[Federal Register: July 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 137)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40827-40863]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jy06-17]
[[Page 40827]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 141
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-
term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Proposed Rule
[[Page 40828]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8196-5]
RIN 2040-AE83
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing seven targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and
copper. This proposal strengthens the implementation of the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: monitoring, treatment
processes, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. These
changes will provide more effective protection of public health by
reducing exposure to lead in drinking water. The proposed changes do
not affect the basic requirements of the LCR, the lead or copper
maximum contaminant level goals, or the lead and copper action levels.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2006. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by OMB on or before August 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0034, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2005-0034.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0034. Please include a total of three
copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0034. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section 1.B
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact
Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4880. For regulatory
inquiries, contact Eric Burneson at the same address; telephone number:
(202) 564-5250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by the Lead and Copper Rule Short-
term Regulatory Revisions proposed rulemaking are public water systems
(PWSs) that are classified as either community water systems (CWSs) or
non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Privately-owned CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
State, Tribal, and local governments...... Publicly-owned CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities regulated by this action. This
table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
definition of ``public water system'' in Sec. 141.2, the section
entitled ``coverage'' of Sec. 141.3, and the applicability criteria in
Sec. Sec. 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET,
[[Page 40829]]
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to submitting
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Abbreviations Used in This Document
ALE: Action Level Exceedance
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
CCR: Consumer Confidence Report
CCT: Corrosion Control Treatment
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
DDBP: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FTE: Full-Time Equivalents
ICR: Information Collection Request
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
LSL: Lead Service Line
LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement
LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NSF: NSF International
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PE: Public Education
POE: Point-of-Entry devices
POU: Point-of-Use devices
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA: Small Business Administration
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System, Federal Version
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WQP: Water Quality Parameter monitoring
Table of Contents
I. Summary
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rulemaking
B. Regulatory History
C. Impacts of This Proposal
III. Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this clarification?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
B. Definitions For Compliance And Monitoring Periods
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water
Systems That Intend To Make Any Change in Water Treatment or Add A
New Source of Water That Could Affect the System's Optimal Corrosion
Control
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
G. Reevaluation Of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through
Testing
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current
requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
H. Request For Comment On Other Issues Related To The LCR
1. Plumbing component replacement
2. Point of use and point of entry treatment
3. Site selection in areas with water softeners and POU
treatment units
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
I. State Implementation
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect A State's Primacy
Program?
2. What does a State have to do to apply?
3. How are Tribes affected?
J. Limitations To Public Comment on the Lead and Copper Rule
K. Proposed Effective Dates
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Direct Costs
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions
C. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.A
D. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.B
E. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.C
F. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.D
G. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.E
H. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F
I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G
J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs
K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory
Changes
L. Indirect Costs
M. Benefits
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
VI. References
[[Page 40830]]
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rulemaking
The purpose of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is to protect
populations from exposure to lead and copper in drinking water and
reduce potential health risks. Recent high profile incidences of
elevated drinking water lead levels in the District of Columbia
prompted EPA to initiate a comprehensive national review of the LCR to
evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the rule. EPA began
the review to determine the following: were drinking water lead levels
elevated nationally; did a large percentage of the population receive
water that exceeded the Lead Action Level; did a significant number of
systems fail to meet the action level; how well has the existing LCR
worked to reduce drinking water lead levels; and has the rule
implementation been effective especially with respect to monitoring and
public education requirements. EPA gathered the information for the
review through a series of stakeholder workshops in late 2004; an
evaluation of monitoring data; and an evaluation of LCR implementation
by States and water utilities.
As a result of the national review and workshops, EPA released a
Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan in March 2005 which identified nine
actions to improve implementation of the rule. EPA has consolidated
several of the Plan's actions into the seven proposed changes described
in section III of this proposal. These changes to the rule are intended
to strengthen in the short-term the implementation of the LCR in the
areas of monitoring, treatment processes, customer awareness, and lead
service line replacement. Some of the regulatory changes identified in
EPA's review clarify the intent of the original LCR for provisions that
may not have been sufficiently clear, while others revise LCR
requirements in light of the recent experiences in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere. The changes proposed are expected to enhance
protection of public health through a reduction in lead exposure.
EPA has also identified a number of issues that will be considered
for future revisions to the rule. These issues require additional data
collection, research, analysis and/or stakeholder involvement to
support decisions. The issues include, but are not limited to,
requirements for consecutive systems, monitoring, and lead service line
replacement requirements. This proposal does not amend the portion of
the regulations related to copper, however provisions addressing copper
will be considered for future revisions to the rule. EPA will propose
any future regulatory changes under a separate regulatory action.
B. Regulatory History
EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs
for lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991d). The goal of
the LCR is to provide maximum human health protection by reducing lead
and copper levels at consumers' taps to as close to the MCLGs as is
feasible. To accomplish this goal, the LCR establishes requirements for
community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control in their distribution
systems and conduct periodic monitoring.
The rule requires systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent
lead and copper from leaching into drinking water. Large systems
serving more than 50,000 people were required to conduct studies of
corrosion control and install state-approved optimal corrosion control
treatment by January 1, 1997. Small and medium systems are required to
optimize corrosion control when monitoring at the consumer taps shows
action is necessary.
To assure corrosion control treatment technique requirements are
effective in protecting public health, the rule also established an
Action Level (AL) of 15 ppb for lead and 1300 ppb for copper in
drinking water. Systems are required to monitor a specific number of
customer taps, based on the size of the system. If lead concentrations
exceed 15 ppb in more than 10% of the taps sampled, the system must
undertake a number of additional actions to control corrosion and
inform the public about steps they should take to protect their health.
The LCR has four main functions: (1) Require water suppliers to
optimize their treatment system to control corrosion in customers'
plumbing; (2) determine tap water levels of lead and copper for
customers who have lead service lines or lead-based solder in their
plumbing system; (3) rule out the source water as a source of
significant lead levels; and (4) if action levels are exceeded, require
the suppliers to educate their customers about lead and suggest actions
they can take to reduce their exposure to lead through public notices
and public education programs. If a water system, after installing and
optimizing corrosion control treatment, fails to meet the Lead Action
Level, it must begin replacing the lead service lines under its
ownership.
EPA proposed minor revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR
16348, U.S. EPA, 1996b) and finalized these minor revisions on January
12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA, 2000a). These minor revisions
streamlined the requirements of the LCR to promote consistent national
implementation and reduce the reporting burden on affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed the areas of optimal corrosion
control demonstrations, lead service line replacement requirements,
public education requirements, monitoring requirements, analytical
methods, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and special primacy
considerations. The LCRMR did not change the action levels, MCLGs, or
the rule's basic requirements.
C. Impacts of This Proposal
This proposal will further strengthen protection of the public from
exposure to lead and copper via drinking water by enhancing the
implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, customer
awareness, and lead service line replacement. This action also
clarifies the intent of some unclear provisions in the LCR. The
regulatory revisions proposed today impose costs associated with State
and system review of the regulatory changes, State review of system-
level changes to treatment plans, system reporting and monitoring, and
public education. EPA has estimated the economic impacts for each of
the regulatory changes, which will have direct and indirect costs
associated with them. A detailed description of these impacts is
provided in Section IV, Economic Analysis, of this proposal and in the
Economic Analysis support document.
III. Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule
This section describes the proposed clarifications and revisions to
the Lead and Copper Rule. This section also describes issues and
potential changes the Agency is requesting comment upon. Sections A
through G describe changes proposed and alternatives for which the
Agency is requesting comment. Section H describes several potential
changes for which the Agency is soliciting comment.
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA proposes to clarify the number and location of samples required
for the smallest systems in Sec. 141.86(c) of the LCR. The 1991 LCR
established a minimum number of sites required for
[[Page 40831]]
lead and copper tap monitoring based on system population size. EPA's
proposal maintains five samples per monitoring period as the minimum
number of samples required for systems serving fewer than 100 people.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Clarification?
EPA is proposing this clarification to reduce confusion with
respect to this provision of the rule. EPA considered the issue of
sample size extensively in the 1991 rule. EPA considered all concerns
regarding the number of samples that should be taken and explained the
rationale for the number of samples in the Preamble to the 1991 Final
Rule. Due to the high variability in lead and copper levels, EPA
explained that it was necessary to take more samples than required in
other rules in which the variability is not as high. In the 1991
preamble, EPA also recognized the fact that sampling all households was
not feasible and sought to balance this concern with the need for more
samples to capture variability among lead levels. Specifically, the
preamble stated: ``EPA believes that the number of samples required in
the final rule sufficiently accounts for the variability in lead and
copper levels, and reflects system-wide contaminant level
distributions.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26523, U.S. EPA, 1991b); ``The
requirements of the final rule seek to strike a balance between the
competing needs of ensuring the representativeness of sampling results
and ensuring that the sampling requirements are reasonable and
implementable by public water systems.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26524, U.S.
EPA, 1991b).
In the preamble to the 1991 Rule, EPA also addressed concerns about
the high costs to small systems of implementing the minimum number of
samples requirement as follows: ``EPA understands commenter's concerns
with the potentially high costs of sampling for small systems but
believes the increased number of samples is necessary to ensure that
lead and copper levels are reasonably well represented.'' (56 FR 26460
at 26524, U.S. EPA, 1991d); ``For most systems, collecting more samples
will be far less expensive than undertaking corrosion control or source
water treatment, which they could otherwise be required to install
based on an inappropriately small sample size.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26524,
U.S. EPA, 1991d).
