with
the proposed LCR revisions include: Reading and understanding the rule;
adopting the rule and developing an implementation program; modifying
data recording systems; training staff; providing water system staff
with initial and on-going technical assistance and training;
coordinating annual administration tasks with the EPA; and reporting
data to SDWIS/Fed.
State activities regarding sampling include reviewing:
PWS reports on lead and copper WQP monitoring from entry
points and distribution system taps;
Lead tap sampling plans, changes in sampling locations,
sample invalidations, sampling results and 90th percentile
calculations, and certification of customer notification of sampling
results;
9-year waiver requests;
Source water sampling results; and
School sampling results.
The State activities associated with CCT installation, re-
optimization, and ``find-and-fix'' rule requirements include:
Consulting with water systems on source water and
treatment changes;
Reviewing CCT studies for installation and re-
optimization;
Reviewing post CCT installation WQP monitoring and tap
sample results (including sample invalidation);
Setting optimal water quality parameters;
Reviewing ``find-and-fix'' follow-up tap and water quality
parameter sampling for each individual lead tap sample greater than 15
[mu]g/L;
Reviewing water system's ``find-and-fix'' summary reports;
Reviewing new the EPA's CCT guidance; and
Conducting CCT water quality reviews in conjunction with
sanitary surveys.
LSLR creates a number of water system/State interactions. States
would be required to:
Review water system inventory data;
Confer with water systems with LSLs on initial planning
for LSLR program activities, including standard operating procedures
for conducting replacements, and outreach programs;
Work with LSL water systems to determine a goal-based LSLR
rate;
Provide templates and targeted public education language
for LSLR programs;
Determine the additional outreach activities required if a
water system fails to meet its goal-based LSLR rate; and
Review annual LSLR program compliance reports from water
systems.
State activities associated with CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people
and NTNCWSs that select POU as a treatment alternative include:
Conferring with water systems on initial planning for POU
programs;
Reviewing public education material for POU devices; and
Reviewing annual reports on POU programs, including POU
device sampling results.
Proposed public education provisions will require a great deal of
primacy agency oversight. Activities which produce primacy agency
burden include:
Providing water systems with templates to update CCR
language;
Reviewing water system information developed for new
customer outreach;
Participating in joint communication efforts for sharing
lead public education with health care providers;
Reviewing educational material developed for delivery
during water-related work;
Reviewing water system certifications of lead public
education and outreach;
Reviewing public education language submitted by water
systems in response to an individual tap sample above the action level;
Consulting with water systems on public education response
to a lead
[[Page 61722]]
action level exceedance, including reviewing language; and
Reviewing the water systems public education self-
certification letter following a lead action level exceedance.
The cost model estimates that the Primacy Agencies will incur
incremental estimated annualized costs, under the low cost scenario,
totaling $14,915,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $15,054,000 at a
7 percent discount rate. For the high cost scenario total estimated
costs is $15,598,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $15,965,000 at a
7 percent discount rate. Additional information on the estimation of
primacy agency costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the EA.
9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated With Additional Phosphate
Usage
Adding phosphate creates a protective inner coating on pipes that
can inhibit lead leaching. However, once phosphate is added to the
public water system (PWS), some of this incremental loading remains in
the water stream as it flows into wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
downstream. This generates treatment costs for certain WWTPs. In
addition, at those locations where treatment does not occur, water with
elevated phosphorus concentrations may discharge to water bodies and
induce certain ecological impacts.
When water systems add orthophosphate to their finished water for
corrosion control purposes, some portion of the orthophosphate added
will reach downstream WWTPs. To estimate the potential fate of the
orthophosphate added at PWSs, the EPA developed a conceptual mass
balance model. The EPA applied this conceptual model to estimate the
increase in loading at WWTPs, given an initial loading from corrosion
control at water treatment plants. WWTPs could incur costs because of
upstream orthophosphate addition if they have permit discharge limits
for phosphorus parameters. The percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus
limits has increased over time. From 2007 to 2016, in annual percentage
rate terms, the growth rate in the percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus
limits is 3.3 percent.
The EPA assumed this increase would continue as States transition
from narrative to numerical nutrient criteria and set numeric permits
limits, especially for impaired waters. The EPA applied the growth rate
observed from 2007 to 2016 to estimate the anticipated percentage of
WWTPs with phosphorus limits in future years. This growth rate results
in an estimated 41 percent of WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits
after 35 years. Applied as the percentage of WWTPs that need to take
treatment actions, this estimate is likely conservative, particularly
given the potential availability of alternative compliance mechanisms,
such as, individual facility variance and nutrient trading programs.
The specific actions a WWTP might need to take to maintain
compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) phosphorus limit will depend on the type of treatment present
at the WWTP and the corresponding phosphorus removal provided (if any).
Based on a review of NPDES data, it is likely that most of the WWTPs
that already have phosphorus limits have some type of treatment to
achieve the limit.
Some treatment processes can accommodate incremental increases in
influent loading and still maintain their removal efficiency. Such
processes might not need significant adjustment to maintain their
existing phosphorus removal efficiency, given an incremental increase.
Other treatment processes may need modifications to their design or
operation to maintain their removal efficiency in the face of an
influent loading increase.
The EPA derived a unit cost of $4.59 per pound of phosphorus for
removing incremental phosphorus (see Chapter 5, section 5.5.1 of the EA
for additional information). This unit cost includes the cost of
additional chemical consumption and the operating cost of additional
sludge processing and disposal. The costs a WWTP could incur depend on
the magnitude of the loading increase relative to the specific WWTP's
effluent permit limit. WWTPs, whose current discharge concentrations
are closer to their limit, are more likely to have to act. WWTPs whose
current concentrations are well below their limit may not incur costs
but might, under certain conditions, incur costs (for example, when
phosphorus removal achieved by technology is sensitive to incremental
phosphorus loading increases). Furthermore, future phosphorus limits
could be more stringent than existing limits in certain watersheds.
Therefore, the EPA conservatively assumed that any WWTP with a
discharge limit for phosphorus parameters could incur costs.
Accordingly, in calculating costs, the EPA used the anticipated
percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits as the likelihood
that incremental orthophosphate loading from a drinking water system
would reach a WWTP with a limit. The EPA combined this likelihood and
the unit cost (previously estimated) with incremental phosphorus
loading to calculate incremental costs to WWTPs for each year of the
analysis period. The incremental annualized cost that WWTPs would incur
to remove additional phosphorous associated with the proposed LCRR,
under the low cost scenario, ranges from $668,000 to $1,066,000 at a 3
and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. The high cost scenario
produced an incremental estimated impact of $1,203,000 using a 3
percent discount rate, and $1,920,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
The EPA estimates that WWTP treatment reduces phosphorus loads
reaching water bodies by 59 percent but they are not eliminated. The
proposed rule's national-level total incremental phosphorus loads
reaching water bodies are projected to grow over the period of analysis
from the low/high scenario range of 202,000 to 460,000 pounds fifteen
years after promulgation to the low/high scenario range of 461,000 to
685,000 pounds at year 35. See Chapter 5, section 5.5 of the EA for
information on how loading estimates are calculated. The ecological
impacts of these increased phosphorous loadings are highly localized:
Total incremental phosphorus loadings will depend on the amount and
timing of the releases, characteristics of the receiving water body,
effluent discharge rate, existing total phosphorus levels, and weather
and climate conditions. Unfortunately, detailed spatially explicit
information on effluents and on receiving water bodies does not exist
in a form suitable for this analysis. Rather, to evaluate the potential
ecological impacts of the rule, the EPA evaluated the significance of
the national-level phosphorus loadings compared to other phosphorous
sources in the terrestrial ecosystem.
To put these phosphorus loadings in context, estimates from the
USGS SPARROW model suggest that anthropogenic sources deposit roughly
750 million pounds of total phosphorus per year (USEPA, 2019b). The
total phosphorus loadings from the proposed LCRR high cost scenario
would contribute about 1 percent (7 million/750 million) of total
phosphorus entering receiving waterbodies in a given year, and the
incremental amount of total phosphorus associated with the proposed
LCRR relative to the current LCR grows only 0.09 percent (685,000/750
million). At the national level, the EPA expects total phosphorus
entering waterbodies as a result of the proposed LCR revisions to be
small, relative to the total phosphorus load deposited annually from
all other sources. National average load impacts may
[[Page 61723]]
obscure localized ecological impacts in some circumstances, but the
existing data do not allow an assessment as to whether this incremental
load will induce ecological impacts in particular areas. It is
possible, however, that localized impacts may occur in certain water
bodies without restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with
existing elevated phosphate levels.
An increase in phosphorus loadings can lead to economic impacts and
undesirable aesthetic impacts. Excess nutrient pollution can cause
eutrophication--excessive plant and algae growth--in lakes, reservoirs,
streams, and estuaries throughout the United States. Eutrophication, by
inducing primary production, leads to seasonal decomposition of
additional biomass, consuming oxygen and creating a State of hypoxia,
or low oxygen, within the water body. In extreme cases, the low to no
oxygen States can create dead zones, or areas in the water where
aquatic life cannot survive. Studies indicate that eutrophication can
decrease aquatic diversity for this reason (e.g., Dodds et al. 2009).
Eutrophication may also stimulate the growth of harmful algal blooms
(HABs), or over-abundant algae populations. Algal blooms can harm the
aquatic ecosystem by blocking sunlight and creating diurnal swings in
oxygen levels because of overnight respiration. Such conditions can
starve and deplete aquatic species.
10. Summary of Rule Costs
The estimated annualized low and high scenario costs, discounted at
3 percent and 7 percent, that PWSs, households, and Primacy Agencies
will incur in complying with the current LCR, the proposed LCRR, and
incrementally are summarized in Exhibits 6-12 and 6-13. The total
estimated incremental annualized cost of the proposed LCRR range from
$132 to $270 million at a 3 percent discount rate, and $130 to $286
million at a 7 percent discount rate in 2016 dollars. The exhibits also
detail the proportion of the annualized costs attributable to each rule
component.
Exhibit 6-12--National Annualized Rule Costs at 3% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWS Annual Costs:
Sampling........................................... $41,376,000 $73,931,000 $32,555,000 $42,809,000 $80,955,000 $38,146,000
PWS Lead Service Line Replacement.................. 638,000 20,658,000 20,020,000 23,113,000 97,357,000 74,244,000
Corrosion Control Technology....................... 328,569,000 351,877,000 23,308,000 354,750,000 431,866,000 77,116,000
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance.......... 0 3,995,000 3,995,000 0 16,400,000 16,400,000
Public Education and Outreach...................... 48,000 29,364,000 29,316,000 1,093,000 35,491,000 34,398,000
Rule Implementation and Administration............. 0 1,863,000 1,863,000 0 1,863,000 1,863,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual PWS Costs......................... 370,631,000 481,688,000 111,057,000 421,766,000 663,931,000 242,165,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Rule Implementation and Administration........... 5,661,000 20,576,000 14,915,000 6,718,000 22,316,000 15,598,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement................ 234,000 5,478,000 5,244,000 9,063,000 20,003,000 10,940,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs....................... 331,000 1,019,000 688,000 862,000 2,065,000 1,203,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs............................ 376,857,000 508,762,000 131,905,000 438,408,000 708,314,000 269,906,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-13--National Annualized Rule Costs at 7% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost estimate High cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWS Annual Costs:
Sampling........................................... $40,064,000 $71,897,000 $31,833,000 $42,039,000 $81,276,000 $39,237,000
PWS Lead Service Line Replacement.................. 573,000 22,335,000 21,762,000 31,776,000 122,270,000 90,494,000
Corrosion Control Technology....................... 312,364,000 332,309,000 19,945,000 339,077,000 414,967,000 75,890,000
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance.......... 0 3,492,000 3,492,000 0 15,485,000 15,485,000
Public Education and Outreach...................... 65,000 28,765,000 28,700,000 1,513,000 35,525,000 34,012,000
Rule Implementation and Administration............. 0 3,092,000 3,092,000 0 3,092,000 3,092,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual PWS Costs......................... 353,067,000 461,889,000 108,822,000 414,405,000 672,615,000 258,210,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Rule Implementation and Administration........... 5,547,000 20,601,000 15,054,000 6,993,000 22,958,000 15,965,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement................ 210,000 5,290,000 5,080,000 12,459,000 22,501,000 10,042,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs....................... 407,000 1,473,000 1,066,000 1,288,000 3,208,000 1,920,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs............................ 359,230,000 489,253,000 130,023,000 435,144,000 721,282,000 286,138,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Benefits Analysis
The proposed revisions to the LCR are expected to result in
significant health benefits, since both lead and copper are associated
with adverse health effects. Lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can
damage neurological, cardiovascular, immunological, developmental, and
other major body systems. The EPA is particularly concerned about
exposure experienced by children because lead can affect brain
development. Additionally, children through their physiology and water
ingestion requirements may be at higher risk. Research shows that, on
average, formula-fed infants and young children consume more drinking
water per day on a body weight basis than adolescents. Using the USDA
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) data, Kahn and
Stralka (2009) demonstrated this trend, is most
[[Page 61724]]
pronounced in children under 1 year of age who drink more than double
older children and adults per kg of body weight. Additionally, children
absorb 2-4 times more lead than adults through the gastrointestinal
tract ((Mushak, (1991); WHO, (2011) and Ziegler et al. (1978)). No safe
level of lead exposure has been identified (USEPA, 2013). The EPA's
health risk reduction and benefits assessment of the proposed LCR
revisions concentrates on quantification and monetization of the
estimated impact of reductions in lead exposure on childhood IQ. As
explained in Appendix D in the Economic Assessment of the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Revision (EA), there are additional non-quantified lead
health impacts to both children and adults that will be realized as a
result of this rulemaking.
Although copper is an essential element for health, excess intake
of copper has been associated with several adverse health effects. Most
commonly, excess exposure to copper results in gastrointestinal
symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (National Research
Council, 2000). In susceptible populations, such as children with
genetic disorders or predispositions to accumulate copper, chronic
exposure to excess copper can result in liver toxicity. Because
household level data on the change in copper concentrations that result
from changes in CCT are not available, this analysis does not quantify
any potential benefits from reduced copper exposure that may result
from the proposed rule. See Appendix E in the EA for additional copper
health impact information.
To quantify the potential impact to exposed populations of changes
in lead tap water concentrations as a result of the proposed LCR
revisions, the EPA:
Estimated potential household lead tap water
concentrations under various levels of corrosion control treatment,
lead service line replacement, and implementation of POU devices;
Modeled exposure using the lead tap water concentration
data, information on peoples' water consumption activities, and
background lead levels from other potential pathways;
Derived the potential change in blood lead levels (BLLs)
that result from the changes in drinking water lead exposure;
Used concentration response functions, from the scientific
literature, to measure changes in IQ for children given shifts in BLLs;
Estimated the unit value of a change in childhood IQ; and
Applied the unit values to the appropriate demographic
groups experiencing changes in lead tap water concentrations as a
result of the proposed regulatory changes across the period of
analysis.
Subsections VI.D.1 through 4 of this notice outline the estimation
of lead concentration values in drinking water used to estimate before
and after rule implementation concentration scenarios, the
corresponding estimated avoided IQ loss in children, and a summary of
the monetized benefits of the proposed LCR Revisions.
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
The EPA determined the lead concentrations in drinking water at
residential locations through the collection and analysis of
consecutive sampling data representing homes pre and post removal of
LSLs, including partial removal of LSLs, under differing levels of
water system corrosion control treatment. The data was collected from
multiple sources including: Water systems, the EPA Regional Offices and
the Office of Research and Development, and authors of published
journal articles (Deshommes et al. 2016). This data includes lead
concentrations and information regarding LSL status, location, and date
of sample collection, representing 18,039 samples collected from 1,638
homes in 15 cities across the United States and Canada. The EPA grouped
the samples into LSL status categories (``LSL,'' ``Partial,'' ``No
LSL''). Samples were also grouped by CCT treatment, assigning status as
having ``None,'' ``Partial,'' or ``Representative.'' ``Partial''
includes those water systems with some pH adjustment and lower doses of
a phosphate corrosion inhibitor, but this treatment is not optimized.
``Representative'' are those water systems in the dataset that have
higher doses of phosphate inhibitors, which in the model are considered
optimized (see EA Chapter 6, section 6.2.1 for additional detail and
docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300 for the data).
The EPA fit several regression models (see EA Chapter 6, section
6.2.2 for additional detail) of tap water lead concentration as
predicted by LSL presence (``LSL'' or ``No LSL''), LSL extent
(``Partial''), CCT status, and ``profile liter.'' Profile liter is the
cumulative volume a sample represented within a consecutive sampling
series at a single location and time. Models to describe the profile
liter accounted for the variation among sampling events, sampling
sites, and city. The EPA selected one of the regression models based on
its fit and parsimony and used it to produce simulated lead
concentrations for use in the benefits analysis (Exhibit 6-8, in
Chapter 6 of the EA). The selected model suggests that besides water
system, residence, and sampling event, the largest effects on lead
concentration in tap water come from the presence of LSLs and the
number of liters drawn since the last stagnation period. CCT produces
smaller effects on lead concentration than LSLs, and these effects are
larger in homes with LSLs.
To statistically control for some sources of variability in the
input data, the EPA did not use summary statistics from the original
data directly in estimating the effects of LSL and CCT status. Instead,
the EPA produced simulated mean lead concentrations for 500,000
samples, summarized in Exhibit 6-14, based on the selected regression
model. The simulated sample concentrations represent estimates for new
cities, sites, and sampling events not included in the original
dataset. These simulations rely on estimates of variability and
uncertainty from the regression model and given information on LSL and
CCT status. Individual estimates are best thought of as the central
tendency for a sample concentration given regression model parameters
and estimated variance. The simulated samples represent, on average,
the lead concentrations taken after a short flushing period of roughly
30 seconds for all combinations of LSL and CCT status. This represents
a point near the average peak lead concentration for homes with full or
partial LSLs, and a point slightly below the peak lead concentration
for homes with no LSLs, regardless of CCT status.
The EPA estimates that improving CCT will produce significant
reductions in lead tap water concentration overall. However, for full
LSLRs, the final model produced predictions of drinking water
concentrations that overlapped almost completely for all CCT
conditions. Therefore, the EPA used the pooled estimate of predicted
drinking water concentrations for all CCT conditions in residences with
no LSL in place for the main analysis in Chapter 6 of the EA. Because,
the EPA in using this pooled data the mean and standard deviation
values of tap water lead concentrations in Exhibit 6-14 are the same
for all three ``no LSLs'' status rows, regardless of whether there is
representative, partial, or no CCT. Effectively, in the primary
analysis the EPA did not quantify the incremental benefits of CCT when
LSLs are absent. On the other hand, because CCT is done on a system-
wide basis, there are no incremental costs
[[Page 61725]]
associated with providing CCT to homes without LSL when it is being
provided for the entire system. The impact of CCT for these no LSL
homes likely varies by location depending on the degree to which legacy
leaded plumbing materials, including leaded brass fixtures, and lead
solder remain at the location.
The EPA does track the number of ``no LSL'' homes potentially
affected by water systems increasing their corrosion control during the
35-year period of analysis. The number of no LSL homes that experience
increase in CCT over the 35 years ranges from 14 million in the low
cost scenario and 26 million in the high cost scenario. The EPA
considered one possible approach to estimating the potential benefits
to children of reducing lead water concentrations in these homes (see
Appendix F of the EA) but has determined that the data are too limited
and the uncertainties too significant to include in the quantified and
monetized benefit estimates of this regulation. The EPA, therefore, is
requesting comment and additional information about the change in lead
concentrations that occur in non-LSL households that experience changes
in CCT.
Because small CWSs that serve fewer than 10,000 people have
flexibility in the compliance option they select in response to a lead
action level exceedance, some CWSs are modeled as installing POU
devices at all residences. See section III.E of this notice for
additional information on the compliance alternatives available to
small CWSs. For individuals in these systems the EPA assumes, in the
analysis, that consumers in households with POU devises are exposed to
the same lead concentration as residents with ``No LSL'' and
``Representative'' CCT in place.
Exhibit 6-14--LSL and CCT Scenarios and Simulated Geometric Mean Tap Water Lead Concentrations and Standard
Deviations at the Fifth Liter Drawn After Stagnation for Each Combination of LSL and CCT Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simulated SD Simulated Simulated
Simulated mean \a\ of log geometric mean geometric SD
LSL status CCT status of log lead lead ([micro]g/ lead ([micro]g/ \a\ of lead
([micro]g/L) L) L) ([micro]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL........................... None............ 2.92 1.37 18.62 3.95
Partial....................... None............ 2.17 1.38 8.78 3.98
No LSL........................ None............ -0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98
LSL........................... Partial......... 2.42 1.37 11.27 3.94
Partial....................... Partial......... 1.67 1.37 5.32 3.93
No LSL........................ Partial......... -0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98
LSL........................... Representative.. 1.95 1.38 7.01 3.96
Partial....................... Representative.. 1.19 1.38 3.3 3.96
No LSL........................ Representative.. -0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard deviations reflect ``among-sampling event'' variability.
In the estimation of the costs and benefits of the proposed LCR
revisions, each modeled person within a water system is assigned to one
of the estimated drinking water concentrations in Exhibit 6-14,
depending on the CCT, POU, and LSL status. The EPA estimated benefits
under both the low cost and high cost scenarios used in the proposed
LCRR which characterize uncertainty in the cost estimates. The low cost
scenario and high cost scenario differ in their assumptions made about:
(1) The existing number of LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above
the AL or TL under the current and proposed monitoring requirements;
(3) the cost of installing and re-optimizing corrosion control
treatment (CCT); (4) the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead
concentrations; and (5) the cost of lead service line replacement
(Section VI.C.3. above and Chapter 5, section 5.6 of the EA). The EPA
predicted the status of each system under the low and high scenarios at
baseline (prior to rule implementation) and in each year of rule
implementation. Depending on the timing of required actions that can
change CCT, POU, and LSL status under both the baseline and proposed
LCRR low and high scenario model runs, changes in lead concentration
and resultant blood lead are predicted every year for the total
population served by the systems for the 35-year period of analysis. In
the primary benefits analysis for the rule, improvements to CCT and the
use of installed POU devices are only predicted for individuals in
households with LSLs prior to the LCRR (consistent with discussion
above about the limits of the data for predicting the impact of CCT
when LSL are not present). In the model, LSL removals are predicted by
water system, by year, and multiplied by the average number of people
per household (across demographic categories) to determine the number
of people shifting from one LSL status to another. To predict the
changes in exposure that result from an improvement in CCT, the EPA
predicts the entire LSL population of a water system will move to the
new CCT status at the same time. The EPA also assumes that the entire
water system moves to the drinking water lead concentration, assigned
to POU when this option is implemented, which implies that everyone in
households in a distribution system with LSLs is properly using the
POU. See Chapter 6, section 6.3 of the EA for more detailed information
on the number of people switching lead concentration categories under
the low and high cost scenarios.
2. Impacts on Childhood IQ
The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA 2013) States
that there is a causal relationship between lead exposure and cognitive
function decrements in children based on several lines of evidence,
including findings from prospective studies in diverse populations
supported by evidence in animals, and evidence identifying potential
modes of action. The evidence from multiple high-quality studies using
large cohorts of children shows an association between blood lead
levels and decreased intelligence quotient (IQ). The 2012 National
Toxicology Program Monograph concluded that there is sufficient
evidence of association between blood lead levels <5 [mu]g/dL and
decreases in various general and specific measures of cognitive
function in children from three months to 16 years of age. This
conclusion is based on prospective and cross-sectional studies using a
wide range of tests to assess
[[Page 61726]]
cognitive function (National Toxicology Program, 2012).
The EPA quantitatively assessed and monetized the benefits of
avoided losses in IQ as a result of the proposed LCR revisions. Modeled
lead tap water concentrations (previously discussed in this notice) are
used to estimate the extent to which the proposed rule would reduce
avoidable loss of IQ among children. The first step in the
quantification and monetization of avoided IQ loss is to estimate the
likely decrease in blood lead levels in children based on the
reductions in lead in their drinking water as a result of the proposed
LCRR.
The EPA estimated the distribution of current blood lead levels in
children, age 0 to 7, using the EPA's Stochastic Human Exposure and
Dose Simulation Multimedia (SHEDS-Multimedia) model coupled with its
Integrated Exposure and Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. The coupled
SHEDS-IEUBK model framework was peer reviewed by the EPA in June of
2017 as part of exploratory work into developing a health-based
benchmark for lead in drinking water (ERG, 2017). For further
information on SHEDS-IEUBK model development and evaluation, refer to
Zartarian et al. (2017). As a first step in estimating the blood lead
levels, the EPA utilized the SHEDS-Multimedia model, which can estimate
distributions of lead exposure, using a two-stage Monte Carlo sampling
process, given input lead concentrations in various media and human
behavior data from the EPA's Consolidated Human Activity Database
(CHAD) and CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES). SHEDS-Multimedia, in this case, uses individual time-activity
diaries from CDC's NHANES and the EPA's CHAD for children aged 0 to 7
to simulate longitudinal activity diaries. Information from these
diaries is then combined with relevant lead input distributions (e.g.,
outdoor air lead concentrations, inhalation rates) to estimate
exposure. Drinking water tap concentrations for each of the modeled LSL
and CCT scenarios, above, were used as the drinking water inputs to
SHEDS-Multimedia. For more detail on the other lead exposure pathways
that are held constant as background in the model, see Chapter 6,
section 6.4, of the EA.
In the SHEDS-IEUBK coupled methodology, the SHEDS model takes the
place of the exposure and variability components of the IEUBK model by
generating a probability distribution of lead intakes across media.
These intakes are multiplied by route-specific (e.g., inhalation,
ingestion) absorption fractions to obtain a distribution of lead
uptakes (see Exhibit 6-14 in the EA Chapter 6, section 6.4). This step
is consistent with the uptake estimation that would normally occur
within the IEUBK model. The media specific uptakes can be summed across
exposure routes to give total lead uptake per day. Next, the EPA used
age-based relationships derived from IEUBK, through the use of a
polynomial regression analysis, to relate these total lead uptakes to
blood lead levels. Exhibit 6-14 presents modeled SHEDS-IEUBK blood lead
levels in children by year of life and LSL, CCT status, and POU. The
blood lead levels in this exhibit represent what children's blood lead
level would be if they lived under the corresponding LSL, POU, and CCT
status combination for their entire lives. Note that when ``No LSL'' is
the beginning or post-rule state, 0.75 [micro]g/L is the assumed
concentration across all levels of CCT status (none, partial,
representative). The extent to which changes in CCT status make
meaningful difference in lead concentrations for those without LSL
cannot be determined from this Exhibit.
Exhibit 6-14--Modeled SHEDS-IEUBK Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels in Children for Each Possible Drinking Water Lead Exposure Scenario for Each Year of
Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geometric mean blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) for specified year of life
Lead service line status Corrosion control treatment ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
status 0-1 \a\ 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL........................................ None.......................... 3.75 2.60 2.73 2.59 2.56 2.72 2.45
Partial.................................... None.......................... 2.43 1.88 1.96 1.89 1.87 1.95 1.69
No LSL..................................... None.......................... 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97
LSL........................................ Partial....................... 2.71 2.05 2.20 2.06 2.08 2.17 1.90
Partial.................................... Partial....................... 1.86 1.58 1.65 1.60 1.60 1.66 1.43
No LSL..................................... Partial....................... 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97
LSL........................................ Representative................ 2.14 1.75 1.82 1.73 1.75 1.82 1.57
Partial.................................... Representative................ 1.51 1.41 1.45 1.42 1.40 1.46 1.24
No LSL..................................... Representative................ 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POU 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Due to lack of available data, blood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only.
These represent the blood lead for a child living with the LSL/CCT status in the columns to the left. Each year blood lead corresponding to actual
modeled child is summed and divided by 7 in the model to estimate lifetime average blood lead.
This table presents modeled SHEDS-IEUBK blood lead levels in children by year of life.
The blood lead levels presented in Exhibit 6-14, are used as inputs
for the benefits modeling. For each year of the analysis modeled,
children are assigned blood lead levels, which correspond to a water
lead concentration representing the LSL, POU and CCT status of their
water system (see section 6.3 of the EA). In the proposed LCRR cost-
benefit model, individual children in LSL households for each water
system are tracked as they move from one LSL, CCT status, or POU to
another as a result of LCRR implementation. The tracking occurs for
both the low and high cost scenarios. Because the child's drinking
water lead concentration can change annually in the model, the EPA
chose to estimate lifetime blood lead levels by taking the average
across each year of the child's life, up to age 7. With this averaging,
age at implementation of the LCRR (changing LSL, CCT, or POU status),
is taken into account when calculating lifetime average blood lead
level.
