I
EPA-
Friday
April 12, 1996
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper;
Proposed Rule
-------
-------
16348
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-5449-7]
RIN 2040-AC27
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: EPA is giving notice that it is
considering several minor changes to
the national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper to
improve its implementation. The
intended effect of this action is to
eliminate unnecessary requirements,
streamline and reduce reporting burden,
and promote consistent national
implementation. The changes proposed
in this action do not affect the lead or
copper maximum contaminant level
goals or the basic regulatory
requirements.
DATES: Written comments should be '
postmarked or delivered by hand by
July 11,1996. Comments provided
electronically will be considered timely
if they are submitted electronically by
11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) July 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
the proposed revisions only to the Lead
and Copper Rule Comment Clerk; Water
Docket MC-4101; Environmental
Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. See
Supplementary Information under the
heading "Submission of Comment
Information" for additional details.
Supporting documents for this
proposed rulemaking are available for
review at EPA's Water Docket; 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. For
access to the Docket materials, call (202)
260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
(800) 426-1791, or Judy Lebowich;
Drinking Water Implementation
Division; Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water; EPA (4604), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comment Information
Commenters are requested to submit
any references cited in their comments.
Commenters also are requested to
submit an original and 3 copies of their
written comments and enclosures.
Commenters who want receipt of their
comments acknowledged should
include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted. The Agency would prefer for
commenters to type or print comments
in ink. Commenters should use a
separate paragraph for each issue
discussed.
EPA will also accept comments
electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet
address: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be
transferred into a paper version for the
official record. EPA will attempt to
clarify electronic comments if there is
an apparent error in transmission.
EPA is experimenting with electronic
commenting, therefore commenters may
wish to submit both electronic
comments and duplicate paper
comments. This document has also been
placed on the Internet for public review
and downloading at the following
location: gopher.epa.gov.
A. Background
In 1991, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and
national primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWRs) for lead and
copper ("Lead and Copper Rule"). (56
FR 26460, June 7,1991) The goal of the
rule 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 regulations
established requirements for community
water systems (CWSs) and non-transient
non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs). These systems must
conduct periodic monitoring and
optimize corrosion control. In addition,
these systems must perform public
education when the level of lead at the
tap exceeds the lead action level, treat
source water if it is found to contribute
significantly to high levels of lead or
copper at the tap, and replace lead
service lines in the distribution system
if the level of lead at the tap continues
to exceed the lead action level after
optimal corrosion control has been
installed. Implementation of the rule
was phased based on system size. Large-
size systems (those serving more than
50,000 people) were to begin monitoring
January 1,1992. Medium-size systems
(those serving between 3,301 and 50,000
people) were to begin monitoring July 1,
1992. Small-size systems (those serving
3,300 or fewer people) were to begin
monitoring July 1, 1993.
Today's action proposes several minor
revisions to improve implementation of
the Lead and Copper Rule. Most of these
changes were recommended by a work
group EPA formed in 1993 composed of
Headquarters and Regional EPA staff,
and several State drinking water
officials, to identify implementation
issues. The proposed changes resulting
from those recommendations cover the
following topics: requirements for
systems deemed to have optimized
corrosion control; accelerated reduced
monitoring; monitoring waivers for "all
plastic" systems; selection of sample
sites under reduced monitoring; systems
that have reduced the number and
frequency of monitoring and that change
treatment or water source; entry point
monitoring for water quality parameters
in ground water systems; NTNCWS
sampling locations and times; public
education; source water monitoring;
holding times for acidified lead and
copper samples; and reporting
requirements for systems and States. In
addition, EPA is requesting, comment on
the following paperwork burden
reduction suggestions that the Agency
has not had time to fully assess but
believes are worth considering and may
include in the final rule: eliminate the
requirement for systems to calculate and
report 90th percentile values; reduce the
frequency of entry point water quality
parameter monitoring; allow flushing
and bottled water instead of corrosion
control in NTNCWSs; eliminate the
requirement for systems to justify not
recommending specific corrosion
control treatment; allow alternatives to
tap samples to assess the effectiveness
of corrosion control; and reduce the
frequency of State reporting of 90th
percentile values and treatment
milestones.