In the preamble to the 2000 minor revisions, EPA revisited the
question of the appropriate number of samples. The 2000 preamble
clarified that even if a system did not have enough high-risk sites to
meet the minimum number of samples, the system must take the required
minimum number of samples. The 2000 Preamble again explains EPA's
rationale for choosing the minimum number of samples, stated as
follows: ``The number of samples specified for initial monitoring,
follow-up monitoring and reduced monitoring was established to
sufficiently account for variability of lead and copper at taps while
at the same time being reasonable for a system to implement.'' (65 FR
1950 at 1970, U.S. EPA, 2000a).
Even with the explanations in the 1991 and 2000 preamble, there
continues to be some confusion about the minimum number of samples
required. EPA hopes to clarify this issue further with these revisions.
In the 1991 rule, the term ``site'' is used to refer to the number of
samples collected. However, there has been confusion as to whether site
refers to taps or samples. EPA is proposing additional regulatory
language to clarify that water systems with fewer than five taps must
sample all taps at least once and repeat sampling at some taps in order
to collect the minimum number of samples required. EPA believes this
approach will provide an accurate representation of the lead level.
Because lead levels may change over time, EPA believes this sampling
approach will give a system the most accurate picture of its water
quality. EPA further defines the taps in this clarification to be
``taps used for human consumption'' in order to ensure that samples are
taken from taps which would pose the highest risk for exposure to lead,
rather than from a tap which is not used for drinking, such as an
outside hose bib or utility sink.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
The proposal does not alter current requirements. This is a
clarification of the minimum number of samples requirement and does not
represent a change in rule requirements or EPA policy.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
While EPA is proposing to retain the five-sample minimum, EPA is
also soliciting comment on an alternative which would specify that
NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps used for human consumption would only
be required to collect one sample per available tap used for human
consumption. Under this alternative, the highest sample value would be
compared to the action level, rather than an average of the two highest
results. EPA is requesting comment: (1) On whether this alternative
provides equal or greater protection than the proposed change, (2) on
whether the alternative sampling requirement should be allowed only
when the State determines that the system's historical monitoring data
demonstrate the system is reliably and consistently below the action
level.
EPA consulted with representatives of five State drinking water
programs in the development of this proposal. The representatives of
the State drinking water programs disagreed with the proposed
clarification to the regulations described in Section III.A2 above. The
State representatives proposed this alternative change to the
regulatory language. State drinking water program representatives have
argued that, while it may make sense to collect a minimum number of
samples for larger community water systems (CWSs) so that there would
be relative confidence in the results being representative of the
system as a whole (due to variability), this does not apply to a system
where 100 percent of the available taps are being tested. These State
drinking water program representatives provided the following four
reasons for their support of the alternative approach in lieu of this
proposed clarification.
First, sampling at 100 percent of available taps will provide a
high level of confidence that the sample results are representative of
levels in the system, since the whole universe of available sampling
sites is being sampled during each monitoring period.
Second, in the event that a system with fewer than five taps has
only one single tap that exceeds the action level, taking a total of
five samples can easily result in the system not having an Action Level
(AL) exceedance (and therefore not needing to solve a lead problem),
because the 90th percentile is calculated by averaging the two highest
samples when there are five samples. When a system takes fewer than
five samples, a single sample above the AL would be considered an AL
exceedance under the alternative to this proposal.
Third, sampling each tap at systems that have fewer than five
better represents variation over time in these systems than does the
sampling for larger systems, since the same sites are sampled
repeatedly (every monitoring period). Larger CWSs frequently have to
change monitoring locations because consumers do not allow the system
employees access to their homes on a repeated basis. Monitoring at 100
percent of the same sites over time (at NTNCWSs) would catch any
changes in plumbing materials introduced over
[[Page 40832]]
time, as well as account for any variability at these sites over time.
Fourth, the alternative option would continue to provide robust
protection for the most vulnerable populations, such as schools and
childcare facilities, since all taps would be sampled. For example, if
a preschool has a tap that exceeds the Lead Action Level, teachers
would know not to use that tap to provide water to children for
consumption, and the system would be required to address that issue
immediately.
EPA requests comment upon the alternative option including the four
reasons described above and any other information that should be
considered in evaluating this alternative to the proposed change.
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing a number of clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and monitoring periods begin and end.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing clarifications regarding monitoring and compliance
periods in order to clarify the meaning of these terms and to address
two issues. The term ``compliance period'' is defined in Sec. 141.2 as
a three-year calendar year period within a nine-year compliance cycle.
The term ``monitoring period'' refers to the specific period within the
compliance period in which a water system must perform the required
monitoring (e.g., June-September).
The first issue concerns the timing of actions following a lead or
copper action level exceedance. For systems on reduced monitoring, they
must monitor either once during each calendar year or once during each
three-year compliance period. The monitoring period is from June to
September or some other four-month period during normal operation when
the highest lead levels are most likely to occur. Under the current
regulations, some systems have been uncertain about when a system is
determined to have exceeded the action level and the corresponding
deadlines for completing corrosion control studies, lead service line
replacement and public education (e.g., end of December or the end of
September for systems monitoring June to September). This change would
clarify that the system would be determined to be exceeding the action
level as of the date on which the monitoring period ended (e.g., on
September 30). This clarification is intended to ensure that the system
and the State begin actions to reduce exposure, such as corrosion
control, public education for lead and/or lead service line
replacement, as soon as possible. The deadlines for completing these
follow-up activities would be calculated from the date the system is
determined to be exceeding the action level (end of the monitoring
period).
The second issue concerns the timing of samples that should be
taken during the three-year compliance period for systems on triennial
monitoring. This proposal would require samples to be taken during four
consecutive months within the compliance period, not over multiple
years. This requirement would assure that States and systems have an
accurate assessment of the effectiveness of corrosion control. Under
this requirement, samples will need to be taken during four consecutive
months, during the three-year period. For most systems, this will mean
monitoring during June to September during one of the three years in
the three-year compliance period. For systems where the State has
approved some other four-month period, all samples must be taken during
that four-month period. Sampling during a short, fixed time period will
allow the system to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the
corrosion control treatment than would collecting the same number of
samples over a three year period.
We are also proposing that systems on triennial monitoring be
required to conduct their monitoring every three years. Systems would
therefore not be allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period
because that would mean five years would have passed between monitoring
rounds. A similar change is also proposed for small systems with
monitoring waivers to ensure that they monitor every nine years.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
EPA is proposing clarifications of the terms, ``monitoring period''
and ``compliance period.'' EPA also proposes to revise a number of
sections in the LCR to more precisely specify when the ``start date''
for the compliance calendar occurs. These changes clarify existing
language rather than changing any requirements of the rule. These
clarifications will ensure that corrosion control, public education,
and/or lead service line replacement are started in a timely fashion in
order to reduce exposure to lead. EPA also proposes revisions that will
make it clear when systems may begin reduced monitoring as well as when
they need to resume more frequent monitoring. Again, EPA is not
changing requirements but rather making sure the current requirements
are clear and are consistently implemented.
EPA is also proposing that systems on triennial monitoring must
monitor during one four-month period (called the ``monitoring
period''). EPA is further proposing that systems on triennial
monitoring monitor every three years, so that the start of the next
round of monitoring is based on the previous round of monitoring.
Systems would not be allowed to monitor in Year 1 of one round of one
three-year compliance period and Year 3 of the next three-year period,
since that would allow five years between rounds of monitoring. This
same approach would also be applied to the nine-year cycles for systems
with a monitoring waiver.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
EPA is requesting comment on the clarifications throughout the rule
regarding the terms monitoring period and compliance period. EPA also
requests comments on other sections of the LCR that may need
modification to clarify when actions are required to begin or be
completed. In addition, EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
requiring systems on reduced monitoring to take all of their required
samples during one four-month period in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to disallow water systems that exceed the Lead
Action Level from initiating or remaining on a reduced lead and copper
monitoring schedule based solely on the results of their water quality
parameter monitoring. This proposed change would modify the reduced
monitoring provisions in Sec. 141.86(d)(4), specifically subsections
(ii) , (iii) and (iv). These sections discuss when small and large
water systems may reduce the required number of lead and copper samples
in accordance with paragraph (c) of Sec. 141.86.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing this change because the Agency believes that
reduced monitoring should only be permitted in instances in which it
has been demonstrated that corrosion control
[[Page 40833]]
treatment is both effective and reliable. Compliance with water quality
parameters alone may not always indicate that corrosion control is
effective.
Monitoring lead levels is particularly critical for systems that
are exceeding the Lead Action Level for several reasons. One reason is
that it will assist systems in evaluating the effectiveness of
corrosion control treatment. The 1991 LCR intended to allow systems
eligibility for reduced monitoring even if they exceeded the lead or
copper action level if they could demonstrate their corrosion control
treatment was effective by meeting the State-designated water quality
parameters. However, as shown by the events in the District of Columbia
and as stated above, compliance with water quality parameters alone may
not always indicate that corrosion control is effective, especially
after a treatment or source change. Continued exceedance of the Lead
Action Level may indicate that a particular method of corrosion control
treatment is not effective for a particular system and this data may
assist this system in finding a better alternative treatment. In
addition, a system must know if it continues to exceed the Lead Action
Level after installing corrosion control treatment in order to
determine how long its lead service line replacement requirements
remain in effect. Continued understanding of the range of lead levels
detected within the system can also help the system implement an
effective public education program.