In order to relate the child's estimated lifetime average blood
lead level to an estimate of avoided IQ loss, the EPA selected a
concentration-response function based on lifetime blood lead from the
independent analysis by Crump et al. (2013). This study used data from
a 2005 paper by Lanphear et al., which has formed the basis of
concentration-response functions used
[[Page 61727]]
in several EPA regulations (National Ambient Air Quality Standard,
2008; TSCA Lead Repair and Renovation Rule, 2008; and Steam Electric
Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule, 2005). The Crump et al. (2013)
function was selected over the Lanphear et al. (2005) reanalysis to
minimize issues with overestimating predicted IQ loss at the lowest
levels of lead exposure (less than 1 [micro]g/dL BLL), which is a
result of the use of the log-linear function. The Crump et al. (2013)
function avoids this issue by adding one to the estimated blood lead
levels prior to log-transformation. Since the proposed revisions to the
LCR are expected to reduce chronic exposures to lead, the EPA selected
lifetime blood lead as the most appropriate measure with which to
evaluate benefits. No threshold has been identified for the
neurological effects of lead (Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2013;
Crump et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 1991; USEPA, 2013). Therefore, the
EPA assumes that there is no threshold for this endpoint and quantified
avoided IQ loss associated with all blood lead levels. The EPA, as part
of its sensitivity analysis, estimated the BLL to IQ relationship using
Lanphear et al. (2005) and Kirrane and Patel (2014).\1\ See Chapter 6,
section 6.4.3 and Appendix F of the EA for a more detailed discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lanphear et al. (2005) published a correction in 2019 that
revised the results to be consistent with the Kirrane and Patel
(2014) corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated value of an IQ point decrement is derived from the
EPA's reanalysis of Salkever (1995), which estimates that a one-point
increase in IQ results in a 1.871 percent increase in lifetime earnings
for males and a 3.409 percent change in lifetime earnings for females.
Lifetime earnings are estimated using the average of 10 American
Community Survey (ACS) single-year samples (2008 to 2017) and projected
cohort life tables from the Social Security Administration. Projected
increases in lifetime earnings are then adjusted for the direct costs
of additional years of education and forgone earnings while in school.
The reanalysis of Salkever (1995) estimates a change of 0.0812 years of
schooling per change in IQ point resulting from a reduction in lead
exposure for males and a change of 0.0917 years of schooling for
females.
To estimate the uncertainty underlying the model parameters of the
Salkever (1995) reanalysis, the EPA used a bootstrap approach to
estimate a distribution of model parameters over 10,000 replicates
(using random sampling with replacement). For each replicate, the net
monetized value of a one-point decrease in IQ is subsequently estimated
as the gross value of an IQ point, less the value of additional
education costs and lost earnings while in school. The EPA uses an IQ
point value discounted to age 7. Based on EPA's reanalysis of Salkever
(1995), the mean value of an IQ point in 2016$ discounted to age 7 is
$5,708 using a 7 percent discount rate and $22,503 using a 3 percent
discount rate.\2\ See Appendix F, of the EA for a sensitivity analysis
of avoided IQ loss benefits based on Lin et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It should be noted that these values are slightly different
than those used in other recent rulemaking (e.g., the Lead Dust
Standard and the Perchlorate rule). This is simply due to the
differences in the age of the child when the benefits are accrued in
the analysis. Benefits for the LCRR are accrued at age seven and
therefore the value of an IQ point is discounted back to age 7 in
the LCRR analysis. This results in a slightly higher estimate than
the values used for the Perchlorate Rule and the Lead Dust Standard,
which are discounted to age zero and age three, respectively. It
should also be noted, and is described in Section 6.4.5 of the EA,
that the benefits in the LCRR are further discounted back to year
one of the analysis and annualized within SafeWater LCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA used the estimated changes in lifetime (age 0 to 7) average
blood lead levels that result from changes in LSL, CCT, or POU status
as inputs to the concentration response function from the independent
analysis by Crump et al. (2013). The resultant annual avoided IQ
decrement is then summed and multiplied by the EPA reanalyzed Salkever
(1995) value per IQ point which represent a weighted average for males
and females (3 or 7 percent depending on the discount rate being used
to annualize the stream of benefits across the period of analysis).
This annual stream of benefits was annualized at 3 and 7 percent over
the 35-year period of analysis, and further discounted to year one of
the period of analysis. See Exhibit 6-18 (discounted at 3 percent) and
Exhibit 6-19 (discounted at 7 percent) for the estimated benefit from
avoided IQ losses from both lead service line removals and improvements
to CCT at public water system as a result of the current rule, the
proposed LCR revisions, and the incremental difference between the
current and proposed rule estimates under both the low and high cost
scenarios.
3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
The EPA identified the potential adverse adult health effects
associated with lead utilizing information from the 2013 Integrated
Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program Monograph on
Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (National Toxicology Program, 2012).
In these documents, lead has been associated with adverse
cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects), renal
effects, reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological
effects, and cancer. (see Appendix D of the EA).
Although the EPA did not quantify or monetize changes in adult
health benefits for the proposed LCRR, the Agency has estimated the
potential changes in adult drinking water exposures and thus blood lead
levels to illustrate the extent of the lead reduction to the adult
population estimated as a result of the proposed LCRR. The EPA
estimated blood lead levels in adults for each year of life, beginning
at age 20 and ending with age 80. Males and females are assessed
separately because data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate that men have higher average blood
lead levels than women. To estimate the changes in blood lead levels in
adults associated with the proposed rule, the EPA selected from a
number of available models a modified version of its Adult Lead
Methodology (ALM). The ALM ``uses a simplified representation of lead
biokinetics to predict quasi-steady state blood lead concentrations
among adults who have relatively steady patterns of site exposures''
(USEPA, 2003). The model assumes a linear slope between lead uptake and
blood lead levels, which is termed the ``biokinetic slope factor'' and
is described in more detail in Chapter 6 section 6.5 of the EA.
Although the model was originally developed to estimate blood lead
level impacts from lead in soil, based on the record, the EPA finds the
ALM can be tailored for use in estimating blood lead concentrations in
any adult exposed population and is able to consider other sources of
lead exposure, such as contaminated drinking water. The biokinetic
slope factor of 0.4 [micro]g/dL per [micro]g/day is still valid for use
in the case of drinking water since it is in part derived from studies
that measure both adult blood lead levels and concentrations of lead in
drinking water (Pocock et al., 1983; Sherlock et al., 1982).
The EPA estimated expected BLLs for adults with the ALM using the
lead tap water concentration data by LSL, CCT, and POU status derived
from the profile dataset, discussed in section VI.D.1 and shown in
Exhibit 6-14 of this notice. For the background blood lead levels in
the model, the EPA used geometric mean blood lead levels for males and
females for each year of life between
[[Page 61728]]
ages 20 and 80 from NHANES 2011-2016, which may result in some minor
double counting of exposure from drinking water. Exhibit 6-15 displays
the estimated blood lead levels for adults by each LSL, POU or CCT
combination summarized by age groups (blood lead values for each year
of age are used to determine average BLL). The EPA also estimated BLLs
using output for other exposure pathways from SHEDS in the ALM and the
All Ages Lead Model, these results are shown in Appendix F of the EA.
The All Ages Lead Model results are not used in the primary analysis
because an ongoing peer review of the model has not been completed.
Exhibit 6-15--Estimates of Blood Lead Levels in Adults Associated With Drinking Water Lead Exposures From LSL/CCT or POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geometric mean blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) for specified age
Corrosion control group in years
Lead service line status treatment status Sex -----------------------------------------------------------------
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL................................. None................... Males.................. 1.90 2.05 2.26 2.46 2.66 2.93
Females................ 1.60 1.73 1.92 2.25 2.38 2.55
Partial............................. None................... Males.................. 1.33 1.46 1.67 1.87 2.04 2.28
Females................ 1.03 1.14 1.34 1.66 1.77 1.91
No LSL.............................. None................... Males.................. 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75
Females................ 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38
LSL................................. Partial................ Males.................. 1.47 1.61 1.82 2.02 2.20 2.44
Females................ 1.17 1.29 1.48 1.81 1.92 2.07
Partial............................. Partial................ Males.................. 1.13 1.25 1.46 1.66 1.83 2.05
Females................ 0.83 0.93 1.13 1.45 1.55 1.68
No LSL.............................. Partial................ Males.................. 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75
Females................ 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38
LSL................................. Representative......... Males.................. 1.23 1.36 1.56 1.76 1.93 2.16
Females................ 0.93 1.03 1.23 1.56 1.66 1.79
Partial............................. Representative......... Males.................. 1.01 1.13 1.34 1.54 1.70 1.92
Females................ 0.71 0.81 1.01 1.33 1.43 1.55
No LSL.............................. Representative......... Males.................. 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75
Females................ 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POU Males.................. 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75
Females................ 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the analysis of childhood IQ impacts section VI.D.2
of this notice), the estimated BLLs in Exhibit 6-15 are average adult
annual blood lead levels given the corresponding estimated lead tap
water concentrations resulting from LSL, CCT, and POU status. In the
proposed LCR revisions cost-benefit model, individual males and females
in LSL households for each water system are tracked as they move from
one LSL, CCT, or POU status to another as a result of rule
implementation. Exhibit 6-16 shows the estimated changes in average
lifetime blood lead levels for adults that move from the set of initial
LSL, CCT, and POU status combinations to a new status as a result of
LSL removal, and/or installation of CCT or POU. Note that when ``No
LSL'' is the beginning or post-rule state, 0.75 [mu]g/L is the assumed
concentration across all levels of CCT status (none, partial,
representative). The extent to which changes in CCT status make
meaningful difference in lead concentrations for those without LSL
cannot be determined from this Exhibit.
Exhibit 6-16--Estimated Lifetime Average Blood Lead Change for Adults Moving Between LSL, CCT, and POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-rule drinking water Post-rule drinking water Estimated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- average blood
lead change
(in geometric
Lead conc. means)
Lead conc. ([micro]g/L) LSL status CCT status ([micro]g/L) LSL status CCT status ----------------
Ages 20-80
([micro]g/dL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.62............................ LSL................. None................ 0.75 No LSL............. None............... 1.09
18.62............................ LSL................. None................ 7.01 LSL................ Representative..... 0.71
18.62............................ LSL................. None................ 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 1.09
------------------------------------------
18.62............................ LSL................. None................ 0.75 POU 1.09
------------------------------------------
8.78............................. Partial............. None................ 0.75 No LSL............. None............... 0.49
8.78............................. Partial............. None................ 3.3 Partial............ Representative..... 0.34
8.78............................. Partial............. None................ 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.49
------------------------------------------
8.78............................. Partial............. None................ 0.75 POU 0.49
------------------------------------------
[[Page 61729]]
0.75............................. No LSL.............. None................ 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.00
------------------------------------------
0.75............................. No LSL.............. None................ 0.75 POU 0.00
------------------------------------------
11.27............................ LSL................. Partial............. 0.75 No LSL............. Partial............ 0.64
11.27............................ LSL................. Partial............. 7.01 LSL................ Representative..... 0.26
11.27............................ LSL................. Partial............. 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.64
------------------------------------------
11.27............................ LSL................. Partial............. 0.75 POU 0.64
------------------------------------------
5.32............................. Partial............. Partial............. 0.75 No LSL............. Partial............ 0.28
5.32............................. Partial............. Partial............. 3.3 Partial............ Representative..... 0.12
5.32............................. Partial............. Partial............. 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.28
------------------------------------------
5.32............................. Partial............. Partial............. 0.75 POU 0.28
------------------------------------------
0.75............................. No LSL.............. Partial............. 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.00
------------------------------------------
0.75............................. No LSL.............. Partial............. 0.75 POU 0.00
------------------------------------------
7.01............................. LSL................. Representative...... 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.38
------------------------------------------
7.01............................. LSL................. Representative...... 0.75 POU 0.38
------------------------------------------
3.3.............................. Partial............. Representative...... 0.75 No LSL............. Representative..... 0.16
------------------------------------------
3.3.............................. Partial............. Representative...... 0.75 POU 0.16
------------------------------------------
0.75............................. No LSL.............. Representative...... 0.75 POU 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Total Monetized Benefits
Exhibits 6-17 and 6-18 show the estimated, monetized national
annualized total benefits, under the low and high cost scenarios, from
avoided child IQ decrements associated with the current LCR, the
proposed LCRR, and the increment of change between the two, for CCT
improvements, LSLR, and POU devise implementation discounted at 3 and 7
percent, respectively. The potential changes in adult blood lead levels
estimated from changing LSL and CCT status under the proposed LCRR can
be found in section VI.D.3 of this notice and Chapter 6 of the EA. The
impact of lead on the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
and reductions in birth weight are discussed in Appendix H of the EA.
It should also be noted that because of the lack of granularity in the
assembled lead concentration profile data, with regard to CCT status
when samples were collected (see section VI.D.1 of this notice), the
benefits of small improvements in CCT, like those modeled under the
``find-and-fix,'' cannot be quantified in the model. For additional
information on non-quantified benefits see section VI.E.2 of this
notice.
Exhibit 6-17--Summary of Estimated National Annual Benefits, 3% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System type: All estimate Low cost estimate High cost estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated child IQ benefits Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years)............ 71,449 1,148,110 1,076,661 1,034,170 3,431,200 2,397,030
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT)................ 431 8,764 8,333 6,875 28,127 21,252
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT)............... $7,300,000 $152,661,000 $145,361,000 $129,985,000 $521,356,000 $391,371,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR/POU)........... 297 4,010 3,713 5,065 12,011 6,946
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR/POU).......... $5,091,000 $70,811,000 $65,720,000 $99,412,000 $229,200,000 $129,788,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided........... $12,391,000 $223,472,000 $211,081,000 $229,397,000 $750,556,000 $521,159,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table summarizes the national annual children's benefit for a 3 percent discount rate under High & Low Cost assumptions. This table uses a 3%
discount rate over the 35 year analysis period. Children are modeled throughout their lifetime, and their drinking water concentration and BLL can
change in each year of the analysis as CCT, POU or LSL changes happen in their modeled PWS.
[[Page 61730]]
Exhibit 6-18--Summary of Estimated National Annual Benefits, 7% Discount Rate
[2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System type: All estimate Low cost estimate High cost estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated child IQ benefits Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental Current LCR Proposed LCRR Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years)............ 71,449 1,148,110 1,076,661 1,034,170 3,431,200 2,397,030
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT)................ 431 8,764 8,333 6,875 28,127 21,252
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT)............... $1,201,000 $26,219,000 $25,018,000 $25,008,000 $97,772,000 $72,764,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR/POU)........... 297 4,010 3,713 5,065 12,011 6,946
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR/POU).......... $858,000 $12,453,000 $11,595,000 $20,311,000 $45,005,000 $24,694,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided........... $2,059,000 $38,671,000 $36,612,000 $45,319,000 $142,778,000 $97,459,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table summarizes the national annual children's benefit for a 7 percent discount rate under High & Low Cost assumptions. This table uses a 7%
discount rate over the 35 year analysis period. Children are modeled throughout their lifetime, and their drinking water concentration and BLL can
change in each year of the analysis as CCT, POU or LSL changes happen in their modeled PWS.
E. Cost-Benefit Comparison
This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the proposed
LCR revisions. The section also discusses both the non-monetized costs
and benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 6-19 and 6-20 compare the
annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the proposed
LCRR for the low and high cost scenarios. Under a 3 percent discount
rate, the net annualized incremental benefits, under the low and high
cost scenarios, range from $79 to $251 million. Under the low and high
cost scenarios and a 7 percent discount rate, the net annualized
incremental benefits range from a negative $91 to negative $189
million.
Exhibit 6-19--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized Incremental Costs to Benefits of the
Proposed LCRR at 3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost High cost
scenario scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs.................................................. $131,987,000 $269,989,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits............................................... 211,081,000 521,159,000
---------------------------------
Annual Net Benefits....................................................... 79,094,000 251,170,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-20--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized Incremental Costs to Benefits of the
Proposed LCRR at 7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost High cost
scenario scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs.................................................. $130,104,000 $286,219,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits............................................... 36,612,000 97,459,000
---------------------------------
Annual Net Benefits....................................................... -91,492,000 -188,760,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-Monetized Costs
The proposed LCRR are expected to result in additional phosphate
being added to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching
into the water in the distribution system. The EPA's cost model
estimated that, nationwide, the proposed LCRR will result in total
incremental phosphorus loads increasing over the period of analysis,
under the low cost and high cost scenarios, by a range of 202,000 to
460,000 pounds fifteen years after promulgation, and increasing under
the low cost and high cost scenarios by a range of 461,000 to 685,000
pounds at year 35. At the national level, under the high cost scenario,
this additional phosphorous loading is small, less than 0.09 percent of
the total phosphorous load deposited annually from all other
anthropogenic sources. However, national average load impacts may
obscure significant localized ecological impacts. Impacts, such as
eutrophication, may occur in water bodies without restrictions on
phosphate deposits, or in locations with existing elevated phosphate
levels. See Chapter 5, section 5.5.4 of the EA for additional
information.
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
In addition to the benefits monetized in the proposed rule analysis
for reductions in lead exposure, there are several other benefits that
are not quantified. The risk of adverse health effects due to lead that
are expected to decrease as a result of the proposed LCRR are
summarized in Appendix D of the EA and are expected to affect both
children and adults. The EPA focused its non-quantified impacts
assessment on the endpoint identified using two comprehensive U.S.
Government documents summarizing the recent literature on lead exposure
health impacts. These documents are the EPA's Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program Monograph on
Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (National Toxicology Program (NTP),
2012). Both of these sources present comprehensive reviews of the
literature on the risk of adverse health effects associated with lead
exposure. The EPA summarized those endpoints to which either the EPA
ISA or the NTP Lead Monograph assigned
[[Page 61731]]
one of the top two tiers of confidence in the relationship between lead
exposure and the risk of adverse health effects. These endpoints
include: Cardiovascular effects, renal effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, immunological effects, neurological effects, and
cancer.
There are a number of proposed rule requirements that reduce lead
exposure to both children and adults that the EPA could not quantify.
The proposed rule would require additional lead public education
requirements that target consumers directly, schools and child care
facilities, health agencies, and specifically people living in homes
with lead service lines. Increased education will lead to additional
averting behavior on the part of the exposed public, resulting in
reductions in the negative impacts of lead. The proposed rule also
would require the development of lead service line inventories and
making the location of lead service lines publicly accessible. This
would give exposed consumers more information, and it would provide
potential home buyers this information as well, possibly resulting in
additional lead service line removals initiated by homeowners before,
during, or following home sale transactions. The benefits of these
additional removals are not quantified in the analysis of the proposed
LCRR. As indicated in section VI.D.4 of this notice, because of the
lack of granularity in the lead tap water concentration data available
to the EPA for the proposed rule analysis, the benefits of small
improvements in CCT to individuals residing in homes with LSLs, like
those modeled under the ``find-and-fix,'' are not quantified.
The EPA also did not quantify the benefits of reduced lead exposure
to individuals who reside in homes that do not have lead service lines.
The EPA has determined that the revised LCR requirements may result in
reduced lead exposure to the occupants of these buildings as a result
of improved monitoring and additional actions to optimize CCT. In the
analysis of the proposed LCRR, the number of non-LSL homes potentially
affected by water systems increasing their corrosion control during the
35-year period of analysis is 14 million in the low cost scenario and
26 million in the high cost scenario. These households, while not
having an LSL in place, may still contain leaded plumbing materials,
including leaded brass fixtures, and lead solder. These households
could potentially see reductions in lead tap water concentrations. The
EPA has assessed the potential benefits to children of reducing lead
water concentrations in these homes (see Appendix F of the EA) but has
determined that the data are too limited and the uncertainties too
significant to include in the quantified and monetized benefit
estimates of this regulation.
Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with
copper that are expected to be reduced by the proposed LCRR are
summarized in Appendix E of the EA. These risks include acute
gastrointestinal symptoms, which are the most common adverse effect
observed among adults and children. In sensitive groups, there may be
reductions in chronic hepatic effects, particularly for those with rare
conditions such as Wilson's disease and children pre-disposed to
genetic cirrhosis syndromes. These diseases disrupt copper homeostasis,
leading to excessive accumulation that can be worsened by excessive
copper ingestion (National Research Council, 2000).
F. Other Regulatory Options Considered
The Office of Management and Budget recommends careful
consideration ``of all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes
or provisions of a rule (Office of Management and Budget, 2003).''
Pursuant to this guidance, the EPA considered other regulatory options
when developing the proposed LCRR related to:
The lead in drinking water sampling program at schools and
licensed child care facilities,
The lead tap sampling protocol requirements for water
systems with LSLs, and
LSL locational information to be made publicly available.
Providing small system flexibility to CWSs that serve a
population of 3,300 or less.
Exhibit 6-21 provides a summary of the proposed requirement and
other option considered for these four areas.
Exhibit 6-21--Summary of Other Options Considered for the Proposed LCRR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other option
Area Proposed LCRR considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead in Drinking Water Mandatory program: Upon request
Sampling Program at Schools 20% of program:
and Licensed Child Care schools and Schools and
Facilities. licensed child care licensed child care
facilities tested facilities would be
annually. tested upon
5 samples request.
per school. 5 samples
2 samples per school.
per licensed child 2 samples
care facility. per licensed child
care facility.
Lead Tap Sampling Systems Systems
Requirements for Systems with LSLs collect with LSLs collect
with Lead Service Lines 100% of their 100% of their
(LSLs). samples from LSLs samples from LSLs
sites, if sites, if
available. available.
Samples are Samples are
first liter, fifth liter,
collected after 6- collected after 6-
hour minimum hour minimum
stagnation time.. stagnation time.
Publicly Available LSL Systems report a Systems report the
Locational Information. location identifier exact street
(e.g., street, address of customer-
intersection, owned portion of
landmark) for LSLs
customer-owned
portion of LSLs.
Small System Flexibility.... CWSs that serve CWSs that serve
10,000 or less 3,300 or less
people, and all people, and all
NTNCWSs, are NTNCWSs, are
provided compliance provided compliance
flexibility when flexibility when
they exceed the AL. they exceed the AL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The fifth liter sample is intended to be representative of water
residing in the LSL.
1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care
Facilities Option
The EPA is proposing that all CWSs conduct a mandatory sampling and
public education program for schools and licensed child care facilities
that they serve. The EPA is also considering an ``upon request'' option
that would contain the same components of the mandatory program under
the proposed LCR revisions but would limit the sampling program to K-12
schools or child care facilities served by the water system that
request testing. CWSs would be required to annually contact these
facilities about this lead sampling program.
[[Page 61732]]
For the ``upon request'' option, the EPA assumed that five percent
of schools and licensed child care facilities per year would elect to
participate in the sampling program and that CWSs would contact each
facility annually to determine its interest in the program in lieu of
developing a sampling schedule for each facility. CWSs would only be
required to sample at those facilities that request this sampling. As
shown in Exhibit 6-22, the ``upon request'' option is estimated to be
less costly than the proposed option. However, the cost of the ``upon
request'' option is highly dependent on the percentage of facilities
that request to participate in the sampling program. In addition, there
is a great degree of uncertainty regarding the percentage of facilities
that will request this sampling and how this interest may fluctuate
over time.
Exhibit 6-22--National Annualized Costs for School Sampling Options
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost Annualized cost
Option at 3% discount at 7% discount
rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR: Mandatory Program.............................................. $28,540,000 $27,520,000
Other Option Considered: Upon Request Program................................. 10,430,000 10,047,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead Service
Lines
The EPA is proposing that water systems with LSLs collect all one-
liter, first-draw tap samples from sites served by LSLs as opposed to a
minimum of 50 percent as currently required. As noted in section
III.E.1 of this notice, tap sample sites served by an LSL are at the
highest risk for elevated lead levels in drinking water, therefore, the
EPA is revising the tap sample site selection criteria to ensure water
systems with LSLs use those sites for lead tap sampling. The EPA is
proposing to retain the first draw sampling procedure because this
approach has been effectively implemented by water systems and can
identify when systems must take additional actions to address elevated
lead exposure. However, studies have shown LSLs to be one of the
greatest contributors to lead, and first-draw samples of one-liter may
not capture water that has sat in the lead service line, which may
contain the highest lead in drinking water levels. When the 1991 LCR
was promulgated, the best available data was first draw one-liter
samples. Recent studies have been conducted to identify which liter
from the tap best captures the highest level of lead that could
potentially be consumed by residents. The EPA has evaluated these
studies and determined that a fifth liter tap sample may be a more
conservative option than a first-draw sample, because it would capture
water from the lead service line, and sample results would
theoretically result in more protective measures, even though it is
unlikely that any given person consistently drinks water at the level
of the fifth liter draw. Therefore, the EPA is considering a ``fifth-
liter option.'' To take a fifth liter tap sample, the person sampling,
in accordance with all proposed tap sampling revisions, would fill a
one-gallon container that would not be analyzed, then immediately
collect a one-liter sample for lead in a separate bottle without
turning off the tap. While technically this is not the fifth liter of
water, the EPA will refer to this sample as the fifth liter.
Under this proposal, copper samples would continue to be first-
draw, which would necessitate collection of two tap samples using
different protocols at each sampling site for systems with LSLs.
Collection of tap samples for both lead and copper at a single tap
sample site could not be achieved on the same day under the alternative
option above. To accomplish tap sampling for both lead and copper on a
single visit would require collection of five consecutive one liter tap
samples without turning the tap off. The first liter would be analyzed
for copper and the fifth liter would be analyzed for lead. This
procedure significantly complicates tap sample collection and may
introduce error, such as misidentifying the correct liter for the two
different analyses. Due to this complexity, copper samples may need to
be collected on a different day to meet stagnation time and first draw
requirements in the current LCR. The EPA requests comment on the
feasibility of the fifth liter collection option.
The EPA expects that the fifth liter sampling for LSL water systems
will increase the percent of water systems with a trigger level
exceedance or action level exceedance and the probability that
individual tap samples would exceed 15 [micro]g/L. The EPA estimated
that the number and percentage of LSL water systems with an action
level exceedance would be two to three times higher under the fifth
liter option for water systems without and with CCT, respectively, than
the proposed LCR revisions. The EPA also estimated a larger number and
percentage of water systems would have a trigger level exceedance under
the fifth liter option, while the number and percentages of LSL water
systems with no trigger level exceedance or action level exceedance
would be lower. Note that these numbers would not change for non-LSL
water systems under the fifth liter option compared to the proposed LCR
revisions since the requirement to collect a fifth liter would only
apply to LSL water systems.
Exhibits 6-23 and 6-24 provide the national annualized rule costs
and benefits, under the low cost scenario, discounted at 3 and 7
percent, for the current rule, proposed LCRR, and the fifth liter
option. Exhibits 6-25 and 6-26 provide the high cost scenario national
annualized rule costs and benefits at the 3 and 7 percent discount
rates. The EPA predicts higher State oversight costs, LSLR costs
assigned to households, and wastewater treatment plant costs associated
with CCT under the fifth liter option than under the proposed LCRR and
current rule. At a 3 percent discount rate, the EPA estimates higher
total benefits under the fifth liter option ($429 to $946 million)
compared to the proposed LCRR ($223 to $751 million) and current rule
($12 to $229 million) based on estimated IQ point decrement avoided
benefits. The EPA estimates that the cost of the rule will be higher
under the fifth liter option ($543 to $762 million) compared to the
proposed LCRR ($509 to $708 million) and current rule ($377 to 438
million) because more water systems will be required to conduct
additional tap sampling and treatment requirements in response to
higher measured fifth liter tap sample lead levels.
At a 7 percent discount rate, the EPA estimates higher total
benefits under the fifth liter option ($76 to $178 million) compared to
the proposed LCRR ($39 to $143 million) and current rule ($2 to
[[Page 61733]]
$45 million) based on estimated IQ point decrement avoided benefits.
The EPA estimates that the cost of the rule will be higher under the
fifth liter option ($524 to $777 million) compared to the proposed LCRR
($489 to $721 million) and current rule ($359 to $435 million) because
more water systems will be required to conduct additional tap sampling
and treatment requirements in response to higher measured fifth liter
tap sample lead levels.
Exhibit 6-23--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the Low Cost Scenario at 3% Discount Rate Current
Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option
Benefit/cost category Current LCR ---------------------------------------------------------------
total Total Incremental Total Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......... $376,857,000 $508,762,000 $131,905,000 $543,079,000 $166,222,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......... 370,631,000 481,688,000 111,057,000 512,176,000 141,545,000
Total Annual Benefits........... 12,391,000 223,472,000 211,081,000 428,597,000 416,206,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-24--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the Low Cost Scenario at 7% Discount Rate Current
Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option
Benefit/cost category Current LCR ---------------------------------------------------------------
total Total Incremental Total Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......... $359,230,000 $489,253,000 $130,023,000 $523,524,000 $164,294,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......... 353,067,000 461,889,000 108,822,000 491,005,000 137,938,000
Total Annual Benefits........... 2,059,000 38,671,000 36,612,000 75,895,000 73,836,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-25--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the High Cost Scenario at 3% Discount Rate Current
Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option
Benefit/cost category Current LCR ---------------------------------------------------------------
total Total Incremental Total Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......... $438,408,000 $708,314,000 $269,906,000 $762,023,000 $323,615,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......... 421,766,000 663,931,000 242,165,000 717,537,000 295,771,000
Total Annual Benefits........... 229,397,000 750,556,000 521,159,000 946,051,000 716,654,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-26--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the High Cost Scenario at 7% Discount Rate Current
Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option
Benefit/cost category Current LCR ---------------------------------------------------------------
total Total Incremental Total Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......... $435,144,000 $721,282,000 $286,138,000 $777,471,000 $342,327,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......... 414,405,000 672,615,000 258,210,000 728,865,000 314,460,000
Total Annual Benefits........... 45,319,000 142,778,000 97,459,000 178,024,000 132,705,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information
The EPA is proposing to require water systems to make their LSL
inventory publicly available with a locational identifier associated
with each LSL. The EPA is not proposing that address-level information
must be provided to protect information regarding real property (see
section II.E.3 of this notice). Public disclosure of the LSL inventory
would increase transparency and consumer awareness of the extent of
LSLs in the distribution system. The EPA is considering an additional
option in which systems with LSLs would be required to make the address
associated with each LSL publicly available. Available information
indicates that prospective buyers and renters value reductions in risks
associated with LSLs. Public disclosure of LSL locations can create an
incentive, through increased property values or home sale incentives,
to replace LSLs.