Two other revisions proposed today
result from legal challenges to the 1991
Lead and Copper Rule brought by the
American Water Works Association
(AWWA) and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC). WWW/4 et al.
v. EPA, Nos. "91-1338, 91-1343 (DC
Circuit) First, as a result of settlement
discussions with AWWA in that
litigation, EPA agreed to propose
regulatory provisions that would
authorize States to invalidate the results
of lead and copper sampling under
certain circumstances. That issue is
discussed in section B.3 below. Second,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit held in this case
that the Agency had failed to provide
adequate notice and opportunity for
public comment regarding the provision
in the regulations defining the extent to
which a public water system (PWS) has
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16349
"control" over lead service lines, for
purposes of determining the systems's
obligation to replace such lines under
the rule. The Agency is therefore
proposing a revised definition of this
term for public comment.
NRDC challenged the rule's exclusion
of transient, non-community water
systems (TNCWSs). In AWWA, the court
granted the Agency's request for a
voluntary remand so that the Agency
could provide a more detailed
justification of this exclusion. The
Agency is not proposing in this
rulemaking to alter the current
exclusion that exists in the regulation
for TNCWSs. Based on the information
currently available, the Agency believes
that this exclusion continues to be
appropriate in light of the fact that the
chronic health effects associated with
lead in drinking water should not be of
concern in such systems (e.g., gas
stations, motels, restaurants,
campgrounds, rest stops). EPA is
currently collecting additional
information relevant to this issue that
will be made available for public review
and comment prior to the promulgation
of a final rule. The Agency solicits
comment regarding the continued
appropriateness of this exclusion,
whether modification of the current
exclusion would be appropriate and, if
so, what alternative approaches are
available for addressing these systems.
After consideration of the additional
information being collected by the
Agency and public comments, EPA will
either retain the current exclusion or
make appropriate modification. If EPA
decides to retain the current exclusion,
EPA's preamble to the final rule will
fully explain the Agency's rationale for
such a decision.
In that same ruling, the Court
addressed two other NRDC challenges to
the 1991 rule: (1) the decision to
establish a treatment technique in lieu
of a maximum contaminant level (MCL);
and (2) the schedules for completing the
rule's treatment requirements. The
Court upheld the Agency's decisions on
these two issues as consistent with the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
B. 40 CFR141, Subpart I—Control of
Lead and Copper
1, Requirements for Systems Deemed To
Have Optimized Corrosion Control
Section 141.81(b) specifies three ways
by which a water system can
demonstrate that corrosion control
already has been optimized and,
following such a demonstration, forego
the steps of conducting treatment
studies and installing additional
treatment. EPA inadvertently omitted
requirements for systems making such a
demonstration under two of the
§ 141.81(b) provisions and is today
proposing the modifications discussed
below to correct that oversight.
(a) Water Systems Deemed to Have
Optimized Corrosion Control in
Accordance with § 141.81(b)(2). A water
system deemed to have optimized
corrosion control in accordance with
§ 141.81(b)(2) has demonstrated to the
State that it already has completed
activities equivalent to the corrosion
control steps specified in § 141.81(d) for
large-sized systems or in § 141.81(e) for
medium- and small-sized systems. The
rule requires systems that have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(2) to meet water quality
parameters specified by the State as
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment. This requirement ensures
that these systems will continue to
provide adequate treatment to minimize
lead and copper levels at the tap. The
Agency intended that, once the State
designated the optimal water quality
control parameters, the system would
continue monitoring in the same
manner as those systems that installed
corrosion control treatment to comply
with § 141.81 (d) or (e). This
requirement is not clear in the current
regulations. EPA today proposes to
clarify this requirement by revising
§ 141.81(b)(2) to require that systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under that paragraph comply
with the same continuing monitoring
requirements as any system that
optimizes corrosion control pursuant to
§ 141.81 (d) or (e) of the regulations.