Secondly, primacy agencies may gain a more accurate picture of what
lead levels in drinking water currently exist in their States. Many
systems within States share water sources, have similar treatment
technologies, and have similar materials in their distribution systems.
States and other primacy agencies with knowledge of effective corrosion
control for one system may be able to aid other systems within their
jurisdiction in lowering lead levels in water. Having a more accurate
characterization of lead levels in drinking water that exceeds action
levels will also allow States and systems to better inform consumers
and, thereby, create greater confidence in their efforts to reduce lead
levels.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
In addition to monitoring lead and copper levels at households,
systems that exceed the lead and copper action level are required to
monitor for water quality parameters established by the State. These
water quality parameters include pH, alkalinity, and other parameters
that reflect the method used to control the corrosivity of the water
(e.g., phosphate levels). States establish acceptable ranges for these
parameters for individual systems that must be maintained to assure
compliance with the rule. Currently a system that meets the water
quality parameter requirements is eligible to reduce the frequency of
its lead and copper monitoring even if the system is currently
exceeding the action levels. The proposed revision would limit the
eligibility of reduced monitoring to only those systems meeting the
Lead Action Level.
Currently, paragraph (4) of Sec. 141.86(d) contains provisions for
when water systems may reduce the monitoring frequency and the number
of required lead and copper samples for systems of various sizes under
both standard and reduced monitoring. Under subparagraph (ii) of this
section, any water system that meets the water quality parameters
specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) for two consecutive six-
month monitoring periods may reduce their monitoring to once per year
and reduce the number of samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of
Sec. 141.86 with written approval from the State. Under subparagraph
(iii) of this section, any water system that meets these water quality
parameters for three consecutive years of annual monitoring may reduce
the monitoring frequency to once every three years with written
approval from the State. The Agency is proposing to require that these
systems must also meet the Lead Action Level over the specified time
period as a criterion for reduced monitoring. For example, under
subparagraph (ii) a system would have to meet the Lead Action Level and
the State water quality parameters for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods in order to be eligible, with written approval from
the State, to reduce its monitoring frequency to once per year and
reduce the number of samples required in accordance with Sec.
141.86(c). This proposed change will also require systems currently on
reduced monitoring schedules that exceed the Lead Action Level during
any four consecutive month monitoring period to resume sampling the
standard monitoring number of sites under Sec. 141.86(c) each
consecutive six-month monitoring period.
It should be noted that subparagraph (i) of Sec. 141.86(d)(4)
allows small- or medium-size water systems to reduce monitoring to once
per year after meeting both the lead and copper action levels for two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Subparagraph (iii) of the
same section allows small- and medium-size systems to reduce monitoring
from annually to once every three years after meeting both the lead and
copper action levels for three consecutive years. The Agency is not
proposing to change either of these requirements. Small- and medium-
size systems that meet both the lead and copper action levels may still
reduce monitoring in the manner described in these sections without
State approval.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
on?
EPA requests comment on the proposal to disallow water systems that
are above the Lead Action Level from initiating or maintaining a
reduced monitoring schedule based solely on the results of their water
quality parameter monitoring.
EPA did consider requiring that all systems meet both the lead and
the copper action levels as criteria for eligibility for reduced
monitoring. However, the Agency determined that copper issues should be
considered as part of longer term revisions to the rule. EPA also
believes that adding the copper action level requirement could impose a
large monitoring increase on some small and medium systems that are
currently limited in their ability to reduce copper below the action
level (i.e., high alkalinity ground waters). For these systems, the
States currently have flexibility in the existing rule to limit systems
from proceeding to reduced lead and copper tap monitoring. Under
subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 141.86(d)(4), a State may review
and revise its determination to allow a system to proceed with reduced
monitoring when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data, or
when other data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water Systems
That Intend To Make Any Change in Water Treatment or Add a New Source
of Water That Could Affect the System's Optimal Corrosion Control
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vii), Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), and Sec. 141.90(a)(3) to
require water systems to obtain prior approval by the State primacy
agency to add a new source of water or change a treatment process prior
to implementation. The proposed regulatory language allows as much time
as needed for water systems and States to consult before making those
[[Page 40834]]
changes. In addition to allowing this type of State discretion, EPA is
currently developing a revised simultaneous compliance guidance
document that can be used by the State to identify those situations
where optimal corrosion control can be affected by changes in treatment
or source water.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
In the 2000 revisions to the LCR, EPA published in the Federal
Register a requirement that water systems notify the State primacy
agency of the addition of a new source or treatment change no later
than 60 days after implementing the change (65 FR 1950 at 1977, U.S.
EPA, 2000a). When water systems make changes in their source water or
treatment processes there could be unintentional effects on the water
system's optimal corrosion control. The goal of this provision was to
ensure that a water system maintained optimal corrosion control
following changes in water quality resulting from a change in source or
treatment process by providing the primacy authority an opportunity to
review the change and its possible impacts on corrosion control. An
example of change in treatment would be a switch in disinfectant.
EPA now believes that this provision may not be adequate to ensure
continued optimal corrosion control because the primacy agency review
comes too late in the process. If a water system notifies the State
primacy agency of changes that have already been made that could result
in leaching of lead from plumbing components such as service lines,
there may be little opportunity to minimize any anticipated problems
with corrosion or prevent leaching from occurring. For this reason, EPA
believes that such changes in treatment should be reviewed and approved
by the State before they are implemented. Also, EPA believes that this
proposed requirement would fit well into the existing State program
plan review and approval requirements that are part of the State's
primary enforcement responsibilities described in Sec.
142.11(a)(2)(v).
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
Under the current requirement, water systems must simply provide
written notification to the State within 60 days after the change in
treatment or source has been made. This proposed regulatory revision
requires that the notice of change be given in advance, and the State
must approve the change. This gives water systems the opportunity to
consult with their States and identify any measures that may be
necessary to avoid or minimize potential problems with corrosion
control. It also allows the State to design a monitoring program
upfront, for those situations where it is necessary to ensure that
corrosion control is being maintained adequately after the change has
been made.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
on?
Although EPA believes the proposed regulatory revision is the best
approach to address potential problems with corrosion control when
treatment/source changes are made, EPA requests comment on a number of
issues related to the proposal. First, EPA also considered the
alternative of simply requiring advance notification to the State at
least 60 days before the change. However, EPA decided to propose both
prior notice and approval for two reasons. The first reason is that EPA
could not determine a period for advance notice that would be
appropriate for all changes; in some cases 60 days would be unnecessary
(e.g., emergency changes to chemical feed systems) and in some cases it
would be grossly insufficient (e.g., major system improvements such as
installation of ion-exchange treatment). The second reason is that
several States pointed out that they already require approval of such
changes and thought such approval was necessary to ensure that optimal
corrosion control would be maintained. EPA requests comment on the
advanced notice (without approval) alternative and if commenters favor
the alternative, EPA requests that commenters address the issue of how
much time to provide (e.g., 60 days or another time period).
The second issue on which the Agency would like public comment is
what the phrase ``addition of a new source'' should mean for systems
that mix water sources. For example, a water system can mix source
water by going from 100% surface water to 50% ground water and 50%
surface water on either a permanent or temporary (e.g., seasonal)
basis. In this case, the mixing of source waters might or might not be
considered an addition of a new source under the regulation. Similarly,
a system may change the proportion of two sources such as moving from
75% ground water and 25% surface water to 25% ground water and 75%
surface water. These changes could also affect the water chemistry in a
way that could impact corrosion control. From time to time, water
systems may switch entirely from one source to another, such as going
from 100% surface water to 100% ground water. EPA requests comment on
(1) whether and when such changes should require prior approval and,
(2) if approval should not be required for all such changes, what
criteria should be used to distinguish these kinds of changes in source
water from the source water changes that might affect corrosion control
and need prior approval. Specifically, EPA requests public comment on
whether the words ``source change'' should replace ``addition of a new
source'' to describe a broader range of scenarios where source waters
are changed in some way (e.g., mixing of source waters in different
proportions) or if EPA should describe in more detail in rule or
preamble language or guidance which types of changes require prior
State approval.
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That Are
Tested for Lead
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend the public education requirements
described in Sec. 141.80 (g) and add a new notification requirement at
Sec. 141.85(d) that will require water systems to provide consumers
who occupy homes or buildings that are part of the utility's monitoring
program with testing results when their drinking water is tested for
lead.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
Although some utilities may provide customers with the results of
analyses conducted to meet requirements of the regulations, utilities
are not currently required by EPA to notify occupants of the lead
levels found in their drinking water. While samples are primarily
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control or to
evaluate the corrosivity of the utility's water across the entire
service area, the results of lead monitoring can provide useful
information to the occupants of the household from which the samples
were taken. Occupants can evaluate the results of lead tests for their
drinking water and use that information to inform any decisions they
might make to take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
There are currently no provisions in the regulation that require
water utilities to notify occupants of results of routine monitoring
conducted to comply with the LCR. Community water systems
[[Page 40835]]
must collect samples from between five and 100 households to evaluate
lead and copper concentrations. Non-transient, non-community water
systems (including some schools that operate their own water system)
must also collect samples. This proposed rule change would require
systems to provide written notification to occupants of the households
no later than 30 days after the utility learns the results for the
samples collected from that household and to post or otherwise notify
occupants of non-residential buildings of the results of the lead
testing. This would include staff and parents of students for schools
that are tested as non-transient non-community water systems.