The EPA anticipates that the costs between these two options would
be similar because the system would use the same method for publicly
providing and maintaining information regarding its LSL information and
LSL locational information, e.g., posting information to the water
system's website. The EPA anticipates the benefits between the address-
level and location identifier options would be similar.
4. Small System Flexibility
As discussed in section III.E of this notice, the proposed LCRR
includes significant flexibility for CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer
people, and all
[[Page 61734]]
NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an action level exceedance, they can choose
from three options (modeled in the cost-benefit model) to reduce the
concentration of lead in their water. These options are: (1) Replace
seven percent of their baseline number of LSLs per year until all LSLs
are replaced; (2) optimize existing CCT or install new CCT; (3) Provide
POU devices to all customers. The EPA is proposing the above three
flexibilities for NTNCWS and an additional option of replacement of all
lead bearing plumbing fixtures at every tap where water could be used
for human consumption.
The EPA is considering limiting small system flexibility to CWSs
that serve 3,300 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6-27 and 6-
28 provide the range of the estimated incremental annualized rule costs
and benefits, under both the low and high cost scenarios, for the
proposed LCRR and the alternative small system flexibility option at a
3% and 7% discount rate, respectively.
Exhibit 6-27--Estimated National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs at 3% Discount Rate for the Proposed LCRR and
Alternative Small System Flexibility Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR: Small system Alternative small system
flexibility for CWSs serving flexibility option: CWSs
<=10,000 people and all serving <=3,300 people and all
Benefit/cost category NTNCWSs NTNCWSs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost High cost Low cost High cost
scenario scenario scenario scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......................... $131,987,000 $269,989,000 $134,385,000 $292,863,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......................... 111,057,000 242,165,000 112,734,000 260,053,000
Total Annual Benefits........................... 211,081,000 521,159,000 215,070,000 548,382,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 6-28--National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs at 7% Discount Rate for the Proposed LCRR and
Alternative Small System Flexibility Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed LCRR: Small system Alternative small system
flexibility for CWSs serving flexibility option: CWSs
<=10,000 people and all serving <=3,300 people and all
Benefit/cost category NTNCWSs NTNCWSs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost High cost Low cost High cost
scenario scenario scenario scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs......................... $130,104,000 $286,219,000 $132,748,000 $314,163,000
Total Annual PWS Costs.......................... 108,822,000 258,210,000 110,742,000 280,731,000
Total Annual Benefits........................... 36,612,000 97,459,000 37,310,000 102,741,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Cost-Benefit Determination
The Administrator has determined that the quantified and non-
quantified benefits of the proposed LCR revisions justify the costs.
Under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA,
when the EPA proposes a NPDWR that includes a treatment technique, the
Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on an analysis of
the health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to be experienced
as the result of compliance with the treatment technique and
alternative treatment techniques that are being considered. Sections
VI.A through F of this notice summarize the results of this proposed
rule analysis. As indicated in section VI.E of this notice, the
monetized costs and benefits result in net annualized incremental
benefits that range from $79 to $251 million, under the low and high
cost scenarios at a 3 percent discount rate. Under the low and high
cost scenarios at a 7 percent discount rate, the net annualized
incremental benefits range from a negative $91 to negative $189
million.
In addition to the monetized benefits of the proposed rule, a
number of potentially significant non-quantified and non-monetized
sources of benefit exist that further strengthen the determination of
benefits justifying costs. The harmful impacts of lead exposure
include: Cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects),
renal effects, reproductive and developmental effects, immunological
effects, neurological effects, and cancer. The EPA has only monetized a
portion of the benefits associated with neurodevelopmental endpoints.
Although the EPA did estimate the reductions to adult blood lead levels
that could potentially result from changes to LSL and CCT status, the
Agency did not quantify or monetize the potential benefits associated
with reductions in adverse cardiovascular effects, renal effects,
reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological effects, and
cancer. The EPA analysis has not quantified the positive impacts from
increases in consumer averting behavior and the potential for customer
initiated LSLR due to the proposed rule's additional lead public
education requirements that target all potential affected consumers
directly, schools and child care facilities, health agencies, and
people living in homes with LSLs; and the development of LSL
inventories with the requirement for public access to the information.
The analysis was also unable to quantify the potentially significant
benefits of reducing lead concentrations in drinking water from:
Households without LSLs in water systems where the proposed rule
triggered an installation or re-optimization of CCT; and all households
in systems implementing small improvement in CCT because of the ``find-
and-fix'' proposed rule requirements.
VII. Request for Comment
The EPA is requesting comments upon all aspects of the proposed
revisions described in this notice. While all comments relevant to the
LCR revisions proposed in this notice will be considered by the EPA,
comments on the following issues will be especially helpful to the EPA
in developing a final
[[Page 61735]]
rule. The EPA specifically requests comment on the following issues.
General Matters
The EPA is requesting comment on the overall framework for the
proposed LCR revisions. Has the EPA developed proposed revisions that
address the variability in conditions among the regulated water systems
that effect the levels of lead that may be present in drinking water?
Do the proposed revisions to the LCR target the appropriate treatment
technique actions to prevent known or anticipated adverse health
effects to the extent feasible in accordance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA)?
The EPA requests comment on the complexity of the regulatory
requirements that result from targeting different actions for different
types of water systems and challenges States and water systems will
encounter.
The EPA requests comment on ways that the proposed LCR revisions
could be simplified and burden, including paperwork burden, could be
reduced while still assuring adverse health effects are prevented to
the extent feasible. The EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve
the ability of State or Federal government to enforce this rule. The
EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve the ability of State or
Federal government to assist water systems with compliance.
Trigger Level
The EPA requests comment on the proposed trigger level of 10
[micro]g/L and the actions water systems must take if they exceed this
trigger level. Does this level represent an appropriate 90th percentile
level at which to require systems to initiate progressive actions to
reduce drinking water lead levels? The EPA requests comment on other
90th percentile level thresholds that would be reasonable for water
systems to initiate progressive actions to reduce drinking water lead
levels.
Lead Service Line Requirements
The EPA requests comment on the feasibility of creating initial
lead service line inventories by the compliance date, which is three
years after publication of the final rule, and if a different frequency
(other than annual) would be more appropriate for inventory updates.
The EPA requests comment on whether additional requirements or guidance
are needed relating to the content or format of inventories. The EPA
also requests comment on the actions that system with limited records
can take to improve their understanding of the number and location of
lead service lines in their water system.
The EPA request comment on whether small water systems should be
exempt from the requirement to prepare a LSLR plan concurrent with
their LSL inventory, given that they may opt not to select LSLR as a
compliance option if the action level is exceeded.
The EPA requests comment on including galvanized pipe in lead
service line (LSL) inventories and in goal-based and mandatory lead
service line replacement (LSLR) rates under the proposed LCR revisions.
The EPA requests comment on the treatment of unknown service lines
in the inventory.
The EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should require water
systems to distribute education materials to homes with unknown service
lines to inform them of the potential for their line to be made of lead
and the actions they can take to reduce their exposure to drinking
water lead.
The EPA requests comment on proposed revisions to the lead service
line replacement program requirements.
The EPA requests comment on the goal-based lead service line
requirement for systems that exceed the trigger level. Does the goal
based LSLR requirement provide adequate incentives for water systems to
achieve meaningful reductions in their lead service line inventory?
Does the goal based program enable systems to effectively incorporate
LSLR into their infrastructure replacement programs? The EPA requests
comment on what criteria must be met for the EPA to establish a federal
goal rate for water system under Sec. 142.19.
The EPA also requests comment upon the feasibility of replacing a
minimum of three percent of the lead service lines a year for the
systems that exceed the action level. The EPA requests comment on
whether the number of lines required to be replaced should be three
percent of the number of lead service lines plus the number of unknown
service lines at the time the systems exceeds the action level.
The EPA requests comment on the feasibility for a water system to
replace its portion of an LSL within 45 days of being notified that a
customer has replaced the customer portion of an LSL. Should this time
frame be longer? Should this time frame be shorter? The EPA also
requests comment on whether such replacement by a water system should
be mandatory or voluntary.
The EPA requests comment on how water systems that are conducting
LSLR can identify and prioritize replacements at the locations that
have the highest lead levels and/or the most susceptible populations.
The EPA requests comment on whether to require water systems to
describe in their LSLR plan, how LSLR will be prioritized or to require
a prioritization plan at the time LSLR is compelled.
The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of requiring
two years of tap sample monitoring before water systems may stop LSLR.
Under this proposal, corrosion control treatment (CCT) or re-
optimization of CCT may not immediately reduce lead levels at the tap.
The EPA proposes that two years of monitoring would be enough time to
evaluate and ensure these measures consistently reduce lead to meet the
action level.
The EPA requests comment on requiring systems with LSLs to make
publicly available the exact address of the LSL in the inventory
instead of a location identifier (street, intersection, landmark) as
proposed. As discussed in section VI of this notice, the EPA estimates
that the costs and benefits of this alternative would be similar to the
proposal.
The EPA request comment on the appropriateness of pitcher filters
for risk mitigation after LSLR or LSL disturbances given that the
customer would be responsible for operation and maintenance.
Corrosion Control Treatment
The EPA is requesting comment on the proposed CCT re-optimization
requirements. EPA requests comment upon the potential actions water
systems could take to adjust their corrosion control treatment and how
they should work with the State to determine if adjustments to the
treatment would better optimize corrosion control.
Tap Sampling
The EPA is requesting comment on an alternative revision to the
LCR's existing tap sample collection method provisions. In promulgating
the LCR, the EPA noted ``the rule contains other procedures to ensure
that excessive lead and/or copper levels would be detected in
monitoring by requiring, for example, sampling of the first liter of
water from the tap after water has been standing for at least six
hours, conditions under which higher than average contaminant levels
are likely to occur'' (58 FR 26514). The EPA continues to believe that
first draw sampling following a 6-hour stagnation period is an
effective technique to determine when optimal corrosion control
treatment is being maintained. However, the EPA notes
[[Page 61736]]
that research using sequential tap sample collection techniques on
homes with LSLs indicates that a first draw sample may not represent
the significant contributions of LSLs (Lytle et al., 2019). The EPA
evaluated the feasibility of conducting sequential sampling techniques
for every tap sample site for the public water systems that are subject
to the LCR. The EPA finds it is not feasible due to the complexity of
the sequential sampling technique, the number of samples that must be
analyzed and the difficulty of interpreting the results from multiple
tap samples. However, the EPA is requesting comment on whether water
systems with lead service lines should be required to collect tap
samples that are representative of water that was in contact with lead
service lines during the 6-hour stagnation period.
The EPA requests comment on an alternative tap sampling technique
for sampling locations with LSLs. The EPA requests comment on requiring
tap samplers to collect the first gallon of water from the tap
following the stagnation period (referred to as the fifth liter), then
to collect a one-liter sample for analysis. The sampler would be
instructed to pour out the gallon container or to use it for other
purposes (e.g., watering plants) and to submit the one-liter tap sample
for analysis. The EPA finds this approach would be more representative
of lead concentrations in service lines (Del Toral, 2013) and would be
more likely to identify a greater number of water systems that would be
required to take action to address elevated levels of lead. The EPA has
included an analysis of the costs and benefits of this option in
Section VI of this notice and Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a). The EPA also
requests comment on how the EPA could develop tap sample protocols that
would allow for collection of a first draw copper sample and a fifth
liter lead tap sample during a single tap sample event. The EPA
requests data that demonstrate collecting a tap sample liter (i.e., 5th
liter) other than a first draw is more representative of water that has
been in contact with a lead service line during the six hour stagnation
period.
The EPA is proposing to require that all water systems that change
their source water or make significant treatment changes obtain
approval from their primacy agency prior to making the change. The EPA
expects that in addition to evaluating and mitigating the impacts of
the source water change or treatment change on corrosion control, many
primacy agencies will require the water systems to conduct more
frequent tap sampling following the change in treatment or source. The
EPA requests comment on whether the regulation should specify a minimum
tap sampling frequency of once every six months or once per year
following the source water change or significant treatment change.
Testing in Schools and Child Care Facilities
The EPA requests comment on whether it should revise the rule to
require community water systems (CWSs) to offer to collect samples from
schools and child care facilities every five years or to collect
samples from a school or a child care facility only if requested. The
CWS would still be required to provide the schools and child care
facilities information on the health effects and sources of lead in
drinking water, and the 3Ts guidance. Under this approach, CWS would be
able to respond to requests for sampling in a way that allows the water
system to spread out the cost burden over multiple years (i.e., delay
fulfilment of requests to future years) if the water system samples at
a minimum of five percent of schools and child care facilities each
year. Additionally, a facility could decline the offer. The EPA has
included an analysis of the costs and benefits of this option in
section VI of this notice and Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a).
Small System Flexibilities
The EPA is proposing that small system flexibilities be allowed for
CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all NTNCWS. The EPA request
comment on whether this flexibility is needed by systems serving
between 3,301 and 10,000 persons and whether a different threshold is
more appropriate. EPA requests comment on whether different
flexibilities would be more appropriate for small systems whether
defined as water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons or 3,300 or
fewer persons.
Public Education and Outreach
The EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should require water
systems to distribute education materials to homes with unknown service
line types to inform them of the potential for their line to be made of
lead and the actions they can take to reduce their exposure to drinking
water lead.
The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of required
outreach activities a water system would conduct if they do not meet
the goal LSLR rate in response to a trigger level exceedance. The EPA
also requests comments on other actions or additional outreach efforts
water systems could take to meet their LSLR goal rate.
The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness, frequency, and
content of required outreach to State and local health agencies and
whether the requirement should apply only to a subset of the country's
community water systems.
Economic Analysis
The EPA is soliciting comment on all aspects of the analysis for
this rule. The agency offers a fulsome discussion on assumptions,
models and related uncertainties in the regulatory impact analysis. In
particular, the EPA requests comment on the five drivers of costs
identified including rate of LSLR in its economic analysis. EPA
requests comments on whether this estimated rate of lead service lines
being replaced is appropriate. The EPA also solicits comment on: (1)
The existing number of LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the AL
or TL under the current and proposed monitoring requirements; (3) the
cost of installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment (CCT);
(4) the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead concentrations; and (5)
the cost of lead service line replacement cost of lead service line
replacement, cost of CCT, effectiveness of CCT. In addition to these
cost drivers, the EPA solicits comment on the assumptions regarding
labor required to comply with this rule, including labor required to
collect and analyze samples. As described in section VI.E.2 of this
notice, the EPA is not estimating benefits of avoided cardiovascular
mortality that may result from the proposed LCR revisions. The EPA
acknowledges the scientific understanding of the relationship between
lead exposure and cardiovascular mortality is evolving and scientific
questions remain. The EPA intends to conduct additional analysis and
conduct a peer review that includes an opportunity for public comment.
In the interim, EPA solicits peer reviewed information on the evidence
relevant to quantifying the incremental contribution of blood lead
concentrations (especially at BLL <5 [mu]g/dL) to cardiovascular
disease (and associated mortality) relative to strong predictors such
as diet, exercise, and genetics that may be useful in future benefits
analysis.
As mentioned in Section VI, and detailed in Appendix F of the EA,
the EPA in a secondary analysis has
[[Page 61737]]
estimated the changes in lead concentrations at non-LSL households that
result from changes in CCT. The lead concentration values used in this
assessment come from data EPA collected from 15 cities across the
United States and Canada (See Chapter 6, section 6,2 of the EA for more
detail). The EPA has not found additional studies to corroborate this
data. The EPA, therefore, is requesting comment and additional
information about the change in lead concentrations that occur in non-
LSL households that experience changes in CCT.
Recordkeeping
The EPA requests comment on the utility of States maintaining
records of water system actions related to find-and-fix.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, the
Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
(USEPA, XX), is available in the docket and is summarized in section VI
of this notice.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Cost
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action summarized in section VI.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the Office of Mission Support's
Information Collection Request Center) (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned the Agency's ICR number 2040-NEW. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions
are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before December 13,
2019. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0300), and it is briefly summarized here. The burden
includes the time needed to conduct Primacy Agency and public water
system activities during the first three years after promulgation, as
described in Chapter 8 from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, 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.
The paperwork burden associated with this proposal consists of the
burden imposed on systems to read and understand the LCRR as well as
the burden associated with certain new or revised collections of
information. Specifically, public water systems will have to assign
personnel and devote resources in order to implement the rule. In
addition, public water systems will need to conduct training sessions
and receive technical assistance from their Primacy Agency during
implementation of the LCRR. Furthermore, public water systems will have
to develop a lead service line inventory or submit a demonstration to
the Primacy Agency that they do not have lead service lines. For the
public water systems that have lead service lines, a lead service
replacement plan will need to be developed.
Likewise, the paperwork burden for primacy agencies include reading
and understanding the LCRR. The primacy agencies will have to adopt the
rule and develop programs to implement the LCRR. This may result in the
Primacy Agency modifying their data system while implementing the LCRR.
Also, the Primacy Agency will have to provide the Primacy Agency's
staff with training and technical assistance during implementation of
the LCRR. The Primacy Agency is also responsible for reviewing
demonstration of no lead service lines from systems and reviewing lead
service replacement plans.
The information collected under the ICR is critical to States and
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary
enforcement authority) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). These
authorized entities are responsible for overseeing the LCR
implementation by certain public water systems within their
jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would utilize these data to determine
compliance, designate additional treatment controls to be installed,
and establish enforceable operating parameters. The collected
information is also necessary for public water systems. Public water
systems would use these data to demonstrate compliance, assess
treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment equipment,
and communicate water quality information to consumers served by the
water system. Primacy agencies would also be required to report a
subset of these data to the EPA. The EPA would utilize the information
to protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCR, measuring
progress toward meeting the LCR's goals, and evaluating the
appropriateness of State implementation activities. No confidential
information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this proposed
ICR would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and
by State and Federal governments. Respondents would include owners and
operators of public water systems, who must report to their primacy
agency(s).
Respondent's obligation to respond: If the proposed LCR is
finalized, then the respondent's obligation to respond would be
mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requires that ``criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking
water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels
[or treatment techniques promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant
level]; 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)(A) of the SDWA requires that ``[e]very person who is subject
to any requirement of this subchapter or who is a grantee, shall
establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such
monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may
reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing
[[Page 61738]]
regulations under this subchapter, in determining whether such person
has acted or is acting in compliance with this subchapter. . .'' In
addition, section 1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires States to ``keep such
records and make such reports . . . as the Administrator may require by
regulation.''
Estimated number of respondents: If the proposed rule is finalized,
the total number of respondents for the ICR would be 67,712. The total
includes 56 primacy agencies and 67,656 public water systems.
Frequency of Response: The average burden per response (i.e., the
amount of time needed for each activity that requires a collection of
information) is 8.15 to 8.41 hours; the average cost per response is
$288 to $298.
Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement
several proposed rule requirements. Since, the first three years of the
rule focuses on the creation of inventories for lead service lines,
households are not faced with costs. The public water systems burden
will include the following activities: Reading and understanding the
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying
regulatory requirements with the Primacy Agency during rule
implementation. Public water systems would also be required to create a
lead service line (LSL) materials inventory and develop an initial lead
service line replacement (LSLR) plan. The total burden hours for public
water systems ranges from 2.24 to 2.35 million hours. The total cost
for public water systems ranges from $68.3 to $72 million. For
additional information on the public water systems activity burden see
sections VI.C.3 and VI.C.4 of this notice.
The Primacy Agency burden for the first three years of proposed
rule implementation would include the following: Reading and
understanding the rule; adopting the rule and developing an
implementation program; modifying data recording systems; training
staff; providing water system staff with initial and on-going technical
assistance and training; coordinating annual administration tasks with
the EPA; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing public water system
(PWS) inventory data; and conferring with LSL water systems on initial
planning for LSLR program activities. The total burden hours for
primacy agencies is 485,821 to 508,207 hours. The total cost for
primacy agencies is $27.8 to $29.1 million. See section VI.C.8 of this
notice for additional discussion on burden and cost to the Primacy
Agency.
The net change burden associated with moving from the information
requirements of the current rule to those in the proposed LCRR over the
three years covered by the ICR is 2.72 to 2.86 million hours, for an
average of 0.91 to 0.95 million hours per year. The range reflects the
upper- and lower-bound estimates of the number of systems that need to
develop LSL inventories. The total net change in costs over the three-
year clearance period are $96.2 to 101.2 million, for an average of
$32.1 to $33.7 million per year (simple average over three years).
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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the Docket ID. You may
also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must
receive comments no later than December 13, 2019. The EPA will respond
to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA)
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available in Part 8.4
of the EA and is summarized here.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, the EPA considered small entities to be water systems
serving 10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by
Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA for small water system
flexibility provisions. As required by the RFA, the EPA proposed using
this alternative definition in the Federal Register (FR) (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), sought public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration, and finalized the small water system threshold
in the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (USEPA, 1998b, 63
FR 44524, August 19, 1998). As stated in that document, the alternative
definition would apply to this regulation.
The SDWA is the core statute addressing drinking water at the
Federal level. Under the SDWA, the EPA sets public health goals and
enforceable standards for drinking water quality. As previously
described, the LCR requires water systems to minimize lead and copper
in drinking water, primarily by reducing water corrosivity and
preventing the leaching of these metals from the premise plumbing and
drinking water distribution system components. The EPA is proposing
regulatory revisions to strengthen public health protection and improve
implementation in the following areas: Tap sampling, corrosion control
treatment; LSLR; consumer awareness; and public education.
The EPA identified over 65,000 small public water systems that may
be impacted by the proposed LCR revisions. A small public water system
serves between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems include over
45,758 community water systems that serve year-round residents and more
than 17,566 non-transient non-community water systems that serve the
same persons over six months per year (e.g., a public water system that
is an office park or church). The proposed revisions to the LCR include
requirements for: Conducting an LSL inventory that is updated annually;
installing or re-optimizing corrosion control treatment when water
quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter monitoring;
establishment of a ``find-and-fix'' provision to evaluate and remediate
elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the lead action
level; and improved customer outreach. These proposed revisions also
include reporting and recordkeeping requirements. States are required
to implement operator certification (and recertification) programs per
the SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of community water systems
and non-transient non-community water systems, including small water
system operators, have the appropriate level of certification.
Under the proposed rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and all NTNCWS with a 90th percentile lead value above
the action level of 15 [mu]g/L may choose between LSLR, CCT
installation, or POU device installation and maintenance as the
compliance option. A fourth option available to NTNCWSs, is the removal
of all lead bearing plumbing material from the system was not analyzed
in the EPA's
[[Page 61739]]
cost-benefit model. The EPA is estimating low and high cost scenarios
to characterize uncertainty in the cost model results. These scenarios
are functions of assigning different, low and high, input values to a
number of variables that affect the relative cost of the small system
compliance options. Under the current LCR, the EPA estimates that,
under the low cost scenario, 21,435 small CWSs will have annual total
LCR related costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that 10,599
of these small CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or
greater of revenue. Under the proposed LCRR, the number of small CWSs
that will experience annual total costs of more than one percent of
revenues increases by 7,556 to 28,990 and the number of small CWSs that
will have annual total costs exceeding three percent of revenues
increases by 7,051 to 17,648. Under the high cost scenario, the EPA
estimates that under the current LCR, 22,732 small CWSs will have
annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that
12,127 of these small CWSs will have annual total costs of three
percent or greater of revenue. Under the proposed LCRR, the number of
small CWSs that will experience annual total costs of more than one
percent of revenues increases by 8,274 to 31,002 and the number of
small CWSs that will have annual total costs of more than three percent
of revenues increases by 7,749 to 19,873. See section 8.4 of the
proposed LCRR Economic Analysis for more information on the
characterization of the impacts under the proposed rule. The EPA has
considered an alternative approach to provide regulatory flexibility to
small water systems. Section 8.4 of the LCRR Economic Analysis contains
an assessment of impacts for an alternative option that sets the
threshold for system compliance flexibility at systems serving 3,300 or
fewer people.
As required by section 609 (b) of the RFA, the EPA also convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially
would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
the elements of the IRFA. A copy of the full SBAR panel report is
available in the rulemaking docket.
E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, 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. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action (see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) and is
briefly summarized here.
Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
UMRA section 204, the EPA consulted with governmental entities affected
by this rule. The EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue
and comments from State, local, and tribal governments in section
VIII.F Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section VIII.G Executive
Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments of this notice.
Consistent with UMRA section 205, the EPA identified and analyzed a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment
technique requirements in the proposed LCR revisions. Sections III, IV,
and V of this notice describe the proposed options. See section VI.F of
this notice and Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) for alternative options that
were considered.
This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The EPA consulted with small governments concerning the regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. The EPA
describes this consultation above in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), section VIII.D of this notice.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The EPA has concluded that this action has Federalism implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or
local governments. The EPA consulted with State and local governments
early in the process of developing the proposed action to allow them to
provide meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA held
Federalism consultations on November 15, 2011, and on January 8, 2018.
The EPA invited the following national organizations representing State
and local elected officials to a meeting on January 8, 2018, in
Washington, DC: The National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
Association of Counties, the International City/County Management
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the
County Executives of America, and the Environmental Council of States.
Additionally, the EPA invited the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the
National Rural Water Association, the American Water Works Association,
the American Public Works Association, the National School Board
Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the
Western Governors' Association to participate in the meeting. The EPA
also provided the associations' membership an opportunity to provide
input during follow-up meetings. The EPA held five follow up meetings
between January 8, 2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to input
received during the meetings, the EPA provided an opportunity to
receive written input within 60 days after the initial meeting. A
summary report of the views expressed during Federalism consultations
is available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with the EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4,
2011), the EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the development
of this action to gain an understanding of Tribal views of potential
revisions to key areas of the LCR. The EPA held consultations with
federally-recognized Indian Tribes in 2011 and 2018. The 2018
consultations with federally-recognized Indian Tribes began on January
16, 2018 and ended March 16, 2018. The first national webinar was held
January 31, 2018, while the second national webinar was held February
15, 2018. A total of 48 tribal representatives participated in the two
webinars. Updates on the consultation process were provided to the
National Tribal Water Council upon request at regularly scheduled
monthly meetings during the consultation process. Also, upon request,
informational webinars were provided to the National Tribal Toxics
Council's Lead Subcommittee on
[[Page 61740]]
January 30, 2018, and the EPA Region 9's Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) on February 8, 2018. Additionally, the EPA received
written comments from the following Tribes and Tribal organizations:
The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, the National Tribal Water Council,
the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, and
the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council. A summary report of the
views expressed during Tribal consultations is available in the Docket
(EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and, based on the record, the EPA finds that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action has a
disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, the EPA has evaluated
the environmental health or safety effects of lead found in drinking
water on children and estimated the risk reduction and health endpoint
impacts to children associated with the adoption and optimization of
corrosion control treatment technologies and the replacement of LSLs.
The results of these evaluations are contained in the Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a) and
described in section VI.D.2 of this notice. Copies of the Economic
Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions and supporting
information are available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The public and private water systems
affected by this action do not, as a rule, generate power. This action
does not regulate any aspect of energy distribution as the water
systems that are regulated by the LCR already have electrical service.
Finally, The EPA has determined that the incremental energy used to
implement corrosion control treatment at drinking water systems in
response to the proposed regulatory requirements is minimal. As such,
the EPA does not anticipate that this rule will have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
The proposed revisions may involve existing voluntary consensus
standards in that it requires additional monitoring for lead and
copper. Monitoring and sample analysis methodologies are often based on
voluntary consensus standards. However, the proposed LCR revisions does
not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or sample
analysis. The 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 the EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for
compliance monitoring. The EPA notes that in some cases, the proposed
LCR revises the required frequency and number of lead tap samples.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Based on the record the EPA finds that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in
the Environmental Justice Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper
Revision Rule Report, which can be found in the docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-
2017-0300. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission. Agencies must do this by identifying and addressing as
appropriate any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
In evaluating baseline exposure to lead in drinking water, data
indicate that the possibility of a disproportionately high and adverse
human health risk among minority populations and low-income populations
exist. Higher than expected proportions of children in minority
households and/or low-income households live in housing built during
decades of higher LSL usage. The proposed LCR revisions seek to reduce
the health risks of exposure to lead in drinking water provided by CWS
and NTNCWS. Because water systems LSLs are more likely to have an
action level exceedance or a trigger level exceedance and, therefore,
engage in actions to reduce lead concentrations, the proposed revisions
should help improve the baseline environmental justice concerns.
The proposed LCR revisions are not expected to have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations and low-income populations. The
proposed revisions should result in CCT and LSLR changes at water
systems with higher baseline lead concentrations. It increases the
level of health protection for all affected populations. The LSLR
provision may be less likely than the CCT provision to address baseline
health risk disparity among low-income populations because LSLR may not
be affordable for low-income households.