While there are no current requirements associated with
notification of results of routine monitoring in the LCR, there are
requirements for utilities to provide notice to homeowners when their
water is tested in carrying out partial lead service line replacement.
Section 141.84(d)(1) requires that utilities test water within 72 hours
after the completion of partial replacement of a lead service line. The
utility must report the results of the analysis to the owner and the
resident(s) served by the line within 3 business days of receiving the
results. Utilities must provide the information by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In instances where multi-family
dwellings are served by the line, the water system has the option to
post the information at a conspicuous location. This provision is not
affected by the proposed rule change.
The proposed language would require utilities to provide consumers
(owners or occupants) at locations that were tested during routine tap
monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.86 with a consumer notice of the tap
monitoring results as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days
after the utility learns of the results. The notice must contain an
explanation of the health effects of lead, list steps consumers can
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, provide contact
information for the utility, include the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(0 ([mu]g/L), the action level (15 ([mu]g/L) and an explanation of what
these values mean. The results must be provided by mail or other
methods approved by the State.
EPA selected thirty days as the timeframe for notifying consumers
of results because it is consistent with the notification time frame
for a Tier 2 Public Notice and because it would better allow utilities
sufficient time to generate a large number of notices for mailing at
one time. The purpose for including the MCLG and the action level is to
give consumers context as to their level of exposure in comparison to
the goal and standard established for lead in drinking water. The MCLG
is the level at which no known adverse health effects occur (with an
adequate margin of safety) and the action level is the concentration of
lead that States and systems use to determine if systems must install
corrosion control treatment if they have not already done so, or if
they must begin public education and lead service line replacement.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
EPA seeks comment on several specific elements associated with the
proposed requirements. Is 30 days sufficient time to provide
notification, or is a shorter or longer time frame appropriate? Is it
appropriate to include the MCLG and the action level and a brief
explanation of their significance, or is there some other information
that systems should or could be asked to provide that would be more
useful to consumers in determining whether their tap monitoring results
warrant further action to protect household members, especially
children, from lead exposure through drinking water?
Additionally, during development of the proposal, it was suggested
that this provision would cause an undue burden on non-transient non-
community water systems. EPA believes it is important to include non-
transient non-community systems because many of them are schools or
childcare facilities, which provide water to the population more
susceptible to lead exposure. Given the flexibilities included in the
proposal related to means of delivery, EPA seeks comment on whether
this provision would cause an undue burden to non-transient non-
community water systems.
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to change the public education requirements of the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in the Code of Federal Regulations at Sec.
141.85. The proposal would still require water systems to deliver
public education materials after a Lead Action Level exceedance. EPA is
proposing to change, however, the content of the message to be provided
to consumers, how the materials are delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be delivered. The changes to the
delivery requirements include additional organizations that systems
must partner with to disseminate the message to at-risk populations as
well as changes to the media used to disseminate information to ensure
that it reaches consumers when there is an action level exceedance.
In addition to the changes to Sec. 141.85 for the LCR, EPA is also
proposing a change to Sec. 141.154(d) for the Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) rule, which requires community water systems to send an
annual report to billed customers containing information relevant to
the quality of the drinking water provided by the system (63 FR 44512,
August 19, 1998, U.S. EPA 1998a). EPA is proposing to change the CCR
rule to require all community water systems that detect lead in their
compliance monitoring samples to include information about the risks of
lead in drinking water in the report on a regular basis.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing to change the public education requirements of the
LCR in order to improve compliance and ensure that consumers receive
the information they need to appropriately limit their exposure to lead
in drinking water. Because the sources of lead are frequently within
the home and reduction of lead in drinking water is the responsibility
of both the public water systems and the consumer, EPA wants to ensure
that information is delivered and that it is meaningful and useful to
the consumer.
EPA identified compliance as an important issue during its review
of LCR implementation. Based on EPA's review of state files, over 40
percent of water utilities did not conduct the required public
education; therefore the at-risk population did not get information
they needed to reduce their exposure from lead in drinking water (Lead
and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report, EPA, March 2006a)
EPA believes the changes in this proposal better ensure that at-risk
populations receive information quickly and are able to act to reduce
their exposure. EPA also believes water systems will be better able to
comply with these proposed requirements.
During EPA's national review of the LCR, many stakeholders stated
that the public education requirements needed improvement. In September
2004, EPA held an expert workshop to discuss the public education
requirements of the rule. A number of concerns were raised at this
workshop about the effectiveness of the existing public education
language and requirements. Workshop
[[Page 40836]]
participants stated that the mandatory language in the rule is too
long, cumbersome, and complex to convey to the general public an
understanding of the risk posed by lead in drinking water and an
appropriate course of action. Public education must put the risk in
context and convey to the public the appropriate sense of urgency for
consumers to act to reduce exposure. In addition, workshop members
called for public education messages to be tailored to those who are at
highest risk for lead exposure. Many participants stated that the
mandatory language and delivery requirements in the current rule were
ineffective in providing useful and timely information to the public.
(Summary from Public Education Workshop, U.S. EPA, 2004a).
In order to address these concerns, the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), EPA's advisory body on the Safe Drinking
Water Act, formed a working group to consider possible revisions to the
public education requirements. The charge for the NDWAC Working Group
was to (1) review the current public education requirements for lead in
drinking water to make recommendations for improvements; (2) develop
recommended revised language for communicating to the public the risk
of lead in drinking water and how affected persons should respond; and
(3) review and make recommendations for changes to the means of
delivery of lead information to the public (70 FR 54375, U.S. EPA,
2005).
The NDWAC Working Group met in person four times between October
2005 and April 2006. The Working Group was comprised of 16 individuals
representing an array of backgrounds and perspectives. Collectively,
these individuals brought into the discussion the perspectives of State
drinking water agencies, environmental and consumer groups, drinking
water utilities, small system advocates, State health officials, and
risk communication experts.
The NDWAC Working Group raised a number of concerns with the public
education requirements of the LCR that are consistent with the concerns
expressed at the 2004 workshop. The NDWAC Working Group recommended
that the rule be modified to better ensure that information reaches the
most vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants and young
children) or their caregivers. They also recommended changes to ensure
that these consumers received information in a more timely manner and
continued to receive information throughout any exceedance. They also
recommended changes to ensure that the information is easy to
understand and effective in informing affected consumers and
encouraging parents or other caregivers to take actions to reduce
exposure of infants and children to lead. In addition, the NDWAC
Working Group recommended changes to make sure critical information
reaches not only bill paying customers, but those consumers who live in
apartments and other housing where residents do not receive bills.
Finally, the NDWAC Working group was also concerned about the
amount of time it may take to test water, get back the results,
calculate the 90th percentile, and finally send out public education
materials. They were concerned that an individual could be drinking
water with high lead levels for months before knowing of the problem.
As a result, they recommended changes to increase the timeliness of
public education on lead in drinking water.
The NDWAC recommendations are, in part, modeled after the public
education information under two existing EPA rules, the CCR rule and
the Public Notification Rule (65 FR 25982, U.S. EPA, 2000b). The NDWAC
recommendations form the basis for the changes to Sec. 141.85 proposed
in this rulemaking.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
The public education requirements in this proposal differ in a
number of ways from the current requirements of the LCR. This proposal
still requires water systems to complete the public education
requirement after a Lead Action Level exceedance, but changes the
mandatory content of written materials, delivery requirements, and
timing of when systems must complete all required activities. This
proposal also changes the requirements for the language or content of
written materials, giving water systems more flexibility to tailor the
public education message to their community and situation. EPA believes
these changes will make the public education program more effective. In
addition, this proposal changes the delivery requirements in a number
of ways. Water systems will be required to send written materials to
additional organizations in an attempt to better reach at-risk
populations. This proposal also requires the systems to do several
additional activities but allows them to pick from a list of activities
in order to do what is most effective for their community. This
proposal requires that water systems maintain communication with
consumers throughout the Lead Action Level exceedance by including
information with every water bill; provide two press releases a year;
and for larger systems, include information on their Web site. This
proposal allows primacy agencies to give water systems more time to
complete the additional activities and deliver water bills. Finally,
this proposal includes changes to the Consumer Confidence Report to
ensure consumers are aware of concerns about lead in drinking water.
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
This proposal requires the system to continue to deliver written
materials to all customers as well as a number of key organizations.
However, EPA is proposing to change the content of the required written
materials. Currently, Sec. 141.85 requires written materials to
include mandatory language consisting of over 1,800 words describing
health effects, lead in drinking water, steps to reduce exposure, and
how to obtain additional information. Under this proposal, the
mandatory language would be much shorter and easier to understand. The
mandatory language would address essential topics such as the opening
statement and health effects language. Community Water Systems and Non-
Transient Non-Community Water Systems would still be required to
provide information on other topics, but the system may either use
EPA's suggested language or their own words to explain these topics.
EPA believes that this format will result in more effective public
education materials.
EPA does recognize that small systems do not have the resources to
create their own language for the required topics, so EPA will provide
language in guidance that systems can use to explain all of the
required topics in the regulation. For example, EPA is giving systems
more flexibility in the language they use for flushing instructions,
yet for systems that do not have data to identify clear flushing
instructions, EPA will suggest flushing times to share with customers.
b. Changes To Better Reach At-Risk Populations
EPA is proposing to add organizations to the list of recipients of
the public education materials in order to increase the likelihood that
the most vulnerable populations or their caregivers will receive the
information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water. EPA is proposing to add licensed childcare centers, preschools,
Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives to the current list of
organizations to which a system must deliver information. In addition,
EPA is
[[Page 40837]]
proposing a new requirement that systems include a cover letter with
the printed materials that they send to these organizations to explain
the importance of sharing this information with their customers/
patients. This proposal is designed to help ensure that the information
reaches non-bill paying customers; these customers may be reached
through these organizations if the organizations are provided with the
necessary information and encouraged to share the task of improving
public awareness.
While it is important for this information to get to all of these
organizations, EPA believes that the local health agencies play an
important role in making sure consumers who are most vulnerable receive
the information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water. In order to make sure the local health agencies know about the
Lead Action Level exceedance, EPA is proposing to require systems to
directly contact (e.g., phone, in person, etc.) the local health agency
rather than simply delivering brochures to this organization. By
directly contacting the local health agency, utilities can enlist the
health agency's support in disseminating information on lead in
drinking water and the steps that vulnerable populations can take to
reduce their exposure.
In addition to using organizations to disseminate information to
at-risk populations, EPA is also proposing that systems complete
additional activities from a list of options. The list of additional
activities that systems can choose from includes:
Public Service Announcements
Paid advertisements such as newspaper or transit ads
Information displays in public areas such as grocery
stores
Using the internet or email to disseminate information
Public meetings
Delivery to every household (not just bill paying
customers)
Individual contact with customers such as door hangers
Provide materials directly to multi-family homes and
institutions
Other methods approved by the primacy agency
This proposal requires that systems serving 3,300 people or above
be required to do three additional public education activities from the
list of possible items and systems serving 3,300 or fewer individuals
must do one additional activity from this list. The system must work in
consultation with the primacy agency to ensure the content of each of
these additional activities is appropriate. EPA is proposing that a
system can choose three items from one, two, or three of these general
categories. For instance, a system can do a series of paid
advertisements if that is the most effective way to reach the target
populations in their community.
System, State and consumer representatives on the NDWAC Working
Group all agreed that what works in one community does not always work
best in another community. In order to make the public education as
effective as possible, EPA is proposing to give systems some
flexibility in how they deliver their public education materials. They
are still required to disseminate information to people served by their
system, but they have some flexibility in how they complete their
program. For instance, a large system in an urban area may choose to
use a public service announcement and paid advertisements to reach
consumers, while a system in a rural area may find the best way to
reach customers is through displaying information in frequently visited
public areas or public meetings.
In the current regulation, small systems are able to limit their
distribution to only those facilities and organizations frequented by
the most vulnerable populations. While systems serving less than 500
people may do this without approval from the state, systems serving
501-3,300 may limit their distribution if they receive written approval
from the state. This proposal changes this so that all small systems
serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit their distribution to only
those places frequented by the most vulnerable populations without
written approval from the state.
c. Changes To Help Systems Maintain Communication With Consumers
Throughout the Exceedance
In order to ensure continued contact with consumers, EPA is also
proposing that systems include information in or on the water bill as
long as there is an exceedance of the Lead Action Level. EPA recognizes
that this requirement can be difficult for some systems that are unable
to print messages on their bills, so there is a provision to allow
systems to work with their primacy agency to deliver this information
in a different way.
Another way that this proposal encourages continuous communication
with consumers is by requiring systems with a population greater than
100,000 to put the public education information on their Web site.
Under the proposal, this information must remain on the Web site until
the system tests below the Lead Action Level.
Currently, systems that exceed the Lead Action Level must issue a
press release. EPA is proposing to require that systems distribute two
press releases per year in order to ensure systems are maintaining
communication with their customers. The systems must send the press
releases to the major newspapers and TV and radio stations which serve
the population served by the water system. This is another way to reach
consumers who do not receive water bills. In response to concerns about
small systems' ability to complete this requirement, in this proposal,
primacy agencies can waive the press release requirement if there are
no media outlets that specifically target the population served by the
system. In addition, this proposal removes the requirement for medium
and large systems to provide two Public Service Announcements (PSA) per
year.
d. Changes to the Required Timing of Completion of Public Education
Requirements
While this proposal would still require systems to complete most of
their public education in 60 days, there is increased flexibility for
the primacy agency to allow longer periods of time for completion of
water bill delivery and the additional activities from the list of
options. This proposal would allow more time so that a system could
align its billing cycle with the public education requirements. EPA
understands that many systems have a billing cycle which may begin
within the 60 days time frame but not all customers would be billed at
the same time. The primacy agency may allow the system to include
information with their regular billing cycle even if this means some
customers receive this part of the public education program a bit later
than the 60-day window. In addition, EPA is proposing to allow the
system to work with the primacy agency on a schedule to complete the
additional items such as PSAs or advertisements. This is intended to
encourage systems to pick the items from this list that will be most
effective and will reach the most vulnerable populations rather than
the items that are easiest and quickest to complete. In order to make
sure that the public education program is effective, the primacy agency
may allow the system to take a bit longer to complete these more
complicated items. The system must still complete all other aspects of
the public education program, such as delivering materials to
organizations that work with at-risk populations, posting information
on their Web site and submitting press releases within the 60 days.
This will
[[Page 40838]]
ensure that customers receive some information as quickly as possible.
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Reports
The NDWAC suggested changes to the CCR rule to address the concern
that materials may not be delivered immediately and therefore
vulnerable populations may drink water with high levels of lead for
months before knowing of the risk. Under current regulations, all water
systems that detect lead above the action level in more than five
percent of the homes sampled must include a short informational
statement about lead in drinking water in their CCR. In this action,
EPA is proposing that all Community Water Systems who detect lead above
the method detection limit of 0.001 mg/L in their compliance monitoring
samples provide information in their annual CCR on lead in drinking
water. This approach is consistent with the CCR rule requirements for
the other inorganic contaminants in Sec. 141.151, which is also based
on the method detection limit. This short statement will help to ensure
that all vulnerable populations or their caregivers receive information
on how to reduce their risk to lead in drinking water at least once a
year. In addition, the NDWAC recommended changes to the language in the
informational statement to make the risk of lead in drinking water
clear as well as to include basic steps on how to reduce exposure to
lead in drinking water and where to go for more information. EPA is
proposing these changes in this rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
on?
EPA is asking for comment on the proposed revisions to the public
education requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule. In particular,
EPA requests comment upon revisions to the mandatory language for
written materials. EPA requests comment on the flexibility provided in
the requirements for the content of written public education materials.
EPA also requests comment on the shortened mandatory language and
suggested language for other required topics. Do commenters believe
this revised language is clearer and will be easier for consumers to
understand? Is the proposed health effects language and information on
steps consumers can take to reduce lead exposure useful to consumers?
Should the language also indicate that exceedence of the action level
at the 90th percentile tap reading does not mean that all consumers are
exposed to elevated levels of lead? Do commenters have any concerns
about compliance with the proposed content requirements? Should EPA
require systems to submit their written materials to primacy agencies
before distributing them? EPA also requests comment on whether or not
systems should be required to modify their public education materials
if the primacy agency determines it is not consistent with the
mandatory language.
The mandatory language includes a section on contacts for more
information. This section includes a requirement for the system to
include how to contact both the system and EPA. EPA requests comment on
whether there should be a mandatory requirement to include the contact
information for the State drinking water primacy agency. EPA is aware
that a number of States adopt EPA drinking water regulations by
reference and these States would not be able to insert a requirement
for systems to provide State contact information. Would States who
adopt by reference face a challenge encouraging customers to contact
their office under the current proposal?
EPA also seeks comment on the delivery requirements for the public
education message. Will the changes to the delivery requirements make
the public education program more effective at reaching the most
vulnerable populations? Are there other delivery mechanisms EPA should
consider? EPA is also interested in any studies or information
commenters have on ways to reach the populations of concern.
The delivery requirements in this proposal expand on the
requirement that systems deliver public education materials to certain
organizations such as schools, pediatricians, childcare centers, etc.
EPA requests comment as to how a system that exceeds the Lead Action
Level should determine to which of these organizations it must deliver
materials. Should the system deliver materials to only organizations
that are served by that system, all organizations in the county or
other local government jurisdiction, or all organizations that provide
service to the population served by the water system?
EPA is proposing that Community Water Systems consult with the
primacy agency to ensure the information they disseminate as part of
the additional activities under Sec. 141.85(b)(2)(vi) is appropriate.
EPA is interested in whether commenters believe this is too great a
burden on the primacy agency. Should EPA determine the required content
for these additional activities? If EPA should make this determination,
do commenters have suggestions for what the content should be?
EPA is interested in whether commenters agree that some water
systems will need more than 60 days to complete delivery of water bills
which include the public education information and the additional
activities from the list (e.g., PSAs, paid advertisements, etc.)
EPA also requests comment on whether this proposal adequately
addresses the concerns of small systems. Many small systems have
limited resources and limited technical capabilities. Will these
systems be able to complete the requirements, and if so, will this make
for an effective public education program in their communities?
EPA also requests comment on the proposed modifications to the CCR
rule requirements for lead. First, EPA requests comment on requiring
systems that detect any lead to include language in their consumer
confidence report. This requirement would be triggered for systems
detecting lead above the method detection limit of 0.001 mg/L. EPA is
interested in whether commenters think the criterion should be
detecting lead above the practical quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L, or
above some other level that may be more relevant for consumers in
determining whether they should take any further action?