However, there are Federal and State programs that may be used to
fund LSLR programs including the cost of LSLR for customer-owned LSLs.
Financing support for lead reduction efforts may be available from
State and local governments, EPA programs (e.g., the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the WIFIA Program, and the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 (WIIN Act) grant
programs), and other federal agencies (e.g., HUD's Community
Development Block Grants).
The benefit-cost analysis of the rule indicates that CCT changes
will account for most of the benefits. Therefore, health risk reduction
benefits will be more uniformly distributed among populations with high
baseline health risks including minority and low-income households.
Also, given the availability of Federal and State funding sources to
support full LSLR, the proposed LCR revisions meet the intent of the
Federal policy requiring incorporation of environmental justice into
Federal agency missions.
L. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board and the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
1. Consultation With the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
As required by section 4365 of the SDWA, in 2011, the EPA sought an
evaluation of current scientific data to determine whether partial LSLR
effectively reduce water lead levels. When the LCR was promulgated in
[[Page 61741]]
1991, large water systems, serving greater than 50,000 people, were
required to install CCT and small and medium water systems, serving
50,000 or fewer people if samples exceeded the action level for lead.
If the action level was not met after installing CCT, water systems are
required to replace 7 percent of its LSLs annually. However, in 2000,
revisions to the LCR allowed water systems, if they exceeded the action
level, to replace only the portion of the LSL that the water system
owned and to replace the customer's portion of the LSL at the
customer's expense. This practice is known as a partial LSLR.
The EPA asked the SAB to evaluate the current scientific data on
the following five partial LSLR issues: (1) Associations between
partial LSLR and blood lead levels in children; (2) lead tap water
sampling data before and after partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between
partial and full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR techniques; and (5) the impact
of galvanic corrosion. The EPA identified several studies for the SAB
to review while the SAB selected additional studies for their
evaluation. The SAB deliberated and sought input from public meetings
held on March 30 and 31, 2011, and during a public conference call on
May 16, 2011. The SAB's final report, titled ``SAB Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements'' was approved
by the SAB on July 19, 2011, and transmitted to the EPA Administrator
on September 28, 2011.
The SAB determined that the quality and quantity of data was
inadequate to fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial LSLR in
reducing drinking water lead concentrations. Both the small number of
studies and the limitations within these studies (i.e., lack of
comparability between studies, small sample size) barred a
comprehensive assessment of partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite the
limitations, the SAB concluded that partial LSLR's have not been shown
to reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the short-term of days
to months, and potentially even longer. Additionally, partial LSLR is
often associated with elevated drinking water lead levels in the short-
term. The available data suggested that the elevated drinking water
lead levels after the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over time to lower
than or to levels similar to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, the
SAB concluded that available data suggest that partial LSLR's may pose
a risk to the population due to short-term elevations in drinking water
lead concentrations after a partial LSLR, which last for an unknown
period. Considering the SAB's findings on partial LSLR, the EPA
determined that partial replacements should no longer be required when
water systems exceed the action level for lead, but the EPA still
considers full replacement of the LSL as beneficial (USEPA, 2011).
2. Consultation With National Drinking Water Advisory Council
The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal
Advisory Committee that supports EPA in performing its duties and
responsibilities related to the national drinking water program and was
created through a provision in the SDWA in 1974. The EPA sought advice
from the NDWAC as required under Sec. 300j-5 of the SDWA. The EPA
consulted with NDWAC on July 21-22, 2011, to provide updates on the
proposed LCR revisions and solicit feedback on potential regulatory
options under consideration. In November 2011, NDWAC held deliberations
on LSLR requirements after they received the SAB's final report on the
effectiveness of partial LSLR. In December 2011, a public meeting was
held where NDWAC provided the EPA with major recommendations on the
potential LCR regulatory revisions, which are outlined in a letter
dated December 23, 2011.
In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group
(LCRWG) to provide additional advice to the EPA on potential options
for long-term regulatory revisions. The EPA held meetings from March of
2014 until December 2015 where NDWAC LCRWG members discussed components
of the rule and provided the EPA with advice for addressing the
following issues: Sample site collection criteria, lead sampling
protocols, public education for copper, and measures to ensure optimal
CCT and LSLR. NDWAC provided the Agency with their final
recommendations and findings in a report submitted to the Administrator
in December 2015. In the report, NDWAC acknowledged that reducing lead
exposure is a shared responsibility between consumers, the government,
public water systems, building owners, and public health officials. In
addition, they recognized that creative financing is necessary to reach
the LSL removal goals, especially for disparate and vulnerable
communities. The NDWAC advised the EPA to maintain the LCR as a
treatment technique rule but with enhanced improvements. NDWAC
qualitatively considered costs before finalizing its recommendations,
emphasizing that public water systems and States should focus efforts
where the greatest public health protection can be achieved,
incorporating their anticipated costs in their capital improvement
program or the requests for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The
LCRWG outlined an extensive list of recommendations for the LCR
revisions, including establishing a goal-based LSLR program,
strengthening CCT requirements, and tailoring water quality parameters
to the specific CCT plan for each water system.
The report NDWAC provided for the EPA also included recommendations
for renewed collaborative commitments between government and all levels
of the public from State and local agencies, to other stakeholders and
consumers while recognizing the EPA's leadership role in this area.
These complementary actions as well as a detailed description of the
provisions for NDWAC's recommendations for the long-term revisions to
the LCR can be found in the ``Report of the Lead and Copper Rule
Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council'' (NDWAC,
2015). The EPA took into consideration NDWAC's recommendations when
developing these proposed revisions to the LCR.
M. Consultation With Health and Human Services
On June 12, 2019, the EPA consulted with the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). The EPA received and considered comments from
the HHS through the inter-agency review process described in section
VIII.A of this notice.
IX. References
ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service
Lines. AWWA C810-17 43810. First Edition. Denver, CO: AWWA, 2017.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. (August 2019).
Developing Lead Service Line Inventories Presented by the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. Retrieved August
2019, from: https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ASDWA_Developing-Lead-Service-Line-Inventories.pdf.
AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line Management. Retrieved September 3,
2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-Policy-Statements/Lead-Service-Line-Management.
AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to
Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion
of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 90508.
Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.
[[Page 61742]]
Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen, E., Bellinger, D., Lanphear, B., &
Grandjean, P. (2013). An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining
a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children. Risk
Analysis, 33(3), 450-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01882.x.
Chislock, M.F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R.A. and A.E. Wilson. 2013.
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic
Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10.
Cornwell, D.A., R.A. Brown, and S.H Via. 2016. National Survey of
Lead Service Line Occurrence. Journal American Water Works
Association. 108(4):E182-E191.
Crump, K.S., Van Landingham, C., Bowers, T.S., Cahoy, D., &
Chandalia, J.K. (2013). A statistical reevaluation of the data used
in the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled-analysis that related low
levels of blood lead to intellectual deficits in children. Crit Rev
Toxicol, 43(9), 785-799. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726.
DC Water. 2016. DC Water Service Information. Retrieved August 12,
2019, from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/
De Rosa and Williams. 1992. Particulate lead in water supplies
(TMU9024). Final Report to the Department of the Environment.
Swindon, England: Water Research Center (1992)
Del Toral, Miguel A. Del. Et al. ``Detection and Evaluation of
Elevated Lead Release from Service Lines: A Field Study.''
Environmental Science and Technology; vol. 47, no. 16, 2013, pp.
9300-9307.
Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., Nour, S., & Prevost, M.
2016. Monitoring-based framework to detect and manage lead water
service lines. Journal of the American Water Works Association,
108(11), E555-E570.
Dodds, W.K., Bouska, W.W., Eitzmann, J.L., Pilger, T.J., Pitts,
K.L., Riley, A.J., Schloesser, J.T., and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009.
Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic
Damages. Environmental Science Technology 43 (1).
EDF. 2019. Recognizing efforts to replace lead service lines.
Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-efforts-replace-lead-service-lines.
Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007. M. Edwards, S. Triantafyllidou,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio and lead leaching to water. J. Water
Works Assoc. 2007, 99, 96.
Elfland et. al. 2010. Lead-contaminated water from brass plumbing
devices in new buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11.
ERG, 2017. Summary Report of the Peer Review Meeting for EPA's Draft
Report, Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-based Benchmark
for Lead in Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/lcr_peer_review_summary_report_final_10-25-17_508.pdf
Galesburg, 2016. Lead Service Line Replacement Grant Program
Application. Accessed 9/12/2019. https://www.ci.galesburg.il.us/assets/1/22/LEAD_SERVICE_LINE_REPLACEMENT_GRANT_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.pdf
GAO-17-424, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water,
Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's Oversight
of the Lead and Copper Rule. September 2017.
GAO-18-620, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water
Approaches for Identifying Lead Service Lines Should be Shared with
All States. September 2018.
Glibert, P.M., Anderson, D.M., Gentien, P., Graneli, E. and K.G.
Sellner. 2005. The Global, Complex Phenomena of Harmful Algal
Blooms. Oceanography 18:2.
Gregory and Jackson, 1984; Gregory, R. and Jackson, P.J. Central
Water Treatment to Reduce Lead Solubility. Water Research Center.
Prepared for the AWWA Annual Conference. Dallas, TX (1984).
HDR. (2009). An Analysis of the Correlation between Lead Released
from Galvanized Iron Piping and the Contents of Lead in Drinking
Water. Retrieved August 13, 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/galvanizedprojectreport.pdf.
Hill, C.P., and Cantor, A.F. 2011. Internal Corrosion Control in
Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Manual M58, First Edition. American
Water Works Association. Denver, CO.
Katner, Adrienne, et al. Effectiveness of Prevailing Flush
Guidelines to Prevent Exposure to Lead in Tap Water. MDPI,
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 20 July 2018,
www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1537.
Kirrane, E.F., & Patel, M.M. (2014). Memorandum from EPA NCEA to ISA
for Lead Docket: Identification and consideration of errors in
Lanphear et al. (2005), ``Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and
Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled
Analysis.''
Lanphear, B.P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P.A.,
Bellinger, D.C., . . . Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level Environmental
Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International
Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 894-899.
doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
Lin, D., Lutter, R., & Ruhm, C.J. 2016. Cognitive performance and
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51, 121-135.
Lyon and Lenihan, 1977. Lyon, T.D.B. and Lenihan, J.M.A. Corrosion
in Solder Jointed Copper Tubes Resulting in Lead Contamination of
Drinking Water. Br. Corros. J. (March 1977), Vol. 12, No.1.
Lytle, D.A. and Schock, M.R. (1996). Stagnation time, composition,
pH and orthophosphate effects on metal leaching from brass. EPA/600/
R-96/103 September 1996.
Lytle, D.A. Et al. 2019. Sequential Drinking Water Sampling as a
Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research; Vol.
157, pp 40-54.
McFadden, M., et al. 2011. Contributions to Drinking Water Lead from
Galvanized Iron Corrosion Scales. Journal American Water Works
Association; 103(4), pp 76-89. DOI: 10.1002/j.1551-
8833.2011.tb11437.x
Ministry of Ontario. Regulation 170/03. Schedule 15.1 Lead, under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Guidance Document for Preparing
Corrosion Control Plans for Drinking Water Systems. PIBs # 7463.
December 2009.
NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group. (2015). Report of the Lead and
Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council--Final. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
National Research Council. (2000). Copper in Drinking Water.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program. (2012). NTP Monograph on Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead. Durham, NC.
Nguyen et al., 2010. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, A. Dudi, M.A. Edwards,
CorrosiveNguyen et al., 2010. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, A. Dudi, M.A.
Edwards, Corrosive microenvironments at lead solder surfaces arising
from galvanic corrosion with copper pipe. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2010, 44, 7076.
Nguyen et al., 2011. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, M.A. Edwards,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio: practical studies in galvanic
corrosion of lead solder. J. Water Works Assoc. 2011, 103, 81.
Office of Management and Budget. (2003) Circular A-4. Washington,
DC.
Office of Inspector General (EPA). ``Much Effort and Resources
Needed to Help Small Drinking Water Systems Overcome Challenges.''
Report No. 2006-P-00026. May 30, 2006.
Oliphant, 1982. Oliphant, R.J. Lead Contamination of Potable Water
Arising from Soldered Joints. Water Research Center (1982).
Pocock, S.J., Shaper, A.G., Walker, M., Wale, C.J., Clayton, B.,
Delves, T., . . . Powell, P. (1983). Effects of tap water lead,
water hardness, alcohol, and cigarettes on blood lead
concentrations. J Epidemiol Community Health, 37(1), 1-7.
Salkever, D.S. (1995). Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from
Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental
Research, 70, 1-6. doi:doi: 0013-9351/95
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, P.E., G. Kirmeyer, P.E., Dr. B. Maynard, Dr.
D. Mast, Dr. R. R. Trussell, P.E., Dr. S. Trussell, P.E., A. Cantor,
P.E., MCSD, and A. Prescott. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver,
Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation. Peer reviewed by AwwaRF Project
Advisory Committee.
Schock, M.R., and Lytle, D.A. 2011. Chapter 20: Internal Corrosion
and Deposition Control. In Water Quality and Treatment. 6th Edition.
AWWA and McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991). Lead and minor hearing impairment.
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health,
[[Page 61743]]
46(5), 300-305. doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391.
Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G.I., Moore, M.R., Patterson, W.J.,
Richards, W.N., & Wilson, T.S. (1982). Assessment of lead intakes
and dose-response for a population in Ayr exposed to a plumbosolvent
water supply. Hum Toxicol, 1(2), 115-122.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. 2015.
National Cost Implications of Potential Long[hyphen]Term LCR
Requirements. Journal American Water Works Association. 107(8):E389-
E400.
State of California. 2016. Public water systems: lead user service
lines. SB-1398.
State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General Assembly. PA 99-0922.
State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to the Public, 2017-008 EQ.
State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. Adoption of Rules
Relating to Water System Testing.
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018.
United States. Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act.
2016.
USEPA, 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Impact of Lead
and Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality. Prepared by N.E.
Murrell for USEPA (February 1990).
USEPA. 1991. ``Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper; Final Rule.'' Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of
Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the
Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA 815-R-99-016. April
1999. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=200022MT.txt.
USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and
Copper Control Strategies. Report No. EPA-816-R-03-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-compliance-help-primacyagencies.
USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for
Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult
Exposures to Lead in Soil. Retrieved from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf.
USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1 (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf).
USEPA. 2004b. U.S. EPA Lead Service Line Replacement Workshop
Summary Report.
USEPA 2008a. Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair
and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2008b. ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.''
73 FR 66964. Pages 66964-67062. November 2008 (to be codified at 40
CFR 51, 51, 53, and 58).'' Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-lead.
USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water
Systems. EPA 815-R-08-015. October 2008. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_survey_guidance.pdf.
USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. EPA 816-R-10-004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt.
USEPA. 2011. Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee
Augmented for the Review of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead
Service Line Replacements. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. (EPA/600/R-10/
075F). Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-005. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/steam-electric_benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf.
USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment 2012: A Collaborative Survey
of Lakes in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nla_report_dec_2016.pdf.
USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/fact_sheet_draft_variation_march_2016_revision.pdf.
USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water
Systems (EPA-816-B-16-003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Version
(SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. March 2016.
USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Memorandum to Water Division Directions, Regions I-X, from Peter C.
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Clarification of
Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures for Purposes of the Lead and
Copper Rule (Feb. 29, 2016).
USEPA. 2018. Summary Report on Federalism: Lead and Cooper Rule.
USEPA. 2019. Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and
Yields Generated within States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within.
USEPA. 2019a. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper
Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2019b. Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads
and Yields Generated within States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within.
USEPA. 2019c. Lead Service Line Replacement Rate Analysis Workbook.
Unpublished raw data.
USEPA. 2019d. Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line
Replacement.
Weston, Roy F. and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 1990.
Final Report: Lead Service Line Replacement A Benefit-to-Cost
Analysis. Denver, Colorado: American Water Works Association.
The White House. 2019a. 2020 Budget Fact Sheet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FY20-Fact-Sheet_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf
The White House. 2019b. Remarks by President Trump on America's
Environmental Leadership. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-americas-environmental-leadership/
Wilczak, A.J., Hokanson, D.R., Rhodes Trussel, R., Boozarpour, M.,
and Degraca, A. 2010. Water Conditioning for LCR Compliance and
Control of Metals Release In San Francisco's Water System. J. AWWA,
102(3):52-64.
Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 2017.
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives,
125(9). doi:10.1289/EHP1605.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians--lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: October 10, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 141 and part 142 as
follows:
[[Page 61744]]
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 141.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``action level'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``aerator'', ``child
care facility'', ``consumer'', ``customer'', and ``find-and-fix'';
0
c. Revising the definition for ``first-draw sample'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``galvanized service
line'', ``gooseneck, pigtail or connector'', and ``hydrovacing'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``lead service line''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``method detection
limit''; ``monitoring period (tap sampling)'', ``pitcher filter'';
``potholing'', ``pre-stagnation flushing''; ``sampling period'',
``school'', ``tap sampling protocol'', ``trenching'', ``trigger
level'', and ``wide-mouth bottles''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.2 Definitions
* * * * *
Action level means the concentrations of lead or copper in water as
specified in Sec. 141.80(c) which determines, in some cases, the
treatment, lead service line replacement, and tap sampling requirements
that a water system is required to complete. The action level for lead
is 0.015 mg/L and the action level for copper is 1.3 mg/L.
Aerator means the device embedded in the water faucet to enhance
air flow with the water stream and to prevent splashing.
* * * * *
Child care facility means a location that houses a licensed
provider of child care, day care or early learning services to
children, as determined by the State, local, or tribal licensing
agency.
* * * * *
Consumer means customers and other users of a public water system.
* * * * *
Customer means a paying user of a public water system.
* * * * *
Find-and-Fix means the requirement in 141.82(j) that water systems
must perform at every sampling site that yielded a lead result above
the action level (0.015 mg/L). Follow-up sampling results must be
provided to the consumer in accordance with Sec. 141.85(d).
First-draw sample means a one-liter sample of tap water, collected
in accordance with Sec. 141.86(b)(2).,
* * * * *
Galvanized service line generally means iron or steel piping that
has been dipped in zinc to prevent corrosion and rusting.
Gooseneck, pigtail or connector is a short section of piping,
usually one to two feet long, which can be bent and used for
connections between rigid service piping.
* * * * *
Hydrovacing means an alternative method to digging up a lead
service line to identify it using high-pressure water and a vacuum
system to dig a hole.
* * * * *
Lead service line means a service line made of lead, which connects
the water main to the building inlet. A lead service line may be owned
by the water system, owned by the property owner, or both. For the
purposes of this subpart, a galvanized service line is considered a
lead service line if it ever was or is currently downstream of any lead
service line or service line of unknown material. If the only lead
piping serving the home or building is a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or
connector, and it is not a galvanized service line that is considered
an LSL the service line is not a lead service line.
* * * * *
Medium-size water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part
only, means a water system that serves greater than 10,000 and less
than or equal to 50,000 persons.
Method Detection Limit (MDL) means the minimum concentration of a
substance that can be measured and reporting with 99% confidence that
the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from
analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
Monitoring period for the purposes of subpart I of this part only
means the schedule during which each water system must conduct tap
sampling for lead and copper analysis. A monitoring period is
determined by lead and copper concentrations in tap samples and the
frequency can range from every six months (i.e., semi-annual) up to
once every nine years. The start of each new lead monitoring period,
with the exception of semi-annual monitoring, must begin on January 1.
* * * * *
Pitcher filter means the filtration insert for water pitchers that
removes lead in drinking water, and that is certified to remove lead in
accordance with applicable standards established by the American
National Standards Institute.
* * * * *
Potholing means the practice of digging a test hole to expose a
potential lead service line.
* * * * *
Practical quantitation Limit (PQL) means the minimum concentration
of an analyte (substance) that can be measured with a high degree of
confidence that the analyte is present at or above that concentration.
* * * * *
Pre-stagnation flushing is the running of taps to flush water from
plumbing prior to the minimum 6-hour stagnation period required for
lead and copper tap sampling.
* * * * *
Sampling period for the purpose of subpart I of this part only
means the time period, within a tap sampling monitoring period, during
which the water system is required to collect samples for lead and
copper analysis. The annual sampling period must be between the months
of June and September, unless a different sampling period is approved
in writing to be more appropriate by the primacy agency.
* * * * *
School for the purpose of subpart I of this part only means any
public, private, charter or other location that provides student
learning for elementary or secondary students.
* * * * *
Small water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only,
means a water system that serves 10,000 persons or fewer.
* * * * *
Tap sampling protocol means the instructions given to residents or
those sampling on behalf of the water system to conduct tap sampling
for lead and copper. Tap sampling protocols may not include any
instructions or recommendations for pre-stagnation flushing or removal
or cleaning of faucet aerators prior to sample collection.
* * * * *
Trenching is a method of excavation, in this case to identify a
lead service line, where a depression is dug that is generally deeper
than its width.
Trigger level means a particular concentration of contaminants in
water as specified in Sec. 141.80(c) that prompts certain activities.
The trigger level for lead is a concentration greater than 0.010 mg/L
but less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L. The trigger level for lead
determines the treatment, lead service
[[Page 61745]]
line replacement, and tap sampling requirements applicable to each
water system.
* * * * *
Wide-mouth bottles for the purpose of subpart I of this part only
means bottles configured with a mouth that is at least 55 mm wide,
required to be used for lead and copper tap sampling collection to
optimize capturing accurate lead measurements.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 141.31 to revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.31 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(d)(1) The public water system, within 10 days of completing the
public notification requirements under subpart Q of this part for the
initial public notice and any repeat notices, must submit to the
primacy agency a certification that it has fully complied with the
public notification regulations. For Tier 2 and 3 notices, the public
water system must include with this certification a representative copy
of each type of notice distributed, published, posted, and made
available to the persons served by the system and to the media. (2) For
Tier 1 notices public water systems must provide a copy of any Tier 1
notice to the Administrator and the head of the Primacy Agency as soon
as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water
system learns of the violation or exceedance.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 141.80 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)(1) and (f);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (g);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (k) as paragraph (m);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (i) through
(k); and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (1).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.80 General requirements.
(a) Applicability, effective date, and compliance deadlines. The
requirements of this subpart constitute the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for lead and copper.
(1) The provisions of this subpart apply to community water systems
and non-transient, non-community water systems (hereinafter referred to
as ``water systems'' or ``systems'') as defined at 40 CFR 141.2.
(2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of [DATE 60
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(3) Community water systems and non-transient, non-community water
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than
[DATE THREE YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], except where otherwise specified at Sec. Sec. 141.81,
141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in accordance
with 40 CFR 142 at subpart C or F has been established by the
Administrator.
(4)(i) Between [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] and [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], community water systems and non-transient,
non-community water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through
141.90 as promulgated in 56 FR 26548, June 7, 1991; 57 FR 28788, June
29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June 30, 1994; 65 FR 2004, January 12, 2000; 72
FR 57814, October 10, 2007.
(ii) If an exemption from Subpart I has been issued in accordance
with 40 CFR 142 subpart C or F, then the water systems must comply with
40 CFR 141.80 through 141.90 as promulgated in 56 FR 26548, June 7,
1991; 57 FR 28788, June 29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June 30, 1994; 65 FR
2004, January 12, 2000; 72 FR 57814, October 10, 2007 until the
expiration of that exemption.
(b) Scope. These regulations establish a treatment technique that
includes requirements for corrosion control treatment, source water
treatment, lead service line inventory, lead service line replacement,
public notice, monitoring for lead in schools and child care
facilities, and public education. Several of these requirements are
prompted by the lead and copper action levels or the lead trigger
level, specified in paragraph (c) of this section, as measured in
samples collected at consumers' taps. All community water systems are
subject to sampling for lead in schools and child care facilities and
public education requirements regardless of the results of the
compliance tap sampling.
(c) Lead trigger level, lead action level, and copper action level.
Trigger levels and action levels must be determined based on tap water
samples collected in accordance with the monitoring requirements of
Sec. 141.86 and tested using the analytical methods specified in Sec.
141.89. The trigger level and action levels described in this paragraph
are applicable to all sections of subpart I. Trigger level and action
levels for lead and copper are as follows:
(1) The lead trigger level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section is greater
than 0.010 mg/L.
(2) The lead action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section is greater
than 0.015 mg/L.
(3) The copper action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of copper as specified in (c)(4) of this section is
greater than 1.3 mg/L.
(4) For purposes of this subpart, the 90th percentile concentration
shall be computed as follows:
(i) For systems that do not have lead service line sites and only
have sites identified as Tier 3 or 4 under Sec. 141.86(a).
(A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken during a
monitoring period shall be placed in ascending order from the sample
with the lowest concentration to the sample with the highest
concentration. Each sampling result shall be assigned a number,
ascending by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample
with the lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample
with the highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total number
of samples taken.
(B) The number of samples taken during the monitoring period shall
be multiplied by 0.9.
(C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of this section is the 90th
percentile concentration.
(D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
(E) 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.
(ii) For public water systems with lead service lines with sites
identified as Tier 1 or 2 under Sec. 141.86(a) with enough Tier 1 or 2
sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec. 141.86(c):
(A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or
Tier 2 sites during a monitoring period shall be placed in ascending
order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the sample with
the highest concentration. Sample results from Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites
shall not be included in this calculation. Each sampling result shall
be assigned a number, ascending
[[Page 61746]]
by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the
lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the
highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total number of samples
taken.
(B) The number of samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites during
the monitoring period shall be multiplied by 0.9.
(C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section is the 90th
percentile concentration.
(D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
(E) 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.
(iii) For systems with lead service lines with sites identified as
Tier 1 or 2 under Sec. 141.86(a) with insufficient number of Tier 1 or
2 sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec. 141.86(c):
(A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or
Tier 2 sites along with the highest results from Tier 3 or Tier 4 sites
sufficient to meet the minimum number of sites shall be placed in
ascending order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the
sample with the highest concentration. Sample results from any
remaining Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites shall not be included in this
calculation. Each sampling result shall be assigned a number, ascending
by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the
lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the
highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total minimum number of
sites listed in Sec. 141.86(c).
(B) The required minimum number of sites listed in Sec. 141.86(c)
shall be multiplied by 0.9.
(C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) is the 90th percentile
concentration.
(D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
(E) 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.
(d) Corrosion control requirements. (1) All water systems shall
install and operate corrosion control treatment in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 141.81 and 141.82, and that meets the definition of optimal
corrosion control treatment at Sec. 141.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) Any small water system that complies with the applicable small
system compliance flexibility requirements specified by the State under
Sec. 141.81 and Sec. 141.93 shall be deemed in compliance with the
treatment requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Lead service line replacements. Lead service line replacements
must be conducted as follows:
(1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section must complete mandatory lead service line
replacement. Lead service line replacement must be conducted in
accordance with Sec. 141.84 and must include public education pursuant
to Sec. 141.85.
(2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at
(c) of this section must complete goal-based lead service line
replacement pursuant to Sec. 141.84 and public education pursuant to
Sec. 141.85.
(g) Service line inventory. All water systems must prepare an
inventory of service lines connected to its distribution system,
whether or not they are owned or controlled by the water system, to
identify those service lines that are made of lead or of unknown
material. The inventory must be prepared in accordance with Sec.
141.84(a).
(h) Public education and notification requirements. Pursuant to
Sec. 141.85(d), all water systems must provide notification of lead
tap water monitoring results to persons served at the sites (taps) that
are tested. In addition:
(1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section shall implement the public education requirements
in accordance with Sec. 141.85(a) and (b).
(2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at
(c) of this section shall provide notification to all customers with a
lead service line in accordance with Sec. 141.85(f).
(3) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section shall notify the public in accordance with the
public notification requirements in subpart Q of this part.
* * * * *
(l) Testing in schools and child care facilities. All water systems
must collect samples from all schools and child care facilities within
its distribution system in accordance with Sec. 141.92.
(m) Violation of national primary drinking water regulations.
Failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec. 141.80
through 141.93, including requirements established by the State
pursuant to these provisions, shall constitute a violation of the
national primary drinking water regulations for lead and/or copper.
0
5. Revise Sec. 141.81 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to
small, medium, and large water systems.
(a) Corrosion control treatment. Water systems shall complete the
applicable corrosion control treatment requirements described in Sec.
141.82 by the deadline established in this section.
(1) Large water system (serving >50,000 people).
(i) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(ii) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or the copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(iii) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that do
not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level but are not
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section may be required by the State to complete the corrosion
control treatment steps in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iv) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment that
do not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level but are
not deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section may be required by the State to complete the corrosion
control treatment steps in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Medium-size water systems (serving >10,000 and <=50,000
people).
(i) Medium-size water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(ii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment
that exceed either the lead or copper action
[[Page 61747]]
level shall complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment
that exceed the lead trigger level shall complete the treatment
recommendation steps specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The
water system shall complete the remaining steps in paragraph (e) of
this section if it subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper
action level.
(3) Small water systems (serving <=10,000 people).
(i) Small water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(ii) Small water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead or copper action level shall complete the
corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(iii) Small water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed the lead trigger level shall complete the treatment
recommendation steps specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The
water system shall complete the remaining steps in paragraph (e) of
this section, if it subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper
action level.