Second, EPA requests comment as to whether the CCR is an effective
way to reach the targeted populations before there is a major problem
in a water system. Are there other vehicles for reaching these
individuals that EPA should consider?
Third, EPA requests comment upon the content of the informational
statement to be included in the CCR for systems that detect lead or
exceed the Lead Action Level. EPA requests comment on whether this
language would be effective in raising the targeted populations'
awareness of the effects of lead in drinking water and steps they can
take to minimize exposure to lead. In particular, EPA notes that the
proposed language is essentially the same whether the system has
exceeded the action level or not. Should EPA develop language that
communicates a greater urgency about taking further action in
situations where the action level has been exceeded than in situations
where it has not? EPA also notes that the language focuses on the
household plumbing as the potential sources of lead in drinking water.
EPA requests comment as to whether other potential sources of lead
(e.g., service lines) should be identified for the consumer.
[[Page 40839]]
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to require water systems to reevaluate lead
service lines classified as ``replaced'' through testing if they resume
lead service line replacement programs. This would only apply to a
system that had (1) initiated a lead service line replacement program,
then (2) discontinued the program, and then (3) subsequently resumed
the program. When resuming the program, this system would have to
reconsider for replacement any lead service lines previously deemed
replaced through the testing provisions in Sec. 141.84(c) during the
initial program. This proposed change would add a subsection to the
lead service line replacement requirements in Sec. 141.84(b) to
include provisions for systems resuming lead service line replacement
programs.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
Lead service line replacement is intended as an additional step to
reduce lead exposure when corrosion control treatment is unsuccessful.
The provision in Sec. 141.84(c), which allows systems to leave in
place an individual lead service line if the lead concentration in all
service line samples from that line is less than or equal to 0.015 mg/
L, is intended to maximize the exposure reduction achieved per service
line replaced by avoiding the disruption and cost of replacing lines
that are not leaching high levels of lead. However, samples taken from
a lead service line pursuant to Sec. 141.84(c) cannot predict future
conditions of the system or of the service line. Systems can
discontinue a lead service line replacement program by meeting the Lead
Action Level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Therefore,
EPA is proposing that these systems reconsider any lines previously
determined to not require replacement if they exceed the action level
again in the future and resume the lead service line replacement
program.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
A system that exceeds the action level must replace at least seven
percent of its lead service lines each year until it is under the
action level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Currently,
a system is not required to replace an individual lead service line if
the lead concentration in all service line samples from that line are
less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L. The proposed revision would continue
to allow systems to determine if a lead service line does not require
replacement in this manner. However, the proposal would not allow
systems to consider such lines as permanently removed from the
replacement program. This rule change would apply to a system that (1)
exceeds the action level, (2) tests out one or more service lines, (3)
brings lead levels below the action level for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods and discontinues replacing lead service lines, and
(4) later exceeds the action level again. That system would have to
reinitiate lead service line replacement considering all lead service
lines including those that had previously tested out of the replacement
program under Sec. 141.84 (c). The system would divide the updated
number of remaining lead service lines by the number of remaining years
in the initial lead service line replacement program to determine the
number of lines that must be replaced per year. Systems resuming lead
service line replacement programs as detailed above would not have 15
years from the date of recommencement and, thus, would not be able to
restart the ``clock'' for their lead service line replacement program.
Such systems would have to consider the number of years remaining as 15
minus the number of years they had completed in their initial
replacement program (i.e., a system resuming after conducting two years
of replacement has 13 years in which to complete the program). In 1991,
EPA established the maximum replacement schedule of 15 years for all
systems. This was because the Agency believed that if systems were
allowed to replace lead service lines as part of normal maintenance, it
may take as long as 50 years before all of the problematic lead lines
were replaced in some systems. EPA believed that it was necessary to
accelerate the rate at which systems would otherwise replace lead
service lines in order to ensure that public health is adequately
protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507-26508, U.S. EPA, 1991d). Therefore, the
Agency believes that systems that are exceeding the action level should
have no more than 15 years to replace all of their lead service lines,
as intended by the current rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment
on?
EPA requests comment on the proposal to require water systems to
reevaluate lead service lines classified as ``replaced'' through
testing if they resume lead service line replacement programs.
H. Request for Comment on Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper
Rule
The following subsection describes additional issues related to the
Lead and Copper Rule for which the Agency is considering changes to
regulations.
1. Plumbing Component Replacement
Some water systems may choose to replace plumbing fixtures, pipes,
and components to greatly reduce the amount of lead or copper in tap
water to a level below the action level. Generally this approach only
applies to water systems that have 100% ownership over the plumbing
infrastructure; some schools and other institutions can fall into this
category. The Agency believes that this type of strategy can be cost-
efficient and a more effective way to address corrosion of lead and
copper. EPA is requesting comment as to whether plumbing replacement
should be specifically defined as a corrosion control technique, or
explicitly identified as an alternative to corrosion control
optimization for small and medium systems.
Small water systems can use fixture replacement with existing
provisions of the lead and copper rule to become optimized. Under Sec.
141.81(b)(1), a small or medium-size system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the system meets the lead and copper action levels
during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods conducted
in accordance with Sec. 141.86. Thus, non-transient, non-community
water systems, where 100% of the plumbing fixtures and components are
directly controlled by the system, could replace them and be optimized
once the system met the action level for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods.
Although water systems (typically non-transient non-community water
systems) can replace pipes, fixtures and plumbing components to meet
the lead or copper action level, this method of compliance is not
specified in the LCR as a corrosion control technique. When a system
exceeds the action level, it must initiate the treatment steps under
Sec. 141.81(e) that require the evaluation of corrosion control
options and the recommendation of optimal corrosion control treatment.
The current regulations could be read to require a small or medium
system to perform evaluations of the corrosion control techniques
listed in Sec. 141.82(c)(1), even when the system is planning to
replace plumbing components and is thus unlikely to install such
corrosion control treatment. However, EPA
[[Page 40840]]
believes that there is sufficient flexibility under the current rule
for systems that replace plumbing to qualify as optimized under Sec.
141.81(b)(1) without having to undertake an unnecessary evaluation of
corrosion control options. Under Section 141.81(e)(2), after an initial
action level exceedance, the system has 12 months (or two monitoring
periods) before the State makes a determination about requiring a
corrosion control study. The plumbing replacement option, as a
practical matter, is limited to small or medium non-transient, non-
community water systems; under Section 141.81(e)(2)(ii), where the
State does not require a system to conduct a corrosion control study, a
system has 24 months after the action level exceedance (or four
monitoring periods) before the State specifies optimal corrosion
control treatment. As a result, very small water systems could replace
the plumbing and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the system is
below the action level for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods
within this 24-month period, although to do this, they would have to
complete the plumbing replacement within 12 months of exceeding the
action level. The Agency is requesting comment on whether there is
enough existing flexibility under the current rule for very small
systems to optimize using plumbing replacement or whether EPA should
consider defining plumbing replacement as a corrosion control technique
or as an alternative to corrosion control for small and medium systems.
In particular, the Agency requests comment on whether 12 months is
sufficient time for a small or medium system to replace plumbing
components. If EPA were to allow States to specify plumbing replacement
as a treatment option for small and medium systems, the systems would
then have 24 months to complete the replacement, rather than the 12
months that they effectively have under the current rules.
EPA believes that there are a number of questions that would need
to be resolved before listing plumbing component replacement as a
corrosion control technique or an alternative to corrosion control.
What materials should be used for replacement materials, since ``lead-
free'' products still contain lead? What components would be replaced--
just end-point devices such as faucets or would it also include in-line
devices, such as valves and water meters? What would be the enforceable
water quality parameters for this alternative to corrosion control? How
would excursions from the optimal water quality parameters be measured?
If these techniques are listed under Sec. 141.81(c)(1) as corrosion
control techniques, would all systems need to evaluate them as part of
the corrosion control study? For systems that fail to meet the action
level, would the State still need to specify the minimum pH values,
even though the system may not be adjusting pH?
2. Point of Use and Point of Entry Treatment
Another strategy for reducing the lead or copper levels below the
action level would be the use of point of use (POU) or point of entry
(POE) devices. As with plumbing replacement, EPA is requesting comment
as to whether use of POU or POE devices should be specifically defined
as a corrosion control technique, or explicitly identified as an
alternative to corrosion control optimization for small systems.
Both POU and POE devices are identified in the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) as potential compliance technologies for small systems. In
addition, the SDWA also lists a number of requirements for POU and POE
devices if they are used as compliance technologies. These include: (1)
POU and POE devices shall be owned, controlled and maintained by the
public water system or by a person under contract to a public water
system to ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with
the treatment technique; (2) POU and POE devices must be equipped with
mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are automatically notified
of operational problems; and (3) if the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) has issued product standards applicable to a specific
type of POU or POE treatment unit, individual units of that type shall
not be accepted for compliance with a treatment technique requirement
unless they are independently certified in accordance with such
standards. The NSF/ANSI drinking water treatment unit standards do
cover lead removal, so devices would need to be certified against one
of the following standards: NSF/ANSI 53 Reduction Claims for Drinking
Water Treatment Units--Health Effects, NSF/ANSI 58 Reduction Claims for
Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems, or NSF/ANSI 62
Reduction Claims for Drinking Water Distillation Systems.