(b) Optimized corrosion control. A system is deemed to have
optimized or re-optimized corrosion control and is not required to
complete the applicable corrosion control re-optimization steps
identified in this section if the system satisfies one of the criteria
specified in (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. Any such system
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph and
which has treatment in place shall continue to operate and maintain
optimal corrosion control treatment and meet any requirements that the
State determines to be appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained. Any small community water system or Non-
transient Non-community water system selecting a small system option
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall follow the schedule for
that small system option under Sec. 141.81(f). Any small system
selecting a small system option under Sec. 141.93 and which has
treatment in place shall continue to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control treatment and meet any requirements that the State
determines to be appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained.
(1) A small or medium-size water system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the water system does not exceed the lead trigger
level and copper action level during two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods conducted in accordance with Sec. 141.86(b) and (d)(i) or does
not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level in monitoring
conducted in accordance with Sec. 141.86(b) and (d)(ii)(C) or (D). A
small or medium-size water system is deemed to have re-optimized
corrosion control if the water system does not exceed the lead trigger
level and copper action level during two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods conducted in accordance with Sec. 141.86.
(2) Small or medium-size systems that exceed the lead trigger level
but do not exceed the lead and copper action levels during two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods conducted in accordance with
Sec. 141.86(b) and (d)(i) or small or medium-size systems that exceed
the lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead and copper action
levels in monitoring conducted in accordance with Sec.
141.86(d)(1)(ii)(B). A small or medium-size water system is deemed to
have re-optimized corrosion control if the water system does not exceed
the lead trigger level and copper action level during two consecutive
6-month monitoring periods conducted in accordance with Sec. 141.86.
(i) Water systems without corrosion control treatment must complete
the treatment recommendation step to be deemed optimized under this
section.
(ii) Water systems with corrosion control treatment are deemed
optimized or re-optimized if the system meets the requirements of this
section and the State has not required the system to meet optimal water
quality parameters and monitor under Sec. 141.87(d).
(3) Any water system is deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control if it submits results of tap water monitoring in
accordance with Sec. 141.86 demonstrating that the 90th percentile tap
water lead level is less than or equal to the practical quantitation
level of 0.005 mg/L for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
(i) [Reserved].
(ii) Any water system deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control in accordance with this paragraph shall continue
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap no less frequently than once
every three calendar years using the reduced number of sites specified
in Sec. 141.86(c) and collecting samples at times and locations
specified in Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv).
(iii) Any water system deemed to have optimized or re-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 Sec. 141.90.
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. The State may require any such water system to conduct
additional monitoring or to take other action the State deems
appropriate to ensure that such water system maintains minimal levels
of corrosion control in its distribution system.
(iv) A water system is not deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph and shall implement corrosion
control treatment pursuant to (b)(3)(v) of this section unless it meets
the copper action level.
(v) Any water system triggered into corrosion control because it is
no longer deemed to have optimized or re-optimized corrosion control
under this paragraph shall implement corrosion control treatment in
accordance with the deadlines in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
The time period for completing each step shall be triggered by the date
the sampling was conducted showing that the water system no longer
meets the requirements to be deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph.
(4) Any small system selecting a small system compliance option
shall monitor and follow the small system option steps described in
Sec. 141.93.
(c) Corrosion control steps completion for small and medium-size
water systems without corrosion control treatment. (1) Any small or
medium-size water system that is required to complete the corrosion
control steps in paragraph (e) of this section due to its exceedance of
the lead or copper action level may cease completing the treatment
steps after paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section, when the water
system meets both action levels during each to two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods conducted pursuant to Sec. 141.86 and submits the
results to the State. Any such system required to conduct a corrosion
control treatment study under paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section,
shall complete the study and paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section,
unless the water system meets both action levels during each of two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods prior to the start of the
study. If any such water system thereafter exceeds the lead or copper
action level during any
[[Page 61748]]
monitoring period, the water system (or the State) shall recommence
completion of the applicable treatment steps, beginning with the first
treatment step which was not previously completed in its entirety, and
complete all the steps through installation of optimal corrosion
control treatment (paragraph (e), Step 5 of this section). The State
may require a water system to repeat treatment steps previously
completed by the water system when the State determines that this is
necessary to implement the treatment requirements of this section. The
State shall notify the system in writing of such a determination and
explain the basis for its decision. The requirement for any small or
medium-size water system to implement corrosion control treatment steps
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section (including water
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section) is triggered whenever any small or medium-size
water system exceeds the lead or copper action level.
(2) Any small or medium-size water system that is required to
complete the corrosion control steps in paragraph (e) of this section
due to its exceedance of the lead trigger level may cease completing
the treatment steps after paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section. Any
such system required to conduct a corrosion control treatment study
under paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section, shall complete the study
and paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section. If any such water system
thereafter exceeds the lead or copper action level during any
monitoring period, the water system (or the State) shall recommence
completion of the applicable treatment steps, beginning with the first
treatment step which was not previously completed in its entirety and
complete all the steps through installation of optimal corrosion
control treatment paragraph (e), (Step 5) of this section. The State
may require a water system to repeat treatment steps previously
completed by the water system when the State determines that this is
necessary to implement the treatment requirements of this section. The
State shall notify the system in writing of such a determination and
explain the basis for its decision. The requirement for any small or
medium-size water system to implement corrosion control treatment steps
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section (including water
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section) is triggered whenever any small or medium-
size water system exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action
level.
(d) Treatment steps and deadlines for water systems re-optimizing
corrosion control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, water systems with corrosion control treatment shall
complete the following corrosion control treatment steps (described in
the referenced portions of Sec. Sec. 141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the
indicated time periods.
(1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(1) and Sec. 141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(ii)(A). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or
copper action level shall recommend optimal corrosion control treatment
(Sec. 141.82(a)(5) or (6) or (7)) within six months after the end of
the monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger
level or copper action level.
(2) Step 2. (i) Large water systems that exceed the lead trigger
level or copper action level shall conduct the corrosion control
studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d), Step 3 of this
section.
(ii) Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period during
which a small or medium-size water system with corrosion control
treatment exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level, the
State may require the water system to perform corrosion control studies
for re-optimization (Sec. 141.81(d)(2) or (3)). If the State does not
require the system to perform such studies, the State shall specify re-
optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(d)(3) or (4))
within the following timeframes:
(A) For medium-size water systems, within 12 months after the end
of the monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the
lead trigger level or copper action level.
(B) For small water systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the lead
trigger level or copper action level.
(3) Step 3. (i) Large water systems that exceed the lead trigger
level or copper action level shall complete the corrosion control
treatment studies for re-optimization within 18 months.
(ii) If the State requires a water system to perform corrosion
control studies under paragraph (d), Step 2 of this section, the water
system shall complete the studies (Sec. 141.82(c)(1)) within 18 months
after the State requires that such studies be conducted.
(4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate re-optimized corrosion
control treatment (Sec. 141.82(d)(3)) within six months after
completion of paragraph (d)(3)(i), Step 3 of this section.
(ii) If the water system has performed corrosion control studies
under paragraph (d), Step 2 of this section, the State shall designate
re-optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(d)(3) or (4)
within six months after completion of paragraph (d), Step 3(ii) of this
section.
(5) Step 5. (i) Large water systems shall complete modifications to
corrosion control treatment to have re-optimized corrosion control
treatment installed within 12 months after completion of paragraph (d),
Step 4(i) of this section.
(ii) Small or medium-size water systems that exceed the lead
trigger level or copper action level shall install re-optimized
corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(e)(3) or (4)) within 12
months after completion of paragraph (d), Step 4(ii) of this section.
(6) Step 6. Water systems shall complete follow-up sampling (Sec.
141.86(d)(2) and Sec. 141.87(c)) within 12 months after completion of
paragraph (d), Step 5(i) or (ii) of this section.
(7) Step 7. The State shall review the water system's installation
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters
(Sec. 141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph
(d)(6), Step 6 of this section.
(8) Step 8. The water system shall operate in compliance with the
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(3)
and water quality parameter monitoring under Sec. 141.87(d)).
(e) Treatment steps and deadlines for small and medium-size systems
without corrosion control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, small and medium-size water systems without
corrosion control treatment shall complete the following corrosion
control treatment steps (described in the referenced portions of
Sec. Sec. 141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the indicated time periods.
(1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(1) and Sec. 141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i)(A)
or (B). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or copper
action level shall recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.
141.82(a)(1) or (2) or (3) or (4)) within six months after the end of
[[Page 61749]]
the monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger
level or copper action level.
(2) Step 2. Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a water system exceeds the lead trigger level or copper
action level, the State may require the water system to perform
corrosion control studies (Sec. 141.82(b)(1)); the State shall notify
the system in writing of this requirement. If the State does not
require the system to perform such studies, the State shall specify
optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within
the following timeframes:
(i) For medium-size water systems, within 18 months after the end
of the monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the
lead trigger level or copper action level.
(ii) For small water systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the lead
trigger level or copper action level.
(3) Step 3. If the State requires a water system to perform
corrosion control studies under paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section,
the water system shall complete the studies (Sec. 141.82(c)(1)) within
18 months after the State notifies the system in writing that such
studies must be conducted.
(4) Step 4. If the water system has performed corrosion control
studies under paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section, the State shall
designate optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(d)(1) or
(2)) within six months after completion of paragraph (e), Step 3 of
this section.
(5) Step 5. Any water system that exceeds the lead or copper action
level after the State designates optimal corrosion control treatment
under paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section shall install optimal
corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(e)(1) or (2)) within 24
months.
(6) Step 6. The system shall complete follow-up sampling (Sec.
141.86(d)(2)(i) and Sec. 141.87(c) within 12 months after completion
of paragraph (e), Step 5 of this section.
(7) Step 7. The State shall review the water system's installation
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters
(Sec. 141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph (e),
Step 6 of this section.
(8) Step 8. The water system shall operate in compliance with the
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(3)
and water quality parameter monitoring under Sec. 141.87(d)).
(f) Treatment steps and deadlines for small community water systems
and Non-transient Non-community water systems using small system
compliance flexibility options under Sec. 141.93.
Small water systems selecting the corrosion control small system
compliance flexibility option shall complete the following steps by the
indicated time periods.
(1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(1) and Sec. 141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i)(A)
or (B). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or copper
action level shall recommend a small system compliance flexibility
option (Sec. 141.93(a) or (b)) within six months after the end of the
monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger level
or copper action level.
(2) Step 2. The State shall approve in writing the recommended
small system treatment option or designate another small system
treatment option or require the water system to optimize or re-optimize
corrosion control treatment within six months of completion of
paragraph (f), Step 1 of this section. Water systems required by the
State to optimize or re-optimize corrosion control treatment shall
follow the schedules in paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section.
(3) Step 3. (i) Small water systems using the lead service line
replacement compliance flexibility option under Sec. 141.93.
(A) Small water systems shall begin the lead service line
replacement program and must begin to replace lead service line lines
at a rate approved by the State within one year after State approval
under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section.
(B) Small water systems shall continue to replace lead service
lines at a rate approved by the State and shall complete replacement of
all lead service lines no later than 15 years after commencement of the
program.
(ii) Small water systems using the point-of-use (POU) device
compliance flexibility option under Sec. 141.93.
(A) Small water systems shall install POU devices at the locations
listed in Sec. 141.93 on a schedule not to exceed one year after State
approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section, or a shorter
schedule if specified by the State.
(B) Small water systems shall operate and maintain the POU devices
until the water system receives State approval to select one of the
other small system compliance flexibility options under Sec. 141.93.
(iii) Non-transient, non-community water systems using the
replacement of lead-bearing materials option under Sec. 141.93(d)(4).
(A) Non-transient, non-community water systems with lead service
lines shall replace the lead service line within one year after State
approval under Step 2 and shall complete the replacement of other lead-
bearing materials on a schedule not to exceed one year after State
approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section, or a shorter
schedule if specified by the State.
(B) Non-transient, non-community water systems without lead service
lines shall complete the replacement of lead-bearing material within
one year after State approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this
section, or a shorter schedule if specified by the State.
0
6. Revise Sec. 141.82 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.82 Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.
Each system shall complete the corrosion control treatment
requirements described as follows, which are applicable to such system
under Sec. 141.81.
(a) System recommendation regarding corrosion control treatment.
(1) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and water
quality parameter monitoring, large systems without corrosion control
treatment that exceed the lead trigger level or medium-size water
systems without corrosion control treatment that exceed either the lead
or copper action level shall recommend designation of one or more of
the corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section as the optimal corrosion control treatment for that system. The
State may require the system to conduct additional water quality
parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b) to assist the
State in reviewing the system's recommendation. Large systems must
complete the study in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, small water systems without
corrosion control treatment that exceed the lead or copper action level
shall recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system or one of the small system
options listed in paragraph Sec. 141.93. The State may require the
system to conduct additional water quality parameter monitoring in
accordance
[[Page 61750]]
with Sec. 141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's
recommendation.
(3) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any medium-size water systems
without corrosion control treatment exceeding the lead trigger level
shall recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system. This corrosion control
treatment shall be installed if the lead or copper action level is
subsequently exceeded. The State may require the system to conduct
additional water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.
141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's recommendation.
(4) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any small water system without
corrosion control treatment exceeding the lead trigger level shall
recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system or shall recommend State
approval to elect one of the small system compliance options listed in
paragraph Sec. 141.93. This corrosion control treatment or small
system option shall be implemented if the lead or copper action level
is subsequently exceeded. The State may require the system to conduct
additional water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.
141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's recommendation.
(5) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any large or medium system with
corrosion control treatment that exceeds the lead trigger level shall
conduct a re-optimization evaluation of the existing corrosion control
treatment and make a recommendation to the State for modification (if
any) of the designation of optimal corrosion control treatment. This
re-optimization evaluation shall include an evaluation of other
corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
to determine the optimal corrosion control treatment. The State may
require the system to conduct additional water quality parameter
monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b) to assist the State in
reviewing the system's recommendation for a designation of optimal
corrosion control treatment. Large systems must complete the study in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(6) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any small system with corrosion
control treatment exceeding an action level shall recommend designation
of one or more of the corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section as the optimal corrosion control for that system
or State approval of one of the small system options listed in
paragraph Sec. 141.93. The State may require the system to conduct
additional water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.
141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's recommendation.
(7) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any small system with corrosion
control treatment exceeding the lead trigger level shall recommend
designation of one or more of the corrosion control treatments listed
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section as the optimal corrosion control
treatment for that system or State approval of one of the small system
options listed in paragraph Sec. 141.93. This corrosion control
treatment or small system option shall be implemented if the lead or
copper action level is subsequently exceeded. The State may require the
system to conduct additional water quality parameter monitoring in
accordance with Sec. 141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the
system's recommendation.
(b) State decision to require studies to identify initial optimal
corrosion control treatment (applicable to small and medium-size
systems) and re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) The State
may require any small or medium-size system without corrosion control
that exceeds either the lead or copper action level to perform
corrosion control treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to identify optimal corrosion control treatment for the system.
(2) The State may require any small or medium-size system without
corrosion control that exceeds the lead trigger level to perform
corrosion control treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to identify optimal corrosion control treatment for the system.
This corrosion control treatment shall be installed if the lead or
copper action level is subsequently exceeded.
(3) The State may require any small or medium-size water systems
with corrosion control treatment exceeding either the lead trigger
level or copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment
studies under paragraph (c)(3) of this section to identify re-optimized
optimal corrosion control treatment for the system (i.e. optimal
corrosion control treatment after a re-optimization evaluation).
(c) Performance of corrosion control studies. (1) Water systems
without corrosion control that are conducting corrosion control studies
shall complete the following:
(i) Any water system without corrosion control treatment shall
evaluate the effectiveness of each of the following treatments, and if
appropriate, combinations of the following treatments to identify the
optimal corrosion control treatment for the system:
(A) Alkalinity and pH adjustment;
(B) The addition of an orthophosphate- or silicate-based corrosion
inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an effective
residual concentration in all test tap samples;
(C) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples, and;
(D) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples.
(ii) The water system shall evaluate each of the corrosion control
treatments using either pipe rig/loop tests, partial-system tests, or
analyses based on documented analogous treatments with other systems of
similar size, water chemistry, and distribution system configurations.
Metal coupon tests can be used as a screen to reduce the number of
options that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the current
conditions and two options.
(iii) The water system shall measure the following water quality
parameters in any tests conducted under this paragraph before and after
evaluating the corrosion control treatments previously listed in this
section:
(A) Lead;
(B) Copper;
(C) pH;
(D) Alkalinity;
(E) Orthophosphate (when an orthophosphate-based inhibitor is
used), and;
(F) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used).
(iv) The water system shall identify all chemical or physical
constraints that limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion
control treatment and
[[Page 61751]]
document such constraints with one of the following:
(A) Data and documentation showing that a particular corrosion
control treatment has adversely affected other water treatment
processes when used by another water system with comparable water
quality characteristics. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or
pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude
treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints
identified in this section.
(B) Data and documentation demonstrating that the water system has
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control
treatment and has found that the treatment is ineffective or adversely
affects other water quality treatment processes. Systems using coupon
studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment
options shall not exclude treatment strategies from the studies based
on the constraints identified in this section unless the treatment was
found to be ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig study.
(v) The water system shall evaluate the effect of the chemicals
used for corrosion control treatment on other water quality treatment
processes. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig
studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude treatment
strategies from the studies based on the effects identified in this
section.
(vi) On the basis of an analysis of the data generated during each
evaluation, the water system shall recommend to the State in writing
the treatment option that the corrosion control studies indicate
constitutes optimal corrosion control treatment for that system. The
water system shall provide a rationale for its recommendation along
with all supporting documentation specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(2) Systems with a pH and alkalinity corrosion control treatment
process conducting re-optimization corrosion control studies shall
complete the following:
(i) Any system with a pH and alkalinity corrosion control treatment
process shall evaluate the effectiveness of each of the following
treatments, and if appropriate, combinations of the following
treatments to identify the optimal corrosion control treatment for the
system:
(A) Additional alkalinity and/or pH adjustment;
(B) The addition of an orthophosphate- or silicate-based corrosion
inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an effective
residual concentration in all test tap samples;
(C) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples, and;
(D) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples.
(ii) The system shall evaluate each of the corrosion control
treatments using either pipe rig/loop tests, partial-system tests, or
analyses based on documented analogous treatments with other systems of
similar size, water chemistry, and distribution system configurations.
Coupon tests can be used as a screen to reduce the number of options
that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the current conditions and
two options.
(iii) The water system shall measure the following water quality
parameters in any tests conducted under this paragraph before and after
evaluating the corrosion control treatments listed above:
(A) Lead;
(B) Copper;
(C) pH;
(D) Alkalinity;
(E) Orthophosphate (when an orthophosphate-based inhibitor is
used), and;
(F) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used).
(iv) The water system shall identify all chemical or physical
constraints that limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion
control treatment and document such constraints with one of the
following:
(A) Data and documentation showing that a particular corrosion
control treatment has adversely affected other water treatment
processes when used by another water system with comparable water
quality characteristics. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or
pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude
treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints
identified in this section.
(B) Data and documentation demonstrating that the water system has
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control
treatment and has found that the treatment is ineffective or adversely
affects other water quality treatment processes. Systems using coupon
studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment
options shall not exclude treatment strategies from the studies based
on the constraints identified in this section unless the treatment was
found to be ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig study.
(v) The water system shall evaluate the effect of the chemicals
used for corrosion control treatment on other water quality treatment
processes. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig
studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude treatment
strategies from the studies based on the effects identified in this
section.
(vi) On the basis of an analysis of the data generated during each
evaluation, the water system shall recommend to the State in writing
the treatment option that the corrosion control studies indicate
constitutes optimal corrosion control treatment for that system. The
water system shall provide a rationale for its recommendation along
with all supporting documentation specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(3) Systems with an inhibitor corrosion control treatment process
conducting re-optimization corrosion control studies shall complete the
following:
(i) Any system with an inhibitor corrosion control treatment
process shall evaluate the effectiveness of each of the following
treatments, and if appropriate, combinations of the following
treatments to identify the optimal corrosion control treatment for the
system:
(A) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment;
(B) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples unless the current inhibitor
process already meets this residual, and;
(C) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at
a concentration sufficient to maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate residual
concentration in all tap test samples unless the current inhibitor
process already meets this residual.
(ii) The system shall evaluate each of the corrosion control
treatments using either pipe rig/loop tests, partial-system tests, or
analyses based on documented analogous treatments with other systems of
similar size, water chemistry, and distribution system configurations.
Coupon tests can be used as a screen to reduce the number of options
that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the current conditions and
two options.
(iii) The water system shall measure the following water quality
parameters in any tests conducted under this
[[Page 61752]]
paragraph before and after evaluating the corrosion control treatments
listed above:
(A) Lead;
(B) Copper;
(C) pH;
(D) Alkalinity;
(E) Orthophosphate (when an orthophosphate-based inhibitor is
used), and;
(F) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used).
(iv) The water system shall identify all chemical or physical
constraints that limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion
control treatment and document such constraints with one of the
following:
(A) Data and documentation showing that a particular corrosion
control treatment has adversely affected other water treatment
processes when used by another water system with comparable water
quality characteristics. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or
pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude
treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints
identified in this section.
(B) Data and documentation demonstrating that the water system has
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control
treatment and has found that the treatment is ineffective or adversely
affects other water quality treatment processes. Systems using coupon
studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment
options shall not exclude treatment strategies from the studies based
on the constraints identified in this section unless the treatment was
found to be ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig study.
(v) The water system shall evaluate the effect of the chemicals
used for corrosion control treatment on other water quality treatment
processes. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig
studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude treatment
strategies from the studies based on the effects identified in this
section.
(vi) On the basis of an analysis of the data generated during each
evaluation, the water system shall recommend to the State in writing
the treatment option that the corrosion control studies indicate
constitutes optimal corrosion control treatment for that system. The
water system shall provide a rationale for its recommendation along
with all supporting documentation specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(d) State designation of optimal corrosion control treatment and
re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) Designation of Initial
OCCT for medium systems. (i) Based upon considerations of available
information including, where applicable, studies conducted under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section and a system's recommended corrosion
control treatment option, the State shall either approve the corrosion
control treatment option recommended by the medium-size water system or
designate alternative corrosion control treatment(s) from among those
listed in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. When designating optimal
corrosion control treatment, the State shall consider the effects that
additional corrosion control treatment will have on water quality
parameters and on other water quality treatment processes.
(ii) The State shall notify the medium-size water system of its
decision on optimal corrosion control treatment in writing and explain
the basis for this determination. If the State requests additional
information to aid its review, the water system shall provide the
information.
(2) Small systems. (i) Based upon considerations of available
information including, where applicable, studies conducted under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section and a system's recommended treatment
alternative, the State shall either approve the corrosion control
treatment option recommended by the small water system or designate
alternative corrosion control treatment(s) from among those listed in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or a small water system compliance
flexibility under Sec. 141.93. When designating optimal corrosion
control treatment, the State shall consider the effects that additional
corrosion control treatment will have on water quality parameters and
on other water quality treatment processes.
(ii) The State shall notify the small water system of its decision
on either optimal corrosion control treatment or a small water system
compliance flexibility in writing and explain the basis for this
determination. If the State requests additional information to aid its
review, the water system shall provide the information.
(3) Designation of Re-optimized OCCT for large and medium systems.
(i) Based upon considerations of available information including, where
applicable, studies conducted under paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this
section and a system's recommended treatment alternative, the State
shall either approve the corrosion control treatment modification
option recommended by the water system or designate alternative
corrosion control treatment(s) from among those listed in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) or (c)(3)(i) of this section. When designating re-optimized
corrosion control treatment, the State shall consider the effects that
additional corrosion control treatment will have on water quality
parameters and on other water quality treatment processes.
(ii) The State shall notify the water system of its decision on re-
optimized corrosion control treatment in writing and explain the basis
for this determination. If the State requests additional information to
aid its review, the water system shall provide the information.
(4) Designation of Re-optimization of OCCT or small water system
compliance flexibility. (i) Based upon considerations of available
information including, where applicable, studies conducted under
paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section and a system's recommended
treatment alternative, the State shall either approve the corrosion
control treatment modification recommended by the small water system or
designate alternative corrosion control treatment(s) from among those
listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (c)(3)(i) of this section or an
applicable small water system compliance flexibility under Sec.
141.93. When designating re-optimized corrosion control treatment, the
State shall consider the effects that additional corrosion control
treatment will have on water quality parameters and on other water
quality treatment processes.
(ii) The State shall notify the water system of its decision on re-
optimized corrosion control treatment in writing and explain the basis
for this determination. If the State requests additional information to
aid its review, the water system shall provide the information.
(e) Installation of optimal corrosion control treatment and re-
optimization of corrosion control treatment. (1) Each medium-size water
system shall properly install and operate throughout its distribution
system the optimal corrosion control treatment designated by the State
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Each small water system shall properly install and operate
throughout its distribution system the optimal corrosion control
treatment or implement the small water system compliance flexibility as
designated by the State under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(3) Each medium-size water system shall properly modify and operate
throughout its distribution system the re-optimized corrosion control
[[Page 61753]]
treatment designated by the State under paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(4) Each small water system shall properly modify and operate
throughout its distribution system the re-optimized corrosion control
treatment or implement the small water system compliance flexibility
designated by the State under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(f) State review of treatment and specification of optimal water
quality control parameters for optimal corrosion control treatment and
re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) The State shall evaluate
the results of all lead and copper tap sampling and water quality
parameter sampling submitted by the water system and determine whether
the water system has properly installed and operated the optimal
corrosion control treatment designated by the State in paragraph (d)(1)
or (d)(2) of this section, respectively. Upon reviewing the results of
tap water and water quality parameter monitoring by the water system,
both before and after the water system installs optimal corrosion
control treatment, the State shall designate:
(i) A minimum value or a range of values for pH measured at each
entry point to the distribution system.
(ii) A minimum pH value measured in all tap samples. Such a value
shall be equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the State determines that
meeting a pH level of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or is not
necessary for the system to optimize corrosion control.
(iii) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum concentration or
a range of concentrations for orthophosphate or silicate measured at
each entry point to the distribution system.
(iv) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum orthophosphate or
silicate concentration measured in all tap samples that the State
determines is necessary to form a passivating film on the interior
walls of the pipes of the distribution system. When orthophosphate is
used, such a concentration shall be equal to or greater than 0.5 mg/L
as orthophosphate, unless the State determines that meeting an
orthophosphate residual of 0.5 mg/L is not technologically feasible or
is not necessary for the system to optimize corrosion control.
(v) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion control
treatment, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for
alkalinity, measured at each entry point to the distribution system and
in all tap samples.
(vi) The values for the applicable water quality control
parameters, previously listed in this section, shall be those that the
State determines to reflect optimal corrosion control treatment for the
water system. The State may designate values for additional water
quality control parameters determined by the State to reflect optimal
corrosion control for the water system. The State shall notify the
system in writing of these determinations and explain the basis for its
decisions.
(2) The State shall evaluate the results of all lead and copper tap
sampling and water quality parameter monitoring submitted by the water
system and determine whether the water system has properly installed
and operated the re-optimized corrosion control treatment designated by
the State in paragraph (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section, respectively.
Upon reviewing the results of tap sampling and water quality parameter
monitoring by the water system, both before and after the water system
installs re-optimized corrosion control treatment, the State shall
designate:
(i) A minimum value or a range of values for pH measured at each
entry point to the distribution system.
(ii) A minimum pH value measured in all tap samples. Such a value
shall be equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the State determines that
meeting a pH level of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or is not
necessary for the system to optimize corrosion control.
(iii) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum concentration or
a range of concentrations for orthophosphate or silicate measured at
each entry point to the distribution system.
(iv) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum orthophosphate or
silicate concentration measured in all tap samples that the State
determines is necessary to form a passivating film on the interior
walls of the pipes of the distribution system. When orthophosphate is
used, such a concentration shall be equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/L
as orthophosphate, unless the State determines that meeting an
orthophosphate residual of 1.0 mg/L is not technologically feasible or
is not necessary for the system to optimize corrosion control.
(v) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion control
treatment, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for
alkalinity, measured at each entry point to the distribution system and
in all tap samples.
(vi) The values for the applicable water quality control
parameters, previously listed in this section, shall be those that the
State determines to reflect optimal corrosion control treatment for the
water system. The State may designate values for additional water
quality control parameters determined by the State to reflect optimal
corrosion control for the water system. The State shall notify the
system in writing of these determinations and explain the basis for its
decisions.
(g) Continued operation and monitoring for optimal corrosion
control treatment and re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) All
systems optimizing corrosion control shall continue to operate and
maintain optimal corrosion control treatment, including maintaining
water quality parameters at or above minimum values or within ranges
designated by the State under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, in
accordance with this paragraph for all samples collected under Sec.
141.87(d) through (f). The requirements of this paragraph (g) apply to
all systems, including consecutive systems that distribute water that
has been treated to control corrosion by another system. Any water
system with optimal corrosion control treatment or re-optimized
corrosion control treatment that is not required to monitor water
quality parameters under Sec. 141.87 shall continue to operate and
maintain such treatment. Compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph shall be determined every six months, as specified under
Sec. 141.87(d). A water system is out of compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph for a six-month period if it has
excursions for any State-specified parameter on more than nine days
during the period. An excursion occurs whenever the daily value for one
or more of the water quality parameters measured at a sampling location
is below the minimum value or outside the range designated by the
State. Daily values are calculated as follows. States have discretion
to delete results of obvious sampling errors from this calculation.