One limitation with POE devices is that there can still be lead-
containing plumbing after the POE device. Faucets, solder joints, etc.
could still contribute high lead levels, so this approach may not be
successful if the water is corrosive.
EPA believes that small systems can use POU devices, if they meet
the SDWA requirements discussed above for their use, to comply with the
lead and copper rule under existing provisions of the rule. Under Sec.
141.81(b)(1), a small or medium-size system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the system meets the lead and copper action levels
during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods conducted
in accordance with Sec. 141.86. Thus, small water systems where POU
devices are installed and meet the SDWA requirements could be optimized
once the system met the action level for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods after their installation at all sites.
Although small water systems can use POU devices to meet the lead
or copper action level, this method of compliance is not specified in
the current LCR as a corrosion control technique. As a result, the same
issue arises as discussed above with respect to plumbing replacement.
The current regulations could be read to require a small system to
perform evaluations of the corrosion control techniques listed in Sec.
141.82(c)(1) even when the system is planning to install POU devices
(in accordance with all applicable requirements of the SDWA) and is
thus unlikely to install such corrosion control treatment.
EPA believes that there may be sufficient flexibility under the
current rule for systems that use POU devices to qualify as optimized
under Sec. 141.81(b)(1) without having to undertake an unnecessary
evaluation of corrosion control options. However, EPA recognizes that
the same timing issue as discussed above for plumbing replacement may
be a concern. Specifically, systems would effectively have only 12
months to install the POU devices at all required taps in order to be
able to demonstrate two consecutive six-month monitoring periods where
the action level was not exceeded, before the end of the 24-month
deadline for installing corrosion control treatment. The Agency is
requesting comment on whether there is enough existing flexibility
under the current rule for small systems to optimize using POU devices
or whether EPA should define POU devices as a corrosion control
technique, or as an acceptable alternative to corrosion control for
small systems, which would have the effect of giving systems 24 months
rather than 12 months to install such treatment.
EPA believes that there are a number of questions that would need
to be resolved before listing POU as an alternative to corrosion
control. What
[[Page 40841]]
would be the enforceable water quality parameters for this alternative
to corrosion control? How would excursions from the optimal water
quality parameters be measured? If these techniques are listed under
Sec. 141.81(c)(1) as corrosion control techniques, would all systems
need to evaluate them as part of the corrosion control study? For
systems that fail to meet the action level, would the State still need
to specify the minimum pH values, even though the system may not be
adjusting pH?
3. Site Selection in Areas With Water Softeners and POU Treatment Units
The previous section discussed the use of POU or POE devices on a
system-wide basis to remove lead and/or copper. However, many homes
have whole house (point-of-entry) water softeners or treatment units at
the kitchen tap (point-of-use), even though the system is not
installing and maintaining these units. Section 141.86(a)(1) states
that sampling sites may not include faucets that have point-of-use or
point-of-entry treatment devices designated to remove inorganic
contaminants. EPA requests comment upon whether the LCR should be
amended to allow lead and copper tap samples to be collected at taps
that have POU/POE devices under certain conditions.
Households may have reverse osmosis POU units that are capable of
removing a number of contaminants, including lead and copper. These
devices are typically installed with a separate tap at the kitchen
sink. In systems where POU devices are not owned, controlled and
maintained by the water systems, these sites could be included and
still meet the requirements of Sec. 141.86(a)(1) because samples could
be taken from the regular untreated tap at the kitchen or a sample
could be taken from an untreated bathroom tap. Since POU devices have
not been installed system-wide, samples should not be taken from a POU
treated tap at these sites.
Some areas of the country may find that the prevalence of POE water
softeners restricts the ability of the water system to find homes where
these units are not installed. This scenario is discussed in EPA's
``Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual Volume 1: Monitoring'' that was
published in September 1991. Figure 3-2 in that manual described
preferred sampling pool categories for targeted sampling sites.
Category F.2 was listed as an exception case for water systems that
only have sites where water softeners have been installed. This
situation has been observed in the mid-western United States. The
guidance states that these systems should select the highest risk sites
(newest lead solder or lead service lines) and monitor at those
locations even though the water softener is present.
The Agency is requesting public comment on whether the Lead and
Copper Rule should be amended to allow sampling at locations with POU/
POE devices used to remove inorganic contaminants in exceptional cases
(such as systems with high prevalence of water softeners), and if so,
how high risk sites in these locations should be identified. EPA
specifically requests comment on whether the Agency should codify the
guidance provision discussed above.
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
The Agency requests comment on requiring systems to synchronize
required water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap
sampling. This would allow systems the ability to associate changes in
water quality parameter levels with lead and copper levels and help
systems monitor the effectiveness of their corrosion control program.
EPA is aware of one State that has been instructing water systems with
corrosion control treatment programs to collect water quality parameter
samples during the same week the systems collect lead and copper tap
samples. This State has observed that elevated lead levels have been
frequently associated with low corrosion inhibitor or orthophosphate
residuals in the distribution systems, and occasionally with low pH.
Under the current rule, systems that have installed and operate
corrosion control treatment per Section 141.82(c)(1) and 141.82(g) must
monitor water quality parameters per Section 141.87(d). The number of
water quality parameter tap samples depends on the population size
served by the water system as detailed in 141.87(a)(2) and
141.87(e)(1). The frequency of water quality parameter monitoring at
taps in the distribution system ranges from twice every six months to
twice every three years as described in 141.87(e). Systems required to
monitor for water quality parameters must also collect one sample for
each applicable water quality parameter at each entry point to the
distribution system every two weeks.
Water quality parameters are designated by the State primacy agency
under 141.82(d). They typically include pH, alkalinity, and corrosion
inhibitor residual. These parameters will vary based on the type of
corrosion control a system installs and the State may designate
additional parameters.
EPA is requesting comment upon a modification that would not
increase the number of samples a system would be required to take, but
would synchronize sampling they are required to do under the current
rule. Large systems would be required to take their required lead and
copper samples at the same time they take their required water quality
parameter samples. Small and medium systems would be required to take
their water quality parameter samples at the same time as their lead
and copper samples required by Section 141.81(c) during the compliance
period following the monitoring period in which they exceeded the lead
or copper action level and all subsequent monitoring periods in which
they are scheduled to take both water quality parameter and lead and
copper tap samples.
Currently, if a small or medium system has an action level
exceedance, they are required to take water quality parameter samples
within the same six-month period according to Section 141.87(d). EPA is
not requesting comment on whether to require these systems synchronize
water quality monitoring with lead and copper monitoring under this
circumstance. The Agency is only requesting comment on whether to
require these small and medium systems to synchronize water quality
monitoring and lead and copper monitoring during the compliance period
following the circumstance described in Section 141.87(d) and all
subsequent monitoring periods in which they are scheduled to take both
water quality parameter and lead and copper tap samples.
The Agency requests comment on including this potential
modification in the final rule. EPA requests comment on what, if any,
added burden it may present to water systems. The Agency also requests
comment on the appropriate time frame for synchronizing water quality
parameter monitoring with lead and copper monitoring. Should systems be
required to take water quality parameter and lead and copper samples on
the same day or within the same week within a monitoring period? What
are the practical constraints associated with different time frames?
I. State Implementation
States with approved primacy programs under 40 CFR part 142 subpart
B must revise their programs to adopt any changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule that are more stringent than their approved program. The
primacy revision crosswalk table issued after the rule is final will
list all the provisions
[[Page 40842]]
that States must adopt to retain primacy. Table III.1 summarizes the
revisions being proposed today and identifies those that the Agency
believes to be more stringent requirements.
Table III.1.--Revisions in This Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the requirement
CFR citation more stringent? Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.80 (a)(2)......... No................. Technical correction
that deletes
effective dates of
the LCR which no
longer apply.
Sec. 141.80(g)............. Yes................ PWSs will be
required to provide
consumers with the
results of lead
testing who are
located at sites
that are part of
the utility's
monitoring program.
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Yes................ States must approve
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii), new sources or
Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), changes in water
Sec. 141.90(a)(3). treatment before
PWS implementation.
Sec. 141.81(e)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
tap sampling and
timing for PWS
recommending
optimum corrosion
treatment.
Sec. 141.81(e)(2).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
monitoring period
and timing for
State requiring
corrosion control
studies.
Sec. 141.81(e)(2)(i), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies end of the
141.81(e)(2)(ii). monitoring period
and timing for
State specifying
optimum corrosion
control treatment.
Sec. 141.83(a)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
source water
monitoring period
and timing for
recommending source
water treatment to
the State.
Sec. 141.84(b)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies beginning
of the first year
for lead service
line replacement.
Sec. 141.84(b)(2).......... Yes................ Requires updating
inventory and
yearly replacement
of lead lines when
resuming lead
service line
replacement
program.
Sec. 141.90(e)(2)(ii)...... Yes................ Clarifies resumption
of line
replacement.
Sec. 141.85................ Yes................ New public education
requirements that
replace the ones
that exist in the
current rule. New
requirement that
allows PWS to use
alternative
flushing time
language in public
education material.
New requirement for
PWS to target
specific audiences
for increased
awareness. New
requirement for PWS
to provide a notice
to consumers who
are part of the
utility's lead
testing program
with sampling
results.
Sec. 141.88 (b), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies end of the
141.90(a)(1), Sec. monitoring period.
141.90(e)(1), Sec. 141.90
(e)(2).