(i) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the average of all results collected during the day regardless of
whether they are collected through continuous monitoring, grab
sampling, or a combination of both. If the EPA has approved an
alternative formula under Sec. 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the
State's application for a program revision submitted pursuant to Sec.
142.12 of this chapter, the State's formula shall be used to aggregate
multiple measurements taken at a sampling point for the water quality
parameters in lieu of the formula in this paragraph.
[[Page 61754]]
(ii) On days when only one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the result of that measurement.
(iii) On days when no measurement is collected for the water
quality parameter at the sampling location, the daily value shall be
the daily value calculated on the most recent day on which the water
quality parameter was measured at the sampling location.
(2) All systems re-optimizing corrosion control shall continue to
operate and maintain re-optimized corrosion control treatment,
including maintaining water quality parameters at or above minimum
values or within ranges designated by the State under paragraph (f)(2)
of this section, in accordance with this paragraph for all samples
collected under Sec. 141.87(d) through (f). Compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph shall be determined every six months, as
specified under Sec. 141.87(d). A water system is out of compliance
with the requirements of this paragraph for a six-month period if it
has excursions for any State-specified parameter on more than nine days
during the period. An excursion occurs whenever the daily value for one
or more of the water quality parameters measured at a sampling location
is below the minimum value or outside the range designated by the
State. Daily values are calculated as follows. States have discretion
to delete results of obvious sampling errors from this calculation.
(i) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the average of all results collected during the day regardless of
whether they are collected through continuous monitoring, grab
sampling, or a combination of both. If the EPA has approved an
alternative formula under Sec. 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the
State's application for a program revision submitted pursuant to Sec.
142.12 of this chapter, the State's formula shall be used to aggregate
multiple measurements taken at a sampling point for the water quality
parameters in lieu of this formula in this paragraph.
(ii) On days when only one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the result of that measurement.
(iii) On days when no measurement is collected for the water
quality parameter at the sampling location, the daily value shall be
the daily value calculated on the most recent day on which the water
quality parameter was measured at the sampling location.
(h) Modification of State treatment decisions for optimal corrosion
control and re-optimized corrosion control. Upon its own initiative or
in response to a request by a water system or other interested party, a
State may modify its determination of the optimal corrosion control
treatment under paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(4) of this
section, or optimal water quality control parameters under paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. A request for modification by a
system or other interested party shall be in writing, explaining why
the modification is appropriate, and providing supporting
documentation. The State may modify its determination where it
concludes that such change is necessary to ensure that the water system
continues to optimize corrosion control treatment re-optimized
corrosion control treatment. A revised determination shall be made in
writing, set forth the new treatment requirements and/or water quality
parameters, explain the basis for the State's decision, and provide an
implementation schedule for completing the treatment modifications for
re-optimized corrosion control treatment.
(i) Treatment decisions by the EPA in lieu of the State on optimal
corrosion control treatment and re-optimized corrosion control
treatment. (1) Pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 142.19 of this
chapter, the EPA Regional Administrator may review optimal corrosion
control treatment determinations made by a State under paragraph
(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (f)(1), (f)(2), or (h) of this section
and issue Federal treatment determinations consistent with the
requirements of those paragraphs where the Regional Administrator finds
that:
(i) A State has failed to issue a treatment determination by the
applicable deadlines contained in Sec. 141.81.
(ii) A State has abused its discretion in a substantial number of
cases or in cases affecting a substantial population; or
(iii) The technical aspects of a State's determination would be
indefensible in an expected Federal enforcement action taken against a
water system.
(j) Find-and-fix assessment for tap sample sites that exceed the
lead action level. The water system shall conduct the following steps,
when a tap sample site exceeds the lead action level under monitoring
conducted under Sec. 141.86.
(1) Step 1. The water system shall sample at a new water quality
parameter site that is on the same size water main in the same pressure
zone and located within a half mile of the location with the action
level exceedance within 5 days of receiving the sample results. The
water system shall measure the following parameters:
(i) pH;
(ii) Alkalinity;
(iii) Orthophosphate, when an inhibitor containing an
orthophosphate compound is used;
(iv) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is
used; and
(v) Water systems with an existing water quality parameter location
that meets the requirements of this section can conduct this sampling
at that location. All water systems required to meet optimal water
quality control parameters shall add new sites to the minimum number of
sites as described in Sec. 141.87(g).
(2) Step 2. Water systems shall collect a follow-up sample at any
tap sample site that exceeds the action level within 30 days of
receiving the sample results. These follow-up samples may use different
sample volumes or different sample collection procedures to assess the
source of elevated lead levels. Samples collected under this section
shall be submitted to the State but shall not be included in the 90th
percentile calculation for compliance monitoring under Sec. 141.86. If
the water system is unable to collect a follow-up sample at a site, the
water system shall provide documentation to the State, explaining why
it was unable to collect a follow-up sample.
(3) Step 3. Water systems shall evaluate the results of the
monitoring conducted under this paragraph to determine if either
localized or centralized adjustment of the optimal corrosion control
treatment (initial, modified, or re-optimized) is necessary and submit
the recommendation to the State within six months after the end of the
monitoring period in which the site(s) exceeded the lead action level.
Corrosion control treatment modification may not be necessary to
address every exceedance. Water systems shall note if the cause of the
elevated lead level if known in their recommendation to the State.
(4) Step 4. The State shall approve the treatment recommendation or
specify a different approach within six months of completion of
paragraph (j), Step 3 of this section.
(5) Step 5. If the State-approved treatment recommendation requires
the water system to adjust the optimal corrosion control treatment
process, the water system shall complete modifications to its corrosion
control
[[Page 61755]]
treatment within 12 months after completion of paragraph (j), Step 4 of
this section. Systems without corrosion control treatment required to
install optimal corrosion control treatment shall follow the schedule
in Sec. 141.81(e).
(6) Step 6. Water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion control
treatment shall complete follow-up sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(2) and
Sec. 141.87(c)) within 12 months after completion of paragraph (j),
Step 5 of this section.
(7) Step 7. For water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion
control treatment, the State shall review the water system's
modification of corrosion control treatment and designate optimal water
quality control parameters (Sec. 141.82(f)(1)) within six months of
completion of paragraph (j), Step 6 of this section.
(8) Step 8. For water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion
control treatment, the water system shall operate in compliance with
the State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec. Sec.
141.86(d)(3) and 141.87(d)).
0
7. Revise Sec. 141.84 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.84 Lead service line inventory and replacement requirements.
(a) Lead service line inventory. All water systems must develop and
maintain a publicly accessible inventory of lead service lines and
service lines of unknown materials in its distribution system. The
inventory must meet the following requirements:
(1) Deadlines. All water systems must develop the initial inventory
by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register] and
submit it to the primacy agency in accordance with Sec. 141.90.
(2) A water system shall use the information on lead and galvanized
steel that it is required to collect under Sec. 141.42(d) of this part
when conducting the inventory of service lines in its distribution
system for the initial inventory under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. The water system shall also review the sources of information
listed below to identify service line materials for the initial
inventory. In addition, the water system shall seek to collect such
information where possible in the course of its normal operations
(e.g., checking service line materials when reading water meters or
performing maintenance activities):
(i) All plumbing codes, permits, and records in the files of the
building department(s) which indicate the service line materials used
to connect water system- and customer-owned structures to the
distribution system.
(ii) All water system records, including distribution system maps
and drawings, historical records on each service connection, meter
installation records, historical capital improvement or master plans,
and standard operating procedures.
(iii) All inspections and records of the distribution system that
indicate the material composition of the service connections that
connect a structure to the distribution system.
(iv) Any resource required by the State to asses service line
materials for structures built prior to 1989.
(3) The initial inventory must include all service lines connected
to the public water distribution system regardless of ownership status
(e.g., where service line ownership is shared, the inventory would
include both the portion of the service line owned by the water system
and the customer-owned portion of the service line). Service lines
shall be categorized in the following manner:
(i) Lead where either the water system portion, customer portion or
both portions of the service line are made of lead or where the
customer-owned portion is a galvanized pipe where the water system's
portion is or was a lead service line.
(ii) Non-lead where both the water system portion and customer
portion are non-lead.
(iii) Unknown where the service line material is only known to be
non-lead on either the water system portion or the customer portion of
the service line or the service line material for both portions of the
line is unknown.
(4) Systems shall update the inventory on an annual basis to
address any lead service line replacement or service line material
identification at sites with lines characterized as unknown. The
updated inventory shall be submitted to the State on an annual basis.
(5) Service lines listed as unknown in the initial inventory or the
updated inventory in paragraph (a)(4) of this section must be counted
as lead service lines for purposes of calculating lead service line
replacement rates as well as for issuing targeted public education to
consumers served by a lead or unknown service line.
(i) These service lines must be considered lead service lines
unless they are demonstrated to be non-lead by records or physical
examination.
(ii) Service lines of unknown material shall not be used for Tier 1
sampling sites.
(iii) When a service line initially listed as a lead service line
on an inventory is later determined to be non-lead, the water system
must update its inventory and shall subtract it from the number of lead
service lines used to calculate lead service line replacement rates.
Such service lines must not be considered replaced.
(iv) Service lines initially characterized as non-lead that are
later found to be made of lead on either the system or customer portion
shall be re-characterized as a lead service line and added to the
number of lead service lines used to calculate the lead service line
replacement rates.
(6) The primacy agency may designate acceptable methods to
determine the service line material of unknown lines.
(7) All water systems with lead service lines must make its
inventory publicly accessible.
(i) The inventory must include a location identifier, such as a
street, intersection, or landmark, served by each lead service line.
Water systems are not required to list the exact address of each lead
service line.
(ii) Water systems serving greater than 100,000 persons must make
the inventory available electronically.
(b) Lead service line replacement plan. All water systems with lead
service lines in their distribution system shall, by [DATE 3 YEARS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register], submit a lead
service line replacement plan and lead service line inventory to the
primacy agency described in paragraph (a) of this section. The plan
must include procedures to conduct full lead service line replacement,
a strategy for informing customers before a full or partial lead
service line replacement, a lead service line replacement goal rate in
the event of a lead trigger level exceedance, a pitcher filter tracking
and maintenance system, a procedure for customers to flush service
lines and premise plumbing of particulate lead, and a funding strategy
for conducting lead service line replacements.
(c) Operating procedures for replacing lead goosenecks, pigtails,
or connectors. (1) The water system must replace any lead gooseneck,
pigtail, or connector it owns when encountered during emergency repairs
or planned water system infrastructure work.
(2) The water system must offer to replace a customer-owned lead
gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; however, the water system is not
required to bear the cost of replacement of the customer-owned parts.
(3) The water system is not required to replace a customer-owned
lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector if the customer objects to its
replacement.
(4) The replacement of a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector does
not count for the purposes of meeting
[[Page 61756]]
the requirements for goal-based or mandatory lead service line
replacements, in accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2) of this
section, respectively.
(5) Upon replacement of any gooseneck, pigtail, or connector that
is attached to a lead service line, the water system must follow risk
mitigation procedures specified in 141.85(e)(5)(ii).
(d) Requirements for conducting lead service line replacement that
may result in partial replacement. (1) Any water system that plans to
partially replace a lead service line (e.g., replace only the portion
of a lead service line that it owns) in coordination with planned
infrastructure work must provide notice to the owner of the lead
service line, or the owner's authorized agent, as well as non-owner
resident(s) served by the lead service line at least 45 days prior to
the replacement. The notice must explain that the system will replace
the portion of the line it owns and offer to replace the portion of the
service line not owned by the water system. The water system is not
required to bear the cost of replacement of the portion of the lead
service line not owned by the water system.
(i) The water system must provide notification explaining that
consumers may experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their
drinking water due to the replacement, information about the health
effects of lead, and actions consumers can take to minimize their
exposure to lead in drinking water. In instances where multi-family
dwellings are served by the lead service line to be partially replaced,
the water system may elect to post the information at a conspicuous
location instead of providing individual notification to all residents.
(ii) The water system must provide information about service line
flushing in accordance with Sec. 141.84(b).
(iii) The water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher
filter certified to remove lead, three months of replacement
cartridges, and instructions for use. If the lead service line serves
more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit
building), the water system must provide a pitcher filter, three months
of replacement cartridges and use instructions to every residence in
the building.
(iv) The water system must take a follow up tap sample between
three months and six months after completion of any partial lead
service line replacement. The water system must provide the results of
the sample to the consumer in accordance with Sec. 141.85(d).
(2) Any water system that replaces the portion of the lead service
line it owns due to an emergency repair, must provide notice and risk
mitigation measures to the customer served by the lead service line
within 24 hours. The water system must provide notification and risk
mitigation measure in accordance with (d)(1)(i)-(iv) of this section.
(3) A water system must replace the lead service line it owns when
it is notified that the customer has replaced the customer-owned
portion of the lead service line. When a water system is notified by
the customer that he or she intends to replace the customer portion of
the lead service line the water system has 45 days from the day of
their notification to conduct the replacement of the system-owned
portion. The water system must make a good faith effort to coordinate
simultaneous replacement. The water system must provide notification
and risk mitigation measure in accordance with (d)(1)(i)-(iv) of this
section.
(4) When a water system is notified by the customer that he or she
has replaced the customer-owned portion and that replacement has
occurred within the previous 3 months, the water system must replace
its portion within 45 days from the day of their notification. The
water system must provide notification and risk mitigation measures in
accordance with (d)(1)(i)-(iv) of this section.
(5) When a water system is notified by the customer that he or she
has replaced the customer-owned portion and the replacement has
occurred more than three months in the past, the water system is not
required to complete the lead service line replacement of the system-
owned portion.
(e) Requirements for conducting full lead service line replacement.
(1) Any water system that conducts a full lead service line replacement
(e.g., replace both the portion of a lead service line owned by the
customer and by the water system) must provide notice to the owner of
the lead service line, or the owner's authorized agent, as well as non-
owned resident(s) served by the lead service line within 24 hours of
the replacement.
(i) The water system must provide notification explaining that
consumers may experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their
drinking water due to the replacement, information about the health
effects of lead, and actions consumers can take to minimize their
exposure to lead in drinking water. In instances where multi-family
dwellings are served by the lead service line to be replaced, the water
system may elect to post the information at a conspicuous location
instead of providing individual notification to all residents.
(ii) The water system must provide information about service line
flushing in accordance with Sec. 141.84(b).
(iii) The water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher
filter certified to remove lead, three months of replacement
cartridges, and instructions for use. If the lead service line serves
more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit
building), the water system must provide a pitcher filter, three months
of replacement cartridges and use instructions to every residence in
the building.
(iv) The water system must take a follow up tap sample between
three months and six months after completion of any partial lead
service line replacement. The water system must provide the results of
the sample to the consumer in accordance with Sec. 141.85(d).
(f) Water systems whose 90th percentile lead level from tap samples
is above the trigger level but at or below the action level. Water
systems whose 90th percentile lead level from tap samples taken
pursuant to Sec. 141.86 is above the lead trigger level but at or
below the lead action level must conduct goal-based lead service line
replacement.
(1) Within six months following completion of the initial
invention, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, water systems
serving over 10,000 persons must determine a goal rate at which it will
replace lead service lines after their 90th percentile lead level
exceeds of the trigger level but is below the lead action level. This
lead service line replacement goal rate must be approved by the State
pursuant to (b) of this section.
(2) Water systems must apply the goal replacement rate to the
initial number of lead service lines, including service lines of
unknown material, in the water system's LSL inventory. If the water
system at any time determines a service line of unknown material is
non-lead, the water system may subtract it from the initial number of
lead service lines used for calculating the lead service line
replacement rate.
(3) Lead service line replacement must be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section.
(4) Only full lead service line replacements count towards a water
system's annual replacement goal. Partial lead service line
replacements do not count towards the goal.
[[Page 61757]]
(5) The water system must provide notification to customers with
lead service lines as required in Sec. 141.85(f).
(6) Any water system that fails to meet its lead service line
replacement goal must:
(i) Conduct public outreach activities pursuant to Sec. 141.85(g)
until either the water system meets its replacement goal, or tap
sampling shows the 90th percentile of lead is below the trigger level
for two consecutive monitoring periods.
(ii) Recommence its goal-based lead service line replacement
program pursuant to this paragraph if the 90th percentile lead value
anytime thereafter exceeds the lead trigger level.
(7) The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on
the first day following the end of the monitoring period in which the
lead action level was exceeded. 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.
(8) Pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 142.19, the EPA Regional
Administrator may review the lead service line replacement goal rate
determination made by a State under paragraph Sec. 141.84(b) of this
section and issue a Federal goal-based lead service line replacement
rate determination where the Regional Administrator finds that a higher
goal-based lead service line replacement rate is feasible for a water
system.
(g) Lead service line replacement for water systems that exceed the
lead action level in tap samples. Water systems that exceed the lead
action level in tap samples taken pursuant to Sec. 141.86 must replace
full lead service lines at a minimum annual rate.
(1) Water systems must annually replace three percent of the
initial number of lead service lines in the inventory, including
service lines of unknown material at time of the action level
exceedance. The water system must meet the replacement rate with full
lead service line replacements but is not required to bear the cost of
removal of the portion of the lead service line it does not own. If the
water system later determines a service line of unknown material is
non-lead, the water system may subtract it from the initial number of
lead service lines used for calculating the lead service line
replacement rate.
(2) Lead service line replacement must be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section.
(3) Only full lead service line replacements count towards a water
system's mandatory replacement rate. Partial lead service line
replacements do not count towards the mandatory replacement rate.
(4) Water systems must conduct notification to customers with lead
service lines as required in Sec. 141.85(f).
(5) Community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons may
elect to conduct a corrosion control treatment or point-of-use filter
compliance approach as described in section Sec. 141.93 instead of
lead service line replacement. Non-transient non-community water
systems may elect to conduct a corrosion control treatment, point-of-
use filter compliance approach, or choose a replacement of lead-bearing
plumbing approach, as described in section Sec. 141.93.
(6) A water system may cease mandatory lead service line
replacement when its lead 90th percentile level, calculated under Sec.
141.80(c)(4), is at or below the lead action level during each of four
consecutive monitoring periods. If first draw tap samples collected in
any such system thereafter exceed the lead action level, the system
shall recommence mandatory lead service line replacement.
(7) The water system may cease mandatory lead service line
replacement if it obtains refusal to conduct full lead service line
replacement from every customer in its distribution area served by a
lead service line on the customer's portion. If the water system
exceeds the action level again, it must reach out to any customers
served by a lead service line where there has been a change in
residents with an offer to replace the customer-owned portion. The
water system is not required to bear the cost of replacement of the
customer-owned lead service line.
(8) The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on
the first day following the end of the monitoring period in which lead
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.
(9) The State shall require a system to replace lead service lines
on a shorter schedule than that required by this section, taking into
account the number of lead service lines in the system, where a shorter
replacement schedule is feasible. The State shall make this
determination in writing and notify the system of its finding within
six months after the system is required to begin lead service line
replacement based on monitoring referenced in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(h) State reporting to demonstrate compliance. To demonstrate
compliance with paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, a system
shall report to the State the information specified in Sec. 141.90(e).
0
8. Amend Sec. 141.85 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(b)(2)(ii)(B), and (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(7) and removing paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(C);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (4) ; and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).
The revisions and additions 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 with lead service lines must deliver public education materials
to persons with a lead service line as specified in paragraph (e) and
(f) of this section. All water systems must conduct annual outreach to
healthcare providers and caregivers as outlined in section (g) 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 and 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) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Health effects of lead. Exposure to lead can cause serious
health effects in all age groups. Infants and children who drink water
containing lead could have decreases in IQ and attention span and
increases in learning and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women
who are pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women
who later become pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the
mother's bones is released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests
that adults who drink water containing lead have increased
[[Page 61758]]
risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system
problems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) Schools, child care facilities and school boards.
* * * * *
(7) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
(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, in accordance to the following
timeframes:
(i) For individual samples that do not exceed the lead action
level, no later than 30 days after the water system learns of the tap
monitoring results.
(ii) For individual samples that exceed the lead action level, no
later than 24 hours after the water system learns of the tap monitoring
results.
* * * * *
(4) Delivery. (i) For lead tap sample results that do not exceed
the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L, the water systems must provide
consumer notice 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
consumers, including customers at taps where sampling was conducted.
(ii) For tap sample results that exceed the lead action level of
0.015 mg/L, the water systems must provide consumer notice to consumers
served at the tap that was tested electronically or by phone or another
method approved by the State.
(e) Notification of lead service line. (1) Notification
requirements. All water systems with lead service lines must provide
notification to all consumers with a lead service line or a service
line of unknown material informing them they have a lead service line
or a service line of unknown material.
(2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the initial
notification within 30 days of completion of the lead service line
inventory required under Sec. 141.84 and repeat the notification on an
annual basis until the customer no longer has a lead service line. For
new customers, water systems shall provide the notice at the time of
service initiation.
(3) Content. (i) Consumers with a confirmed lead service line. The
notice must include a statement that the consumer's service line is
lead, an explanation of the health effects of lead, steps consumers can
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, information about
opportunities to replace lead service lines and information about
programs that provide innovative financing solutions to assist
consumers with replacement of their portion of a lead service line, and
a statement that the water system is required to replace its portion of
a lead service line when the consumer notifies them they are replacing
their owned portion of the lead service line.
(ii) Customers with a service line of unknown material. The notice
must include a statement that the customer's service line is of unknown
material that may be lead, an explanation of the health effects of
lead, steps customers can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking
water and information about opportunities to verify the material of the
service line.
(4) Delivery. The notice must be provided to persons served by a
lead service line or service line of unknown material, either by mail
or by another method approved by the primacy agency.
(5) Notification due to a disturbance of a lead service line. (i)
Water systems that cause disturbance to a lead service line that
results in the water being shut off, and without conducting a partial
or full lead service line replacement, must provide the consumer with
information about the potential for elevated lead in drinking water a
result of the disturbance as well as a flushing procedure to remove
particulate lead.
(ii) If the disturbance of a lead service line results from the
replacement of the water meter or gooseneck, pigtail, or connector, the
water system must comply with the requirements in paragraph (e)(5)(i)
of this section as well as provide the consumer with a pitcher filter
certified to remove lead, instructions to use the filter, and three
months of filter replacement cartridges.
(iii) A water system that conducts a partial or full lead service
line replacement must comply with the requirements in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section as well as provide the consumer with a
pitcher filter certified to remove lead, instructions to use the
filter, and three months of filter replacement cartridges.
(iv) The water system must comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(5) of this section before the consumer's water is turned
back on after it has been shut off by the water system.
(f) Notification of exceedance of the lead trigger level. (1) All
water systems with lead service lines that exceed the lead trigger
level of 0.010 mg/L must provide customers that have a lead service
line information regarding the water system's goal-based lead service
line replacement program and opportunities for replacement of the lead
service line.
(2) Timing. Waters Systems shall send notification within 30 days
of the end of the monitoring period in which the trigger level
exceedance occurred. Water systems must repeat the notification
annually until the results of sampling conducted under Sec. 141.86 is
at or below the lead trigger level.
(3) Delivery. The notice must be provided to persons served by a
lead service line, either by mail or by another method approved by the
State.
(g) Outreach activities for failure to meet the lead service line
replacement goal. (1) In the first year that a water system that does
not meet its annual lead service line replacement goal as required
under Sec. 141.84, it must conduct one outreach activity from the
following list in the following year until the water system meets it
replacement goal or until tap sampling shows that the 90th percentile
for lead is at or below the trigger level of 0.010 mg/L. Any water
system that thereafter continues to fail to meet its lead service line
replacement goal must conduct two outreach activities per year from the
following list:
(i) Conduct social media campaign.
(ii) Contact organizations representing plumbers and contractors by
mail to provide information about lead in drinking water including
health effects, sources of lead, and the importance of using lead free
plumbing materials.
(iii) Send certified mail to customers with a lead service line to
inform them about the water system's goal-based lead service line
replacement program and opportunities for replacement of the lead
service line.
(iv) Conduct a town hall meeting or participate in a community
event to provide information about its lead service line replacement
program and distribute public education materials.
(v) Visit targeted customers to discuss the lead service line
replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
[[Page 61759]]
(vi) In the case where all lead service line customers refuse to
participate in the lead service line replacement program, obtain a
signed letter from each customer stating such refusal.
(h) Public education to local and State health agencies. (1) All
water systems shall provide public education materials that meet the
content requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Timing. Water systems must send public education materials no
later than January 15 of each calendar year.
(3) Delivery. Water systems shall send public education materials
or provide public education by mail or by another method approved by
the State.
0
9. Amend Sec. 141.86 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (b)(2);
0
b. Reserving paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e);
0
d. Revising the heading of paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.
(a) Sample site location. (1) By the applicable date for
commencement of monitoring under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each
water system shall complete a lead service line inventory of its
distribution system and identify a pool of targeted sampling sites that
meet the requirements of this section, and which is sufficiently large
enough to ensure that the water system can collect the number of lead
and copper tap samples required in paragraph (c) of this section. Water
systems with lead service lines or service lines of unknown material
must re-evaluate the tap sampling locations based on a lead service
line inventory conducted under Sec. 141.84(a), which must be updated
annually thereafter, including identifying any changes to the sampling
locations. Sites may not include faucets that have point-of-use (POU)
or point-of-entry (POE) treatment devices designed to remove inorganic
contaminants, except for systems monitoring under Sec. 141.93 (Small
System Compliance Flexibility). Lead and copper sampling results for
systems monitoring under 141.93(c)(3) and (d)(3) may not be used for
the purposes of meeting the criteria for reduced monitoring specified
in (d)(4) of this section.
(2) A water system shall use the information on lead, copper, and
galvanized steel that is required to be collected under Sec. 141.42(d)
(special monitoring for corrosivity characteristics) when conducting a
materials evaluation. A water system shall use the information on lead
service lines that is required to be collected under Sec. 141.84(a) to
identify potential lead service line sampling sites. When an evaluation
of the information collected pursuant to Sec. 141.42(d) and 141.84(a)
is insufficient to locate the requisite number of lead and copper
sampling sites that meet the targeting criteria in paragraph (a) of
this section, the water system shall review the sources of information
listed below to identify a sufficient number of sampling sites. In
addition, the system shall seek to collect such information where
possible in the course of its normal operations (e.g., checking service
line materials when reading water meters or performing maintenance
activities):
(i) All plumbing codes, permits, and records in the files of the
building department(s) that indicate the plumbing materials that are
installed within publicly and privately-owned structures connected to
the distribution system;
(ii) All inspections and records of the distribution system that
indicate the material composition of the service connections that
connect a structure to the distribution system; and
(iii) All existing water quality information, which includes the
results of all prior analyses of the system or individual structures
connected to the system, indicating locations that may be particularly
susceptible to high lead or copper concentrations.
(3) The sampling sites selected for a community water system's
sampling pool (``Tier 1 sampling sites'') shall consist of single-
family structures that are served by a lead service line. When
multiple-family residences comprise at least 20 percent of the
structures served by a water system, the system may include these types
of structures in its Tier 1 sampling pool, if served by a lead service
line. Service lines of unknown material must not be used as Tier 1
sampling sites.
(4) Any community water system with insufficient Tier 1 sampling
sites shall complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 2 sampling sites,''
consisting of buildings, including multiple-family residences that are
served by a lead service line.
(5) Any community water system with insufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2
sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 3 sampling
sites,'' consisting of single-family structures that contain copper
pipes with lead solder.
(6) A community water system with insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, and
Tier 3 sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 4
sampling sites,'' consisting of single-family structures or buildings,
including multiple family residences that are representative of sites
throughout the distribution system. For the purpose of this paragraph,
a representative site is a site in which the plumbing materials used at
that site would be commonly found at other sites served by the water
system.
(7) The sampling sites selected for a non-transient non-community
water system (``Tier 1 sampling sites'') shall consist of buildings
that are served by a lead service line. Service lines of unknown
material must not be used as Tier 1 sampling sites.
(8) A non-transient non-community water system with insufficient
Tier 1 sites that meet the targeting criteria in paragraph (a)(7) of
this section shall complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 3 sampling
sites,'' consisting of sampling sites that contain copper pipes with
lead solder.
(9) A non-transient non-community water system with insufficient
Tier 1 and Tier 3 sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with
``Tier 4 sampling sites,'' consisting of sampling sites that are
representative of 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.
(10) Any water system whose distribution system contains lead
service lines shall collect all samples for monitoring under this
section from sites served by a lead service line. A water system that
cannot identify a sufficient number of sampling sites served by lead
service lines shall still collect samples from every site served by a
lead service line, and collect the remaining samples in accordance with
tiering requirements under (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
(b) Sample collection methods. (1) All tap samples for lead and
copper collected in accordance with this subpart, with the exception of
samples collected under paragraph (b)(5) and paragraph (h) of this
section, shall be first draw samples.
(2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead and copper shall be one
liter in volume and have stood motionless in the plumbing system of
each sampling site for at least six hours. Bottles used to collect
these samples shall be wide-mouth one-liter sample bottles. First-draw
samples from residential housing shall be collected from the cold-water
kitchen tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw samples from a
nonresidential building shall be one liter in volume and collected at
an interior tap from which water is typically drawn for consumption.
Non-first-draw samples
[[Page 61760]]
collected in lieu of first-draw samples pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of
this section shall be one liter in volume and shall be collected at an
interior tap from which water is typically drawn for consumption.
First-draw samples may be collected by the system or the system may
allow residents to collect first-draw samples after instructing the
residents of the sampling procedures specified in this paragraph.
Sampling instructions provided to customers shall not include
instructions for aerator removal and cleaning or flushing of taps prior
to the start of the minimum six-hour stagnation period. To avoid
problems of residents handling nitric acid, acidification of first-draw
samples may be done up to 14 days after the sample is collected. After
acidification to re-solubilize the metals, the sample must stand in the
original container for the time specified in the approved EPA method
before the sample can be analyzed. If a system allows residents to
perform sampling, the system may not challenge, based on alleged errors
in sample collection, the accuracy of sampling results.
* * * * *
(d) Timing of monitoring (1) Initial tap sampling. (i) All water
systems with lead service lines deemed optimized under Sec.
141.81(b)(3) and systems that did not conduct monitoring that meets the
requirements of this section prior to the compliance date of this
section must begin the first six-month monitoring period on January 1
in the year following the compliance date of this section.
(ii) Systems that conducted monitoring that meets the requirements
of this section prior to the effective date of this section shall
conduct the next round of monitoring on the following schedules based
on the results of that monitoring:
(A) Systems that exceed the action levels for lead or copper shall
begin the first six-month monitoring period on January 1 in the year
following the effective date of this section.
(B) Systems that exceed the lead trigger level and meet the lead
and copper action levels shall begin the first annual monitoring period
on January 1 in the year following the effective date of this section.
Samples shall be analyzed for lead on an annual basis. Samples shall be
analyzed for copper on a triennial basis. Systems without corrosion
control treatment that meet the lead trigger level in three annual
monitoring periods may reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4) of this section.
(C) Lead service line systems that do not exceed the lead trigger
level and copper action level shall begin the next annual monitoring
period on January 1 of the year following the effective date of this
section. Samples shall be analyzed for lead on an annual basis. Samples
shall be analyzed for copper on a triennial basis. Systems that do not
exceed the lead trigger level in three annual monitoring periods may
reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(D) Systems without lead service lines that do not exceed the lead
trigger level and the copper action level shall begin the next
triennial monitoring period within three calendar years of the previous
round.
(2) Monitoring after installation of initial or re-optimized
corrosion control treatment and installation of source water treatment.
(i) Any water system that installs or re-optimizes corrosion control
treatment shall continue to monitor for lead and copper every six
months until the State specifies water quality parameter values for
optimal corrosion control.
(ii) Any system that re-optimizes corrosion control treatment as a
result of exceeding the lead trigger level shall monitor annually for
lead. Samples shall be analyzed for copper on a triennial basis. Small
and medium-size systems for which the State did not specify water
quality control parameters under Sec. 141.82 that meet the lead
trigger level in three annual monitoring periods may reduce monitoring
in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(iii) Any system that installs source water treatment pursuant to
Sec. 141.83(a)(3) shall monitor every six months until the system
meets the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods. Systems that meet the lead and copper action
levels, but not the lead trigger level for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods may reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4) of this section.
(3) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values
for optimal corrosion control treatment. (i) After the State specifies
the values for water quality control parameters under Sec. 141.82(f),
all large and any small or medium size systems that exceeded an action
level shall continue to monitor every six months until the system does
not exceed the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods. Systems that do not exceed the lead and
copper action levels, but exceed the lead trigger level (10
[micro]g/L) shall monitor annually at the standard number of sites
listed in (c) of this section. Systems that do not exceed the lead
trigger level and copper action level in three annual monitoring
periods may reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of
this section.
(ii) Any small or medium size system which exceeded the lead
trigger level for which the State has specified water quality parameter
values for optimal corrosion control treatment shall continue to
monitor every six months until the system meets the lead and copper
action levels for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Systems
that do not exceed the lead and copper action levels, but exceed the
lead trigger level shall monitor annually at the standard number of
sites listed in paragraph (c) of this section. Systems that do not
exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level in three annual
monitoring periods may reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4) of this section.
(4) Reduced Monitoring based on 90th percentile lead levels. (i)
(A) A small or medium-size system that meets the lead trigger level and
copper action level under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may
reduce the frequency of sampling to annual monitoring. This monitoring
shall begin in the calendar year immediately following the end of the
second consecutive 6-month monitoring period.
(B) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead trigger
level and copper action level under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this
section may reduce the number of samples in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section and reduce the sampling frequency to triennial
monitoring. This monitoring shall begin during the calendar year three
years after the monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of
this section. A small or medium system collecting fewer than five
samples as specified in paragraph (c) of this section that meets the
lead trigger level and copper action level under paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section may reduce the sampling frequency to
triennial monitoring. In no case may the system reduce the number of
samples below the minimum of one sample per available tap. This
monitoring shall begin during the calendar year three years after the
monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section.
(C) Any small or medium-size system without corrosion control
treatment that exceeds the lead trigger level, but meets copper action
level, shall collect the standard number of samples on an annual basis.
This sampling shall begin in the calendar year following the monitoring
conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. A
small or medium system collecting
[[Page 61761]]
fewer than five samples as specified in paragraph (c) of this section
that meets the lead trigger level and copper action level under
paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section shall collect the
standard number of samples on an annual basis. In no case may the
system reduce the number of samples below the minimum of one sample per
available tap. This sampling shall begin in the calendar year following
the monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(B) of
this section.
(D) Any small or medium-size system with corrosion control
treatment that exceeds the lead trigger level but meets the lead and
copper action levels and is not required by the State to make changes
to the corrosion control treatment as a result of the re-optimization
assessment under Sec. 141.82, shall collect the standard number of
samples on an annual basis. This sampling shall begin in the calendar
year following the monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or
(d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. A small or medium system collecting
fewer than five samples as specified in paragraph (c) of this section
that meets the lead trigger level and copper action level under
paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section shall collect the standard number
of samples on an annual basis. In no case may the system reduce the
number of samples below the minimum of one sample per available tap.
This monitoring shall begin in the calendar year following the
monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section.
(ii) (A) Any water system that meets the lead trigger level and
copper action level and maintains the range of values for the water
quality parameters for optimal corrosion control treatment specified by
the State under Sec. 141.82(f) during each of two consecutive six-
month monitoring periods may reduce the sampling frequency for the
standard number of samples to annual monitoring. This sampling shall
begin in 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 to 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
frequency of tap sampling becomes available.
(B) Any water system that exceeds the lead trigger level but meets
the lead and copper action levels and 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 each of
two consecutive six-month monitoring periods may reduce the monitoring
frequency at the standard number of sites to annual monitoring. This
sampling shall begin in the calendar year immediately following the end
of the second consecutive 6-month monitoring period. The State shall
review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant information submitted
by the water system in accordance to 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
frequency of monitoring becomes available.
(iii) (A) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead
trigger level and copper action level under paragraph (d)(4)(i)(D) of
this section may reduce the number of samples in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section and reduce the monitoring frequency to
triennial monitoring. This sampling should begin during the calendar
year three years after the monitoring conducted under paragraph
(d)(ii)(D) of this section. A small or medium system collecting fewer
than five samples as specified in paragraph (c) of this section that
meets the lead trigger level and copper action level under paragraph
(d)(ii)(D) of this section may reduce the monitoring frequency to
triennial monitoring. This monitoring should begin during the calendar
year three years after the monitoring conducted under paragraph
(d)(ii)(D) of this section. In no case may the system reduce the number
of samples below the minimum of one sample per available tap. This
sampling should begin during the calendar year three years after the
monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section.
(B) Any small or medium-size system monitoring under Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(i)(A) or (B) that meets the lead trigger level and the
copper action level in three consecutive rounds of annual monitoring
may reduce the number of samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this section and reduce the sampling frequency to triennial monitoring.
This sampling should begin during the calendar year three years after
the monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section. A
small or medium system collecting fewer than five samples as specified
in paragraph (c) of this section that meets the lead trigger level and
copper action level under paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section may
reduce the sampling frequency to triennial monitoring. In no case may
the system reduce the number of samples below the minimum of one sample
per available tap. This monitoring must begin during the calendar year
three years after the monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(ii)(D)
of this section.
(iv) A water system that reduces the frequency of sampling shall
collect these samples from representative sites included in the pool of
targeted sampling sites identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Systems monitoring annually or less frequently shall conduct the lead
and copper tap sampling during the months of June, July, August, or
September unless the State has approved a different monitoring period
in accordance with paragraph (d)(iv)(A) of this section.
(A) The State at its discretion may approve a different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting
samples at a reduced frequency. 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 normal
operation for the system. This monitoring shall begin during the period
approved or designated by the State in the calendar year immediately
following the end of the second 6-month monitoring period for systems
initiating annual monitoring and during the 3-year period following the
end of the third consecutive year of annual monitoring for systems
initiating triennial monitoring.
(B) Systems monitoring annually that have been collecting samples
during the months of June through September and that receive State
approval to alter their monitoring period under paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A)
of this section must collect their next round of samples during a time
period that ends no later than 21 months after the previous round of
sampling. Systems monitoring triennially that have been collecting
samples during the month of June through September and receive State
approval to alter their sampling
[[Page 61762]]
collection period as per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must
collect their next round of samples during a time period that ends no
later than 45 months after the previous monitoring period. Subsequent
monitoring must be conducted annually or triennially, as required by
this section. Small systems with waivers, granted pursuant to paragraph
(g) of this section that have been collecting samples during the months
of June through September and receive State approval to alter their
monitoring period as per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must
collect their next round of samples before the end of the 9-year
period.
(v) Any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that its 90th percentile lead level, calculated
under Sec. 141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the
90th percentile copper level, calculated under Sec. 141.80(c)(4), is
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may reduce the number of samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and reduce the frequency
of monitoring to triennial monitoring.
(vi)(A)(1) A small or medium-size water system on reduced triennial
monitoring that exceeds the lead or copper action level shall resume
monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section and
collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring under
paragraph (c) of this section. Such a system shall also conduct water
quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b), (c) or
(d) (as appropriate) during the monitoring period in which it exceeded
the action level. Any such water system may resume annual monitoring
for lead and copper and discontinue water quality parameter monitoring
in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) after
it has completed two consecutive 6-month rounds of monitoring that meet
the criteria of (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section, and may resume triennial
monitoring for lead and copper at the reduced number of sites after it
demonstrates through subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B) or (d)(4)(v) of this
section.
(2) A small or medium-size water system subject to annual
monitoring that exceeds the lead or copper action level shall resume
sampling in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. Such a
system shall also conduct water quality parameter monitoring in
accordance with Sec. 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) during the
monitoring period in which it exceeded the action level. Any such
system may resume annual monitoring for lead and copper and discontinue
water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b),
(c) or (d) (as appropriate) after it has completed two subsequent
consecutive 6-month rounds of monitoring that meet the criteria of
(d)(4)(i)(A) of this section, and may resume triennial monitoring for
lead and copper at the reduced number of sites after it demonstrates
through subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the criteria of
either paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B) or (d)(4)(v) of this section.
(3) A small or medium-size system subject to reduced triennial
monitoring that exceeds the lead trigger level shall resume sampling in
accordance with (d)(4)(ii)(B) of this section and collect the number of
samples specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section. If required by the State, such a system shall also conduct
water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b),
(c) or (d) (as appropriate) during the monitoring period in which it
exceeded the action level. Any such system may resume triennial
monitoring for lead and copper and discontinue water quality parameter
monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as
appropriate) after it demonstrates through subsequent rounds of
monitoring that it meets the criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii)
or (d)(4)(v) of this section.
(B)(1) Any water system subject to the reduced triennial monitoring
frequency that fails to meet the lead or copper action level during any
four-month monitoring period or 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 6-month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.87(d)
shall conduct tap water monitoring for lead and copper at the frequency
specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, collect the number of
samples specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section, and shall resume sampling for water quality parameters in
accordance with Sec. 141.87(d). This standard tap water monitoring
shall begin no later than the 6-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:
(i) The system may resume annual monitoring for lead and copper
after it has completed two subsequent 6-month rounds of monitoring that
meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) of this section and the
system has received written approval from the State that it is
appropriate to resume reduced monitoring on an annual frequency. This
monitoring shall begin during the calendar year immediately following
the end of the second consecutive 6-month monitoring period.
(ii) The system may resume triennial monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap at the reduced number of sites after it demonstrates through
subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the criteria of either
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system has
received written approval from the State that it is appropriate to
resume triennial monitoring.
(iii) The system may reduce the number of water quality parameter
tap water samples required in accordance with Sec. 141.87(e)(1) and
the frequency with which it collects such samples in accordance with
Sec. 141.87(e)(2). Such a system may not resume triennial monitoring
for water quality parameters at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-
qualified for triennial monitoring.
(2) Any water system subject to the reduced annual monitoring
frequency that fails to meet the lead or copper action level during any
four-month monitoring period or 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 6-month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.87(d)
shall conduct tap water monitoring for lead and copper at the frequency
specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, and shall resume
sampling for water quality parameters in accordance with Sec.
141.87(d). This standard monitoring shall begin no later than the 6-
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:
(i) The system may resume annual monitoring for lead and copper
after it has completed two subsequent 6-month rounds of monitoring that
meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) of this section and the
system has received written approval from the State that it is
appropriate to resume reduced monitoring on an annual frequency.
[[Page 61763]]
This sampling shall begin during the calendar year immediately
following the end of the second consecutive 6-month monitoring period.
(ii) The system may resume triennial monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap at the reduced number of sites after it demonstrates through
subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the criteria of either
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system has
received written approval from the State that it is appropriate to
resume triennial monitoring.
(iii) The system may reduce the number of water quality parameter
tap water samples required in accordance with Sec. 141.87(e)(1) and
the frequency with which it collects such samples in accordance with
Sec. 141.87(e)(2). Such a system may not resume triennial monitoring
for water quality parameters at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 141.87(e)(2), that it has
qualified for triennial monitoring.
(3) Any water system subject to the reduced triennial monitoring
frequency that exceeds the lead trigger level during any four-month
monitoring period shall conduct tap water sampling for lead and copper
at the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(B) of this section,
collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring under
paragraph (c) of this section, and shall resume sampling for water
quality parameters in accordance with Sec. 141.87(d). This standard
tap water monitoring shall begin no later than the 6-month period
beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the lead trigger
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:
(i) The system may resume triennial monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap at the reduced number of sites after it demonstrates through
subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the criteria of either
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system has
received written approval from the State that it is appropriate to
resume triennial monitoring.
(ii) The system may reduce the number of water quality parameter
tap water samples required in accordance with Sec. 141.87(e)(1) and
the frequency with which it collects such samples in accordance with
Sec. 141.87(e)(2). Such a system may not resume triennial monitoring
for water quality parameters at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-
qualified for triennial monitoring.
(iii) 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. The State may require the system to resume sampling in
accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section and collect the number
of samples specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (c) of
this section or take other appropriate steps such as increased water
quality parameter monitoring, or re-evaluation of corrosion control
treatment given the potentially different water quality considerations.
(e) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section (such
as customer-requested sampling) shall be considered by the system and
the State in making any determinations (i.e., calculating the 90th
percentile lead or copper level) under this subpart. Lead service line
water systems that are unable to collect the minimum number of samples
from Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites shall calculate the 90th percentile using
data from all the lead service lines sites and the highest values from
lower tier sites to meet the specified minimum number of sites. Data
from additional lower tier sites shall be submitted to the State but
shall not be used in the 90th percentile calculation. Customer-
requested samples from known lead service line sites shall be included
in the 90th percentile calculation when they meet the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap samples collected under
Sec. 141.86(d). * * *
* * * * *
(h) Follow-up samples for ``find-and-fix'' under Sec. 141.82(j).
Systems shall collect a follow-up sample at any site that exceeds the
action level within 30 days of receiving the sample results. These
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead. Samples
collected under this section shall be submitted to the State but shall
not be included in the 90th percentile calculation.
(i) Public availability of tap monitoring results used in the 90th
percentile calculation. All water systems shall make available to the
public the results of the tap water monitoring used to make the 90th
percentile calculation under Sec. 141.80(c)(4). Water systems shall
not be required to list the addresses of the sites where the tap
samples were collected. Large systems shall make available the
monitoring results in a digital format. Small and medium-size systems
shall make available the monitoring results in either a written or
digital format.
* * * * *
0
11. Revise Sec. 141.87 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.
All large water systems, and all small- and medium-size water
systems that exceed the lead or copper action level, and all small- and
medium-size water systems with corrosion control treatment that exceed
the lead trigger level shall monitor water quality parameters in
addition to lead and copper in accordance with this section. The
requirements of this section are summarized in the table at the end of
this section.
(a) General requirements. (1) Sample collection methods. (i) Tap
samples shall be representative of water quality throughout the
distribution system, taking into account the number of persons served,
the different sources of water, the different treatment methods
employed by the system, and seasonal variability. Tap sampling under
this section is not required to be conducted at taps targeted for lead
and copper sampling under Sec. 141.86(a).
Note to paragraph (a)(1)(i): Systems may find it convenient to
conduct tap sampling for water quality parameters at sites used for
coliform sampling under Sec. 141.21 in this chapter.
(ii) Samples collected at the entry point(s) to the distribution
system shall be from locations representative of each source after
treatment. If a system draws water from more than one source and the
sources are combined before distribution, the system must sample at an
entry point to the distribution system during periods of normal
operating conditions (i.e., when water is representative of all sources
being used).
(2) Number of samples. (i) Systems shall collect two tap samples
for applicable water quality parameters during each monitoring period
specified under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section from the
following minimum number of sites. Systems that add sites as a result
of the ``find-and-fix'' requirements in Sec. 141.82(j) shall collect
tap samples for applicable water quality
[[Page 61764]]
parameters during each monitoring period under paragraphs (c) through
(e) of this section and shall sample from that adjusted minimum number
of sites.
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number
of sites for
System size (number people served) water quality
parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000................................................. 25
10,001-100,000.......................................... 10
3,301-10,000............................................ 3
501-3,300............................................... 2
101-500................................................. 1
<=100................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
water systems without corrosion control treatment shall collect two
samples for each applicable water quality parameter at each entry point
to the distribution system during each monitoring period specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. During each monitoring period specified
in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, water systems shall
collect one sample for each applicable water quality parameter at each
entry point to the distribution system.
(B) During each monitoring period specified in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of the section, water systems with corrosion control
treatment shall continue to collect one sample for each applicable
water quality parameter at each entry point to the distribution system
no less frequently than once every two weeks.
(b) Initial sampling for water systems without corrosion control
treatment. (1) Water systems without corrosion control treatment shall
measure the applicable water quality parameters at the locations
specified below during each 6-month monitoring period specified in
Sec. 141.86(d)(1), during which the water system exceeds the lead or
copper action level, and continue until the water system meets the lead
and copper action levels for two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods.
(i) At taps:
(A) pH;
(B) Alkalinity;
(C) Orthophosphate, when an inhibitor containing an orthophosphate
compound is used;
(D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is
used;
(ii) At each entry point to the distribution system all of the
applicable parameters listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) All large water systems shall measure the applicable water
quality parameters as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, at
taps and at each entry point to the distribution system during each 6-
month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.86(d)(1). All small and
medium-size systems with corrosion control shall measure the applicable
water quality parameters at the locations specified below during each
6-month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.86(d)(1) during which
the system exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level.
(i) At taps:
(A) pH;
(B) Alkalinity;
(C) Orthophosphate, when an inhibitor containing an orthophosphate
compound is used;
(D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is
used;
(ii) At each entry point to the distribution system, all of the
applicable parameters listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(c) Monitoring after installation of optimal corrosion control or
re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) Any large water system
that re-optimizes corrosion control treatment pursuant to Sec.
141.81(d)(5)(i) and any small or medium-size water system that exceeds
the lead or copper action level and re-optimizes corrosion control
treatment pursuant to Sec. 141.81(d)(5)(ii) shall measure the water
quality parameters at the locations and frequencies specified in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, during each 6-month monitoring
period specified in Sec. 141.86(d)(2)(i). Any small or medium-size
system which installs optimal corrosion control treatment shall conduct
such monitoring during each 6-month monitoring period specified in
Sec. 141.86(d)(2)(i).
(i) At taps, two samples for:
(A) pH;
(B) Alkalinity;
(C) Orthophosphate, when an inhibitor containing an orthophosphate
compound is used;
(D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is
used;
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, at
each entry point to the distribution system, at least one sample no
less frequently than every two weeks (biweekly) for:
(A) pH;
(B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the chemical used to adjust
alkalinity, and the alkalinity concentration; and
(C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used as part of optimal corrosion
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the inhibitor used, and the
concentration of orthophosphate or silica (whichever is applicable).
(iii) Any groundwater system can limit entry point sampling
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those entry points
that are representative of water quality and treatment conditions
throughout the system. If water from untreated groundwater sources
mixes with water from treated groundwater sources, the system must
monitor for water quality parameters both at representative entry
points receiving treatment and representative entry points receiving no
treatment. Prior to the start of any monitoring under this paragraph,
the water system shall provide to the State, written information
identifying the selected entry points and documentation, including
information on seasonal variability, sufficient to demonstrate that the
sites are representative of water quality and treatment conditions
throughout the system.
(2) States have the discretion to require small and medium-size
systems that exceed the lead trigger level but not the lead and copper
action levels to conduct water quality parameter monitoring as
described in paragraph (c)(ii) of this section or the State can develop
its own water quality control parameter monitoring structure for these
systems.
(d) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values
for optimal corrosion control. (1) After the State specifies the values
for applicable water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment under Sec. 141.87(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 6-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 water system that exceeded an action level shall
conduct such monitoring until the water system meets the lead and
copper action levels and the optimal water quality control parameters
in two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods under Sec.
141.86(d)(3)(i) and this paragraph. 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 6-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-
[[Page 61765]]
designated optimal water quality parameter values shall be determined
as specified under Sec. 141.82(g).
(2) Any small or medium-size system that exceeds the lead trigger
level, but not the lead and copper action levels for which the State
has set optimal water quality control parameters shall monitor
according to the structure in paragraph (c)(ii) of this section, until
the system no longer exceeds the lead trigger level in three
consecutive annual monitoring periods. States have the discretion to
continue to require these systems to monitor optimal water quality
control parameters.
(e) Reduced monitoring. (1) Any large 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) and does not exceed the lead trigger level during each of two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods under paragraph (d) of this
section shall continue monitoring at the entry point(s) to the
distribution system as specified in paragraph (c)(ii) of this section.
Such system may collect two tap samples for applicable water quality
parameters from the following reduced number of sites during each 6-
month monitoring period.
Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced
minimum number
System size (number of people served) of sites for
water quality
parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000................................................. 10
10,001-100,000.......................................... 7
3,301-10,000............................................ 3
501-3,300............................................... 2
101-500................................................. 1
<=100................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)(i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment
specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) and does not exceed the
lead trigger level 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 6-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) and meets the
lead trigger level 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) A water system may reduce the frequency with which it collects
tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section to every three years if it
demonstrates during two consecutive monitoring periods that its tap
water lead level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the
PQL for lead specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water
copper level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L
in Sec. 141.80(c)(3), and that it also has maintained the range of
values for the water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f).
Monitoring conducted every three years shall be done no later than
every third calendar year.
(3) A water system that conducts sampling annually shall collect
these samples evenly throughout the year so as to reflect seasonal
variability.
(4) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to operate at or above the minimum value or within the range
of values for the water quality parameters specified by the State in
Sec. 141.82(f) for more than nine days in any 6-month period specified
in Sec. 141.82(g) shall resume distribution system tap water sampling
in accordance with the number and frequency requirements in paragraph
(d) of this section. Such a system may resume annual monitoring for
water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced number of sites
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it has completed
two subsequent consecutive 6-month rounds of monitoring that meet the
criteria of that paragraph and/or may resume triennial monitoring for
water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced number of sites
after it demonstrates through subsequent rounds of monitoring that it
meets the criteria of either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(f) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section shall
be considered by the water system and the State in making any
determinations (i.e., determining concentrations of water quality
parameters) under this section or Sec. 141.82.
(g) Additional sites added from Find-and-Fix. Any water system that
adds water quality parameter sites through the ``find-and-fix''
provisions pursuant to Sec. 141.82(j) shall add those sites to the
minimum number of sites specified under paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section.
0
12. Amend Sec. 141.88 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b), paragraph (d) introductory text,
paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, paragraph (e)(1) introductory and
paragraph (e)(1)(i);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2); and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source
water.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Groundwater systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every
entry point to the distribution system after any application of
treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is
representative of each source after treatment (hereafter called a
sampling point). The system shall take one sample at the same sampling
point unless conditions make another sampling point more representative
of each source or treatment plant.
* * * * *
(b) Monitoring frequency after system exceeds tap water action
level. Any system which exceeds the lead or copper action level at the
tap for the first time or for the first time after a change in source
or source water treatment required under Sec. 141.83(b)(2) 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. If the State determines
that source water treatment is not required under Sec. 141.83(b)(2),
the system is not required to conduct additional source water
monitoring unless directed by the State. A system subject to
discontinued source water monitoring under this paragraph, shall notify
the State in writing
[[Page 61766]]
pursuant to Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of the addition of a new source.
(1) The State may waive additional source water monitoring under
the following conditions:
(i) The water system has already conducted source water monitoring
following a previous action level exceedance;
(ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not
required; and
(iii) The system has not added any new water sources.
(2) [Reserved].
* * * * *
(d) Monitoring frequency after State specifies maximum permissible
source water levels. (1) A system shall monitor at the frequency
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, in cases where
the State specifies maximum permissible source water levels under Sec.
141.83(b)(4).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A water system using only groundwater 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 the following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in
141.83(b)(4) during at least three consecutive compliance periods under
section (d)(1) of this section.
(ii) [Reserved].
(2) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface
water and groundwater) may reduce the monitoring frequency in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section to once during each 9-year compliance cycle (as
that term is defined in Sec. 141.2 of this chapter) provided that the
samples are collected no later than every ninth calendar year and if
the system meets the following criteria:
(i) * * *
(ii) [Reserved].
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 141.89 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.89 Analytical methods.
(a) Analyses for lead, copper, pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate, and
silica shall be conducted in accordance with methods in 141.23(k)(1).
(1) Analyses for alkalinity, orthophosphate, pH, and silica may be
performed by any person acceptable to the State. Analyses under this
section for lead and copper shall only be conducted by laboratories
that have been certified by EPA or the State. To obtain certification
to conduct analyses for lead and copper, laboratories must:
* * * * *
(iii) Achieve method detection limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L
according to the procedures in Appendix B of part 136 of this title.
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 141.90 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.90 Reporting Requirements.
All water systems shall report all of the following information to
the State in accordance with this section.
(a) Reporting requirements for tap water monitoring for lead and
copper and for water quality parameter monitoring except for small
systems using the point-of-use compliance flexibility option. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a water
system shall report the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (ix) of this section, for all tap water samples specified in
Sec. 141.86 and for all water quality parameter samples specified in
Sec. 141.87 within the first 10 days following the end of each
applicable monitoring period specified in Sec. Sec. 141.86 and 141.87
(i.e., every six months, annually, every three years, or every nine
years). 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.
(i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including
the location of each site and the criteria under Sec. 141.86(a)(3)
through (8), and/or (9), under which the site was selected for the
water system's sampling pool;
(ii) Documentation for each tap water lead or copper sample for
which the water system requests invalidation pursuant to Sec.
141.86(f)(2);
(iii) For lead service line systems, documentation of sampling
pools with insufficient number of lead service line sites to meet the
minimum number of sites criterion in Sec. 141.86(c).
(A) Community water systems shall document why the system was
unable to meet the minimum number of sites in Sec. 141.86(c) with
sites meeting the criteria under Sec. 141.86(a)(3) or (4) with the
inventory developed under Sec. 141.84(a).
(B) Non-transient, non-community water systems shall document why
the system was unable to meet the minimum number of sites in Sec.
141.86(c) with sites meeting the criteria under Sec. 141.86(a)(7) with
the inventory developed under Sec. 141.84(a).
(iv) The 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations measured
from among all lead and copper tap water samples collected during each
monitoring period (calculated in accordance with Sec. 141.80(c)(4) or
(c)(4)(ii)), unless the State calculates the water system's 90th
percentile lead and copper levels under paragraph (h) of this section;
(v) The water system shall identify any site which was not sampled
during previous monitoring periods, and include an explanation of why
sampling sites have changed;
(vi) The results of all tap samples for pH, and where applicable,
alkalinity, orthophosphate, or silica collected under Sec. 141.87(b)
through (e);
(vii) The results of all samples collected at the entry point(s) to
the distribution system for applicable water quality parameters under
Sec. 141.87(b) through (e);
(viii) A water system shall report the results of all water quality
parameter samples collected under Sec. 141.87(c) through (f) during
each 6-month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.87(d) within the
first 10 days following the end of the monitoring period unless the
State has specified a more frequent reporting requirement.