Sec. 141.86(c)............. No................. Requires NTNCWS to
collect a specified
number of samples.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii), Yes................ Clarifies sample
(iii), Sec. collection periods
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), Sec. for reduced
141.86(g)(4)(i), Sec. monitoring.
141.87(e)(2)(ii), Sec.
141.88(d)(1)(i), Sec.
141.88(d)(1)(ii).
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(A)... Yes................ Specifies time
period to resume
standard tap water
monitoring.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)... Yes................ Specifies time
period to resume
water quality
parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(ii)...... Yes................ Clarifies monitoring
frequency.
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Yes................ Requires systems to
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii), notify State prior
Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), to making changes
Sec. 141.90(a)(3). in treatment or
adding new sources.
Sec. 141.87(d), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies time
141.87(e)(2)(i). period for water
quality parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 141.154 (d)(1)-(3).... Yes................ PWS must include a
statement about
lead, health
effects language
and ways to reduce
exposure in CCRs,
if the water system
detects any level
of lead above the
method detection
limit of 0.001 mg/L
in their drinking
water. Flexibility
is given to PWS to
write its own
educational
statement, but only
in consultation
with the Primacy
Agency.
Sec. 141.90 (f)(1), Sec. Yes................ Revised public
141.90 (f)(1)(i). education program
reporting
requirements based
on amendments to
Sec. 141.85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect a State's Primacy Program?
States must revise their programs to adopt any part of the proposal
which is more stringent than the approved State program. Primacy
revisions must be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12 and
142.16. States must submit their revised primacy application to the
Administrator for approval. State requests for final approval must be
submitted to the Administrator no later than two years after
promulgation of a new standard unless the State requests and is granted
an additional two-year extension.
For revisions of State programs, Sec. 142.12 requires States to
submit, among other things, ``[a]ny additional materials that are
listed in Sec. 142.16 of this part for a specific EPA regulation, as
appropriate (Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(ii)).'' For the proposed revisions to
the lead and copper rule, EPA believes that requirements in Sec.
142.12(c) will provide sufficient information for EPA review of the
State revision. The side-by-side comparison of requirements required in
Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(i) will consist of sections revised to adopt the
changes required for the revised lead and copper rule and any other
revisions requested by the State. Because the rule consists of changes
to an already approved federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA believes
that the State's existing statutes and regulations will already have
received extensive legal review. Under Sec. 142.12 (c)(3), EPA can
request supplemental
[[Page 40843]]
information as necessary for a specific State submittal on a case-by-
case basis. Therefore, the Agency plans to waive the Attorney General's
statement required in Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by Sec.
141.12(c)(2). The Agency requests comment on whether the Attorney
General's statement or any other documentation is necessary to approve
revisions to State programs resulting from the rule.
2. What Does a State Have To Do to Apply?
To maintain primacy for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim primacy enforcement authority
for future regulations, States must adopt this proposal, when final. A
State must submit a request for approval of program revisions that
adopt the regulations and implement those regulations within two years
of promulgation unless EPA approves an extension under Sec. 142.12(b).
Interim primacy enforcement authority allows States to implement and
enforce drinking water regulations once State regulations are effective
and the State has submitted a complete and final primacy revision
application. To obtain interim primacy, a State must have primacy with
respect to each existing NPDWR. Under interim primacy enforcement
authority, States are effectively considered to have primacy during the
period that EPA is reviewing their primacy revision application.
3. How Are Tribes Affected?
At this time the Navajo Nation has primacy to enforce the PWSS
program. EPA Regions implement the rules for all the other Tribes under
section 1451(a)(1) of SDWA.
J. Limitations to Public Comment on the Lead and Copper Rule
EPA requests comment on the seven specific regulatory changes
proposed today to revise the national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper, as well as several related issues.
Please note that the Agency is not proposing to revise the Lead Action
Level or any major component of lead drinking water regulations. EPA is
not reopening the entire Lead and Copper Rule, but rather is requesting
comment on the rule changes and related issues specifically discussed
in this proposal. In this rulemaking, the Agency will not consider
comments that address other aspects of drinking water regulations for
lead and copper.
K. Proposed Effective Dates
Section 1412 (b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, requires that
a proposed national primary drinking water regulation (and any
amendments) take effect on the date that is three years after the date
of promulgation, unless the Administrator determines that an earlier
date is practicable. EPA is proposing that the revisions take effect
three years after the promulgation of the final rule. Because several
of the provisions in this rule would likely not require three years for
implementation the Agency is considering whether to make some of these
regulatory changes effective in less than three years after the date of
publication of the final rule. Specifically, EPA requests comment on
whether it would be practicable to implement the following changes and
clarifications in this proposal to the Lead and Copper Rule within 60
days of the date of publication of the final rule:
Section III.A. Minimum Number Of Samples Required
Section III.B. Definitions For Compliance And Monitoring
Periods
Section III.E. Requirement To Provide A Consumer Notice Of
Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results To Consumers Who Occupy Homes Or
Buildings That Are Tested For Lead
Section III.F. Public Education Requirements
The requirements described in Section III.A (minimum number of
samples clarification) is merely a clarification of existing regulatory
text and does not change the stringency of the rule. In Section III.B
(compliance and monitoring period clarification) there are changes that
clarify existing text of the rule as well. The requirements described
in Section III.E (the consumer notice) and Section III.F (public
education requirements) are some of the most important in this
proposal. Those requirements are critical to the explanation of lead
exposure from drinking water and communication of health effects to the
public; and while they add requirements to the rule, systems are not
likely to need three full years to implement the new requirements.
The Agency requests comment on whether these regulatory revisions
should have effective dates of sixty days after the publication of the
final rule and if not, what timeframes are practicable. The Agency also
requests comment on whether any of the other proposed revisions in this
rule should have an effective date earlier than three years after
publication of the final rule.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section describes the estimates of annual costs for the seven
proposed regulatory changes to utilities and States, including costs
associated with administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting, and
notification activities. One-time, upfront costs of rule review and
rule implementation are also described. There are two types of annual
costs that may result from the rule changes--direct and indirect.
Direct costs are from those activities that are specified by the rule
change, such as costs for additional monitoring or distribution of
consumer notices. A second type of cost may also result when systems
and States use the information generated by directly-related rule
activities to modify or enhance practices to reduce lead levels. These
indirect costs, and related health risk reductions, are not quantified
for the purposes of this analysis, but are described qualitatively in
Section IV.K of this proposal and in Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2006b). Table IV.1 summarizes the
expected direct and indirect cost impacts for the seven regulatory
changes.
Table IV.1.--Summary of Direct and Indirect Implications of the LCR Short Term Rule Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect cost and health risk
Rule change Direct cost implications implications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A (Number of Minimal, unquantified................ Yes.
samples).
Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Minimal, unquantified................ None.
Period).
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Yes.................................. Yes.
Monitoring Criteria).
Regulatory Change III.D (Advanced Yes.................................. Yes.
Notification and Approval).
Regulatory Change III.E (Consumer Notice Yes.................................. Yes.
of Lead Results).
Regulatory Change III.F (Public Yes.................................. Yes.
Education).
Regulatory Change III.G (Reevaluation of Yes.................................. Yes.
Lead Service Lines).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40844]]
A. Direct Costs
The proposed revisions will result in direct costs to utilities and
States from activities that are specified by the rule change, including
administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting, and notification
activities. These costs will result in an increase in the overall costs
associated with the LCR.
The most recent cost estimates to utilities and States of the LCR
can be found in the 2004 Information Collection Request for
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides
Rules (Information Collection Request for Disinfectants/ Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA 2004b). The
2004 ICR estimates administrative burden and costs associated with the
LCR for systems and States. System costs are estimated for community
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems to perform
the following activities: monitoring for water quality parameters, tap
sampling of lead levels for action level compliance, review of sample
data, including the calculation of lead and copper 90th percentile
levels, submission to the State of monitoring data and any other
documents or reports, and recording and maintaining information. In
addition, some systems must submit corrosion control studies, recommend
and submit information regarding the completion of corrosion control
treatment (CCT) or source water treatment installation, conduct public
education, or conduct LSL monitoring, notification, and replacement. In
the 2004 ICR, for the LCR requirements to CWSs and NTNCWSs, the average
annual respondent cost was estimated to be $57.9 million and the burden
was estimated to be 1.72 million hours for reporting (including lead
service line replacement reporting), recordkeeping, and public
education activities of the LCR. For States, the annual cost and burden
incurred by primacy agencies for activities associated with the lead
and copper regulation were estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21
million hours, respectively.
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions
As part of its comprehensive review of the Lead and Copper Rule,
EPA collected and analyzed new data on various aspects of LCR
implementation. When available and appropriate, this new information is
used in estimating costs. If new information was not available about a
cost item or assumption, previous analyses of LCR requirements were
reviewed to determine if a suitable estimate was available. The 1991
RIA, the 1996 RIA Addendum, and the various Information Collection
Requests were all used as sources of information and assumptions.
For the rule revisions that clarify rule language, if the costs
associated with those activities were included in the original LCR cost
estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA, those costs are not included in
this analysis.
C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.A
Regulatory change III.A clarifies EPA's intent that a minimum of 5
samples must be taken when conducting compliance monitoring. If a
system has fewer than the minimum number of sites required for
sampling, then those systems will have to collect multiple samples on
different days from the same site so that the total number of samples
per monitoring