(ix) A copy of the tap sampling protocol provided to residents or
those sampling, to verify that pre-stagnation flushing, aerator
cleaning or removal and the use of narrow-necked collection bottles
were not included as recommendations.
(2) For a non-transient non-community water system, or a community
water system meeting the criteria of Sec. 141.85(b)(7), that does not
have enough taps that can provide first-draw samples, the water system
must either:
(i) Provide written documentation to the State identifying standing
times and locations for enough non-first-draw samples to make up its
sampling pool under Sec. 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the first
applicable monitoring period under Sec. 141.86(d) unless the State has
waived prior State approval of non-first-draw sample sites selected by
the water system pursuant to Sec. 141.86(b)(5); or
(ii) If the State has waived prior approval of non-first-draw
sample sites selected by the water system, identify, in writing, each
site that did not meet the 6-hour minimum stagnation time and the
length of stagnation time for that particular substitute sample
[[Page 61767]]
collected pursuant to Sec. 141.86(b)(5) and include this information
with the lead and copper tap sample results required to be submitted
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(3) 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 shall submit written documentation to the State describing
the change or addition referred to in Sec. 141.86(d)(4). 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 water 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.
(4) Any small water system applying for a monitoring waiver under
Sec. 141.86(g), or subject to a waiver granted pursuant to Sec.
141.86(g)(3), shall provide the following information to the State in
writing by the specified deadline:
(i) By the start of the first applicable monitoring period in Sec.
141.86(d), any small water system applying for a monitoring waiver
shall provide the documentation required to demonstrate that it meets
the waiver criteria of Sec. Sec. 141.86(g)(1) and (2).
(ii) No later than nine years after the monitoring previously
conducted pursuant to Sec. 141.86(g)(2) or Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(i), each
small water system desiring to maintain its monitoring waiver shall
provide the information required by Sec. Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(i) and
(ii).
(iii) No later than 60 days after it becomes aware that it is no
longer free of lead-containing and/or copper-containing material, as
appropriate, each small water system with a monitoring waiver shall
provide written notification to the State, setting forth the
circumstances resulting in the lead-containing and/or copper-containing
materials being introduced into the water system and what corrective
action, if any, the water system plans to remove these materials.
(iv) Reserved.
(5) Each groundwater system that limits water quality parameter
monitoring to a subset of entry points under Sec. 141.87(c)(3) shall
provide, by the commencement of such monitoring, written correspondence
to the State that identifies the selected entry points and includes
information sufficient to demonstrate that the sites are representative
of water quality and treatment conditions throughout the water system.
(b) Source water monitoring reporting requirements. (1) A water
system shall report the sampling results for all source water samples
collected in accordance with Sec. 141.88 within the first 10 days
following the end of each source water monitoring period (i.e.,
annually, per compliance period, per compliance cycle) specified in
Sec. 141.88.
(2) With the exception of the first round of source water sampling
conducted pursuant to Sec. 141.88(b), the water system shall specify
any site which was not sampled during previous monitoring periods and
include an explanation of why the sampling point has changed.
(c) Corrosion control treatment reporting requirements. By the
applicable dates under Sec. 141.81, water systems shall report the
following information:
(1) For water systems demonstrating that they have already
optimized corrosion control, information required in Sec. 141.81(b)(2)
or (3).
(2) For water systems required to reoptimize corrosion control,
their recommendation regarding optimal corrosion control treatment
under Sec. 141.82(a).
(3) For water systems required to evaluate the effectiveness of
corrosion control treatments under Sec. 141.82(c), the information
required by that paragraph.
(4) For water systems required to install optimal corrosion control
designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(d), a letter certifying that
the water system has completed installing that treatment.
(d) Source water treatment reporting requirements. By the
applicable dates in Sec. 141.83, water systems shall provide the
following information to the State:
(1) If required under Sec. 141.83(b)(1), their recommendation
regarding source water treatment;
(2) For water systems required to install source water treatment
under Sec. 141.83(b)(2), a letter certifying that the water system has
completed installing the treatment designated by the State within 24
months after the State designated the treatment.
(e) Lead service line inventory and replacement reporting
requirements. Water systems shall report the following information to
the State to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Sec.
141.84:
(1) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a water system exceeds the lead action level in sampling referred
to in Sec. 141.84(f), the water system must submit written
documentation to the State of the material evaluation conducted as
required in Sec. 141.84(a), identify the initial number of lead
service lines in its distribution system at the time the water system
exceeds the lead action level, and provide the water system's schedule
for annually replacing at least 3 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 water system exceeds the lead action level in sampling referred
to in Sec. 141.84(f), and every 12 months thereafter, the water system
shall certify to the State in writing that the water system has:
(i) Replaced in the previous 12 months at least 3 percent of the
initial lead service lines (or a greater number of lines specified by
the State under Sec. 141.84(f)(10)) in its distribution system,
(ii) Conducted consumer notification as specified in Sec.
141.84(e).
(iii) Additionally, the water system must certify to the State that
it delivered public education materials to the affected consumers as
specified in Sec. 141.85(a) and the notification of lead service line
materials as specified in Sec. 141.85(e).
(3) The annual letter submitted to the State under paragraph (e)(2)
of this section shall contain the following information:
(i) The number of lead service lines scheduled to be replaced
during the previous year of the water system's replacement schedule;
(ii) The location of each lead service line replaced, and total
number replaced during the previous year of the water system's
replacement schedule;
(iii) The certification that the water system has notified the
resident(s) served by the lead service line at least 45 days prior to
the planned lead service line replacement or within 24 hours of an
emergency full or partial replacement;
(iv) The certification that the water system delivered lead service
line
[[Page 61768]]
information materials in Sec. 141.85(e) to the affected consumers; and
(v) The certification that results of samples collected between
three months and six months after the date of a full or partial lead
service line replacement were provided to the customer in accordance
with the timeframes in 141.85(d)(2). Mailed notices post-marked within
three business days of receiving the results shall be considered ``on
time.''
(4) [Reserved].
(5) No later than the compliance date of the rule, the water system
must submit to the State an inventory of lead service lines as required
in Sec. 141.84(a), and every 12 months thereafter, any water system
that has lead service lines must submit to the State an updated
inventory that includes the number of lead service lines remaining in
the distribution system as required in Sec. 141.84(a).
(i) Any water system that contains a lead service line in their
distribution system must submit to the State, as specified in section
Sec. 141.84(b) a lead service line replacement plan at the same time
the lead service line inventory is submitted.
(ii) Any water system that contains a lead service line in their
distribution system or a service line of unknown material must certify
to the State annually that it conducted consumer notification as
specified in Sec. 141.85(e).
(iii) Any water system that contains a lead service line in their
distribution system or a service line of unknown material must certify
to the State annually that it delivered lead service line information
materials to the affected consumers as specified in Sec. 141.85(e).
(6) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a water system exceeds the lead trigger level but not the lead
action level in sampling referred to in Sec. 141.84(e) has replaced
lead service lines at the annual goal rate. In addition, every 12
months thereafter, the water system shall certify to the State in
writing that the water system has:
(i) Replaced in the previous 12 months, at least enough of the
initial lead service lines to meet the annual goal-based rate set by
the State under Sec. 141.84(d)(1) in its distribution system;
(ii) Conducted consumer notification as specified in Sec.
141.85(f);
(iii) Additionally, the water system must certify to the State that
it delivered the notification of lead service line materials as
specified in Sec. 141.85(b); and
(iv) A water system that does not meet its annual service line
replacement goal as required under Sec. 141.84(f) shall certify to the
State in writing that the water system has conducted customer outreach
as specified in Sec. 141.85(g).
(f) Public education program reporting requirements. (1) Any water
system that is subject to the public education requirements in Sec.
141.85 shall, within 10 days after the end of each period in which the
water 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 water 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
(ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio stations, television
stations, and facilities and organizations to which the system
delivered public education materials during the period in which the
system was required to perform public education tasks.
(2) Unless required by the State, a water system that previously
has submitted the information required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section need not resubmit the information required by paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) of this section, as long as there have been no changes in
the distribution list and the water system certifies that the public
education materials were distributed to the same list submitted
previously.
(3) No later than three months following the end of the monitoring
period, each water 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).
(4) Annually on July 1, a demonstration that the water system
delivered annual notification to customers with a lead service line or
service line of unknown material in accordance with Sec. 141.85(e).
(5) Annually on July 1, a demonstration that the water conducted an
outreach activity in accordance with Sec. 141.85(g) when failing to
meet the lead service line replacement goal as specified in Sec.
141.84(f).
(g) Reporting of additional monitoring data. Any water system which
collects sampling data in addition to that required by this subpart
shall report the results to the State within the first 10 days
following the end of the applicable monitoring period under Sec. Sec.
141.86, 141.87 and 141.88 during which the samples are collected. This
includes the monitoring data pertaining to ``find and fix'' pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 141.86(h) and 141.87(g).
(h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations
where the State calculates a water system's 90th percentile
concentrations. A water system is not required to report the 90th
percentile lead and copper concentrations measured from among all lead
and copper tap water samples collected during each monitoring period,
as required by paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section if:
(1) The State has previously notified the water system that it will
calculate the water system's 90th percentile lead and copper
concentrations, based on the lead and copper tap results submitted
pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and has specified a
date before the end of the applicable monitoring period by which the
water system must provide the results of lead and copper tap water
samples;
(2) The water system has provided the following information to the
State by the date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
(i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including
the location of each site and the criteria under Sec. 141.86(a)(3)
through (8) and/or (9), under which the site was selected for the water
system's sampling pool, pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section; and
(ii) An identification of sampling sites utilized during the
current monitoring period that were not sampled during previous
monitoring periods, and an explanation why sampling sites have changed;
and
(3) The State has provided the results of the 90th percentile lead
and copper calculations, in writing, to the water system before the end
of the monitoring period.
(i) Reporting requirements for a community water system's public
education and sampling in schools and child care facilities. (1) A
community water system shall send a report to the State by July 1 of
each year for the previous calendar year's activity. The report must
include the following:
(i) Certification that it made a good faith effort to identify
schools and child care facilities in accordance with Sec. 141.92(a).
The good faith effort may include reviewing customer records and
requesting lists of schools and child care facilities from the primacy
agency or other licensing agency. A water system that certifies that no
schools or child care facilities are served by the water system is not
required to include information in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) through
(i)(1)(iii) of this section in the report.
[[Page 61769]]
(ii) Certification that the water system has completed the
notification and sampling requirements of Sec. Sec. 141.86 and 141.92
at a minimum of 20 percent of schools and child care facilities;
(A) The number of schools and child care facilities served by the
water system;
(B) The number of schools and child care facilities sampled in the
calendar year;
(C) The number of schools and child care facilities that have
refused sampling;
(D) Information pertaining to attempts to gain entry for sampling
that were declined by the customer; and
(iii) Certification that sampling results were provided to schools,
child care facilities, and local or State health departments.
(iv) Certification of compliance with an alternative school and
childcare testing program at least as stringent paragraphs (a) through
(c) of Sec. 141.92, if applicable.
(j) Small system compliance flexibility option using point-of-use
devices. Small water systems and non-transient, non-community water
systems shall report the results from the tap sampling required under
Sec. 141.93 and any corrective actions taken if the trigger level was
exceeded in that monitoring. Small water systems shall also provide
documentation to certify maintenance of the point-of-use devices if
requested by the State.
0
15. Add Sec. 141.92 to subpart I to read as follows:
Sec. 141.92 Monitoring for lead in schools and child care
facilities.
All community water systems must conduct directed public education
to schools and child care facilities served by the water system,
including any facilities that are consecutive water systems if those
schools or child care facilities were constructed prior to January 1,
2014.
(a) Public Education to schools and child care facilities. (1) By
the compliance date for the rule, each water system shall compile a
list of schools or licensed child care facilities served by the system.
The provisions of this section do not apply to a school or child care
facility that is a regulated as a public water system, including
consecutive public water systems.
(2) Each water system shall contact schools or licensed child care
facilities identified by the system in paragraph (a) of this section to
provide:
(i) Information about health risks from lead in drinking water on
at least an annual basis;
(ii) Notification that the water system will be conducting sampling
for lead at the facility, including information about testing for lead
in schools and child care facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-815-B-18-007 or subsequent EPA guidance),
and;
(iii) Instructions for identifying outlets for sampling and
preparing for a sampling event 30 days prior to the event.
(3) The water system must include documentation in the proposed
reporting requirement in Sec. 141.90(i) if a school or child care
facility refuses entry or otherwise declines to participate in the
monitoring or education requirements of this section.
(b) Monitoring for lead in schools and child care facilities. (1) A
water system shall collect five samples per school and two samples per
child care facility at outlets typically used for consumption. The
outlets shall not have point-of-use (POU) devices and shall consist of
the following locations:
(i) For schools: Two drinking water fountains, one kitchen faucet
used for food or drink preparation, one classroom faucet, and one
nurse's office faucet, as available.
(ii) For child care facilities: One drinking water fountain and one
of either a kitchen faucet used for preparation of food or drink or one
classroom faucet.
(iii) If any facility has fewer than the required number of
outlets, the water system shall sample all outlets used for
consumption.
(iv) If any facility does not contain the type of faucet listed
above, the water system shall collect a sample from another outlet
typically used for consumption as identified by the facility.
(v) Samples shall be collected from the cold water tap subject to
the following additional requirements:
(A) Each sample for lead shall be a first-draw sample;
(B) The sample must be 250 ml in volume;
(C) The water must have remained stationary in the plumbing system
of the sampling site (building) for at least 8 but no more than 18
hours;
(D) Samples may be collected by either the customer, school or
child care facility, or the water system, and;
(E) Samples shall be analyzed using acidification and the
corresponding analytical methods in Sec. 141.89.
(2) [Reserved].
(c) Frequency of sample collection at schools and child care
facilities. (1) A water system shall collect samples from at least 20
percent of schools served by the system and 20 percent of child care
facilities served by the system per year until all schools and child
care facilities identified under paragraph (a) of this section have
been sampled or have declined to participate.
(2) A water system shall continue to collect samples from at least
20 percent of school and child care facilities in its distribution
system each year thereafter.
(3) A water system shall conduct monitoring at all schools and
child care facilities at least once every five years.
(4) The water system must include documentation in the report
required in Sec. 141.90(i) if a school or child care facility refuses
entry or otherwise declines to allow the system to conduct the
monitoring or education requirements of this section.
(d) Alternative School Sampling Programs. (1) If Local or State law
or regulations require schools and childcare facilities to be tested,
by either the school or the water system, in a way that is at least as
stringent as paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the water
system may execute that program to comply with the requirements of this
section.
(2) The water system must include documentation in the report
required in Sec. 141.90(i) if a school or child care facility refuses
entry or otherwise declines to allow the system to conduct the
monitoring or education requirements of this section.
(e) Confirmation or revision of schools and child care facilities
in inventory. A water system shall either confirm that there have been
no changes to its list of schools and child care facilities served by
the system developed pursuant to Sec. 141.92(a), or submit a revised
list at least once every five years.
(f) Notification of Results. A water system shall provide
analytical results as soon as practicable but no late than 30 days
after receipt of the results to:
(1) The school or child care facility, along with information about
remedial options;
(2) the local or State health department; and
(3) the primacy agency.
0
16. Add Sec. 141.93 to subpart I to read as follows:
Sec. 141.93 Small Water System Compliance Flexibility
The compliance alternatives described in this section apply to
small community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons or non-
transient non-community water systems.
(a) A small community water system that exceeds the lead trigger
level but meets the lead and copper action levels must evaluate
compliance options in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section and
make a compliance option
[[Page 61770]]
recommendation to the State within six months of the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred. A State must
approve the recommendation or designate an alternative from compliance
options in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section within six
months of the recommendation by the water system. If the water system
subsequently exceeds the lead action level it must implement the
approved option. Community water systems must select from the following
compliance options:
(1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A water system shall implement a
full lead service line replacement program and replace its lead service
lines on a schedule approved by the State and shall complete
replacement of all lead service lines within 15 years, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods.
(2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A water system must install and
maintain corrosion control treatment in accordance with Sec. 141.82,
even if its 90th percentile is below the action level in future
monitoring periods. Any water system that has corrosion control
treatment installed must re-optimize as per Sec. 141.82(d).
(3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water system must install, maintain,
and monitor POU devices in each household or building, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods.
(i) A community water system must install a minimum of one POU
device (at one tap) in every household or building in its distribution
system.
(ii) The POU device must be certified by the American National
Standards Institute to reduce lead in drinking water, and
(iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system to
ensure continued effective filtration, including but not limited to
changing filter cartridges and resolving any operational issues.
(iv) The community water system must monitor one-third of the POU
devices each year and all POU devices must be monitored within a three-
year cycle. First-draw tap samples collected under this section must be
taken after water passes through the POU device to assess its
performance. Samples should be one-liter in volume and have had a
minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All samples must be at or below the
lead trigger level. The system must document the problem and take
corrective action at any site where the sample result exceeds the lead
trigger level.
(b) A non-transient non-community water system that exceeds the
lead trigger level but meets the lead and copper action levels must
evaluate compliance options in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section and make a compliance option recommendation to the State within
six months of the end of the monitoring period in which the exceedance
occurred. A State must approve the recommendation or designate an
alternative from compliance options in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section within six months of the recommendation by the water
system. If the water system subsequently exceeds the lead action level
it must implement the approved option. Non-transient non-community
water system must select from the following compliance options:
(1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A water system shall implement a
full lead service line replacement program and replace its lead service
lines on a schedule approved by the State and shall complete
replacement of all lead service lines within 15 years, even if its 90th
percentile is at or below the action level in future monitoring
periods.
(2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A water system must install and
maintain corrosion control treatment in accordance with Sec. 141.82,
even if its 90th percentile is below the action level in future
monitoring periods. Any water system that has corrosion control
treatment installed must re-optimize as per Sec. 141.82(e).
(3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water system must install, maintain,
and monitor POU devices in each household or building, even if its 90th
percentile is at or below the action level in future monitoring
periods.
(i) A non-transient non-community water system must provide a POU
device to every tap that is used for cooking and/or drinking.
(ii) The POU device must be certified by the American National
Standards Institute to reduce lead in drinking water and:
(iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system to
ensure continued effective filtration, including but not limited to
changing filter cartridges and resolving any operational issues.
(iv) The non-transient non-community water system must monitor one-
third of the POU devices each year and all POU devices must be
monitored within a three-year cycle. First-draw tap samples collected
under this section must be taken after water passes through the POU
device to assess its performance. Samples should be one-liter in volume
and have had a minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All samples must be at
or below the lead trigger level. The system must document the problem
and take corrective action at any site where the sample result exceeds
the lead trigger level.
(4) Replacement of Lead-Bearing Plumbing. A water system must
replace all plumbing that is not lead free in accordance with Section
1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended by the Reduction of
Lead in Drinking Water Act and any future amendments applicable at the
time of replacement, including a lead service line, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods. A
water system must have control over all plumbing in its buildings. The
replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing must occur on a schedule
established by the State, not to exceed one year.
(c) A small community water system that exceeds the lead action
level but meets the copper action level must evaluate according to
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and make a compliance
option recommendation to the State within six months of the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred. A State must
approve the recommendation or designate an alternative from compliance
options in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section within six
months of the recommendation by the water system. If the water system
subsequently exceeds the lead action level it must implement the
approved option. Community water systems must select from the following
compliance options:
(1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A water system shall implement
full lead service line replacement program and replace its lead service
lines on a schedule approved by the State and shall complete
replacement of all lead service lines within 15 years, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods.
(2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A water system must install and
maintain corrosion control treatment in accordance with Sec. 141.82,
even if its 90th percentile is below the action level in future
monitoring periods.
(3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water system must install, maintain,
and monitor POU devices in each household or building, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods.
(i) A community water system must install a minimum of one POU
device (at one tap) in every household or building in its distribution
system.
(ii) The POU device must be certified by the American National
Standards
[[Page 61771]]
Institute to reduce lead in drinking water, and
(iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system to
ensure continued effective filtration, including but not limited to
changing filter cartridges and resolving any operational issues.
(iv) The community water system must monitor one-third of the POU
devices each year and all POU devices must be monitored within a three-
year cycle. First-draw tap samples collected under this section must be
taken after water passes through the POU device to assess its
performance. Samples should be one-liter in volume and have had a
minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All samples must be at or below the
lead trigger level. The system must document the problem and take
corrective action at any site where the sample result exceeds the lead
trigger level.
(d) A non-transient non-community water system that exceeds the
lead action level but does not exceed the copper action level must
evaluate (1) through (4) of this section and make a compliance
recommendation to the State from compliance options in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (4) of this section within six months of the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred. A State must
approve the recommendation or designate an alternative within six
months of the recommendation by the water system. If the water system
subsequently exceeds the lead action level it must implement the
approved option. Non-transient non-community water systems must select
from the following compliance options:
(1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A water system shall implement
full lead service line replacement program and replace its lead service
lines on a schedule approved by the State and shall complete
replacement of all lead service lines within 15 years, even if its 90th
percentile is at or below the action level in future monitoring
periods.
(2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A water system must install and
maintain corrosion control treatment in accordance with Sec. 141.82,
even if its 90th percentile is at or below the action level in future
monitoring periods. Any water system that has corrosion control
treatment installed must re-optimize as per Sec. 141.82(e).
(3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water system must install, maintain,
and monitor POU devices in each household or building, even if its 90th
percentile is at or below the action level in future monitoring
periods.
(i) A non-transient non-community water system must provide a POU
device to every tap that is used for cooking and/or drinking.
(ii) The POU device must be certified by the American National
Standards Institute to reduce lead in drinking water and:
(iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system to
ensure continued effective filtration, including but not limited to
changing filter cartridges and resolving any operational issues.
(iv) The non-transient non-community water system must monitor one-
third of the POU devices each year and all POU devices must be
monitored within a three-year cycle. First-draw tap samples collected
under this section must be taken after water passes through the POU
device to assess its performance. Samples should be one-liter in volume
and have had a minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All samples must be
below the lead trigger level. The system must document the problem and
take corrective action at any site where the sample result exceeds the
lead trigger level.
(4) Replacement of Lead-Bearing Plumbing. A water system must
replace all plumbing that is not lead free in accordance with section
1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the Reduction of Lead
in Drinking Water Act and any future amendments applicable at the time
of replacement, including a lead service line, even if its 90th
percentile is below the action level in future monitoring periods. A
water system must have control over all plumbing in its buildings. The
replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing must occur on a schedule
established by the State, not to exceed one year.
0
17. Amend Sec. 141.153 by revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) For lead and copper: The 90th percentile concentration of the
most recent round of sampling, the number of sampling sites exceeding
the action level, and the range of tap sampling results;
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 141.154 to revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) A short informational statement about lead in drinking water
and its effects on children. The statement must include the following
information:
If present, 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. You share the responsibility for protecting
yourself and your family from the lead in your home plumbing. You can
take responsibility by identifying and removing lead materials within
your home plumbing and taking steps to reduce your family's risk.
Before drinking, flush your pipes for several minutes by running your
tap, taking a shower, doing laundry or a load of dishes. You can also
use a filter certified to remove lead from drinking water. If you are
concerned about lead in your water you may wish to have your water
tested, contact [NAME OF UTILITY and CONTACT INFORMATION]. Information
on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to
minimize exposure is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141 by revising the entry for
lead to read as follows:
[[Page 61772]]
Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141--Regulated Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To convert for
Contaminant Traditional MCL in mg/L CCR, multiply MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in Health effects language
by drinking water
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Lead................... AL = .015.............. 1000 AL = 15................ 0 Corrosion of Exposure to lead can
household plumbing cause serious health
systems, Erosion effects in all age
of natural groups. Infants and
deposits. children who drink
water containing lead
could have decreases in
IQ and attention span
and increases in
learning and behavior
problems. Lead exposure
among women who are
pregnant increases
prenatal risks. Lead
exposure among women
who later become
pregnant has similar
risks if lead stored in
the mother's bones is
released during
pregnancy. Recent
science suggests that
adults who drink water
containing lead have
increased risks of
heart disease, high
blood pressure, kidney
or nervous system
problems.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Amend Sec. 141.201 by:
0
a. Adding entry (a)(3)(vi) in Table 1 to Sec. 141.201; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(3).
The additions read as follows.
Sec. 141.201 General public notification requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 141.201--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Special public notices:
* * * * * * *
(vi) Exceedance of the lead action level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) A copy of the notice must also be sent to the primacy agency
and the Administrator (as applicable) in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 141.31(d).
0
21. In Sec. 141.202 amend paragraph (a) by adding entry (10) in Table
1 to Sec. 141.202, to read as follows:
Sec. 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner and frequency of
notice.
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 141.202--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Tier 1 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(10) Exceedance of the Action Level for lead as specified in Sec.
141.80(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Appendix A to subpart Q by adding an entry for Violations of
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) under ``C. Lead and
Copper Rule'' to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\ Monitoring & testing procedure
---------------------------------- violations
Contaminant ---------------------------------
Tier of public Citation Tier of public
notice required notice required Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for
lead is 0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 mg/L)
* * * * * * *
2. Exceedance of the Action Level for lead.. 1 141.80(c)
[[Page 61773]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violations and other situations not listed in the table (e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence
Reports), do not require notice unless determined by the primacy agency. Primacy agencies may, at their
options, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of
Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized under Sec. 141.202(a)
and Sec. 141.203(a).
\2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Appendix B to subpart Q by revising the entry for contaminant
``23. Lead'' to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard health effects
Contaminant MCLG \1\ mg/L MCL \2\ mg/L language for public
notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Lead and Copper Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Lead.................. zero...................... TT \13\................... Exposure to lead can cause
serious health effects in
all age groups. Infants and
children who drink water
containing lead could have
decreases in IQ and
attention span and
increases in learning and
behavior problems. Lead
exposure among women who
are pregnant increases
prenatal risks. Lead
exposure among women who
later become pregnant has
similar risks if lead
stored in the mother's
bones is released during
pregnancy. Recent science
suggests that adults who
drink water containing lead
have increased risks of
heart disease, high blood
pressure, kidney and
nervous system problems.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal.
\2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level.
* * * * * * *
\13\ Action Level = 0.015 mg/L.
* * * * *
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
24. 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.
0
25. Amend Sec. 142.14 by revising paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and
(d)(8)(vii) and adding paragraphs (d)(8)(xviii) through (xx) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) Section 141.82(d)--designations of optimal corrosion control
treatment and any simultaneous compliance considerations that factored
into the designation;
* * * * *
(viii) Section 141.84(e)--determinations of lead service line
replacement goal rate as well as mandatory full lead service line
service line replacement rates below 3 percent;
* * * * *
(xviii) Section 141.88--evaluation of water system source water or
treatment changes;
(xix) Section 141.93--identification of small water systems and
non-transient non-community water systems utilizing the compliance
alternatives, and the compliance alternative selected by the water
system and the compliance option approved by the State;
(xx) Section 141.84(a)--completed lead service line inventories and
annual updates to inventories.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 142.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii), and
(b)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) to read as follows; and removing paragraph
(b)(4)(iii).
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) States shall report the name and PWS identification number:
(A) Each public water system which exceeded the lead and copper
action levels and the date upon which the exceedance occurred;
* * * * *
(ii) States shall report the PWS identification number of each
public water system identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F)
of this section.
(A) For each public water system, regardless of size, all 90th
percentile lead levels calculated during each monitoring period
specified in Sec. 141.86 of this chapter, and the first and last day
of the monitoring period for which the 90th percentile lead level was
calculated;
(B) For each public water system (regardless of size), the 90th
percentile copper level calculated during each monitoring period in
which the system exceeds the copper action level, and the first and
last day of each monitoring period in which an exceedance occurred;
[[Page 61774]]
(C) For each public water system for which the State has designated
optimal water quality parameters under Sec. 141.82(f) of this chapter,
or which the State has deemed to have optimized corrosion control under
Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the
determination and the paragraph(s) under which the State made its
determination, the corrosion control treatment status of the water
system, and the water system's optimal water quality parameters;
(D) For each public water system, the number of lead service lines
in its distribution system, including service lines of unknown
material;
(E) For each public water system required to begin replacing lead
service lines after a lead trigger level or action level exceedance, as
specified in Sec. 141.84 of this chapter and the date each system must
begin replacement; and
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 142.16 by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through (9); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (o)(2)(i)(B).
The additions and revision to read as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Section 141.84--Establishing lead service line replacement goal
rates.
(6) Section 141.84--Designating acceptable methods for determining
service line material for the lead service line inventory.
(7) Section 141.92--Defining a school or childcare facility and
determining any existing State testing program is at least as stringent
as the Federal requirements.
(8) Section 141.82--Verifying compliance with ``find-and-fix''
requirements.
(9) Section 141.88--Reviewing any change in source water or
treatment and how this change may impact other National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.
* * * * *
(o)(2)(i)(B) Treatment, including corrosion control treatment and
water quality parameters as applicable,
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 142.19 redesignating paragraphs (b) through (f) as
paragraphs (c) through (g) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.19 EPA review of State implementation of national primary
drinking water regulations for lead and copper.
* * * * *
(b) Pursuant to the procedures in this section, the Regional
Administrator may review state determinations establishing a goal lead
service line replacement rate and may issue an order establishing
federal goal rate requirements for a public water system pursuant to
Sec. 141.84(b) where the Regional Administrator finds that an
alternative goal lead service line replacement rate is feasible.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-22705 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P