(b) Water Systems Deemed to Have
Optimized Corrosion Control in
Accordance with §141.81(b)(3). Under
§ 141.81(b)(3), systems may show they
have optimized corrosion control by
demonstrating that the difference
between the 90th percentile lead level
measured at the tap and the highest
source water samples lead concentration
is below the Practical Quantitation
Limit (PQL) for lead (0.005 mg/L) for
two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods. In these instances, the primary
source of lead contamination, if any, is
the source water and the Agency does
not believe that systems could produce
quantifiable improvements in lead
levels at the tap through corrosion
control when corrosion is introducing,
at most, minimal amounts of lead. (56
FR 26480-26481)
The current rule does not require
these water systems with minimal lead
corrosion to meet the copper action
level in order to be deemed to have
optimized corrosion control. This
clearly was not the intent of the rule
which seeks to minimize the levels of
both lead and copper at the tap. To
correct this problem, EPA proposes to
add a criterion to § 141.81(b)(3)
requiring water systems to meet the
copper action level to qualify as having
optimized corrosion control under the
provisions of § 141.81(b)(3).
This requirement would become
effective 18 months after promulgation.
In cases where systems have been
deemed as having optimal corrosion
control under § 141.83(b)(3) based on
source water and tap water lead
samples, the State should review, those
systems in terms of their copper tap
sample results from the initial rounds of
monitoring as well. If a system meets
the lead criteria (difference between
source water and 90th percentile tap
water concentrations is below the lead
PQL), but exceeded the copper action
level during initial monitoring, the State
could direct the system to conduct a
new round of sampling consistent with
§ 141.86(a)-(c) for both copper and lead
to determine current levels before this
requirement becomes effective and the
system is triggered into the corrosion
control treatment steps. In such cases,
the latest round of sampling should be
used in determining whether the system
meets the requirements of § 141.81(b)(3).
Even though systems meeting the
§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria are not required to
install corrosion control treatment, they
may be treating the water for other water
quality considerations, or they may
install treatment in the future. Changes
in treatment such as disinfection for
microbial contamination can affect the
corrosivity of the water in the
distribution system (56 FR 26486-
24867). Thus it is important that these
systems continue to monitor
periodically to ensure that lead and
copper levels do not increase in the
future. EPA therefore proposes to
further modify § 141.81(b)(3) to require
such systems deemed to have optimized
corrosion control in accordance with
§ 141.81(b)(3) to continue tap water
monitoring for lead and copper at least
once every three calendar years
(triennially) using the reduced number
of sample sites specified in § 141.86(c)
and following the requirements of
§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv) regarding the location
and timing of such sampling. Since
some large systems may not have
monitored since 1992, the Agency
proposes that the first round of this
triennial monitoring occur during the
first June-September period that occurs
after the effective date of the revision,
with the exception that systems that
have monitored pursuant to § 141.86
(d)(3) or (d)(4) during the three years
prior to the effective date be allowed to
-------
1635O
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 /Proposed Rules
use those results and continue triennial
monitoring based on the date of that
monitoring.
EPA believes that, in most instances,
this reduced monitoring will provide
information to help ensure that these
systems maintain minimal levels of
corrosion in the distribution system.
The Agency recognizes that system-
specific circumstances such as changes
in the source water, or changes in
treatment to comply with existing or
future regulations, may necessitate more
frequent monitoring or other
appropriate action to ensure that such
systems maintain minimal corrosion in
the distribution system. Adequate data
and case histories are not available to
ensure accurate, a priori estimates of
time and location of problems
associated with treatment changes in
different types of systems. EPA therefore
proposes to add language to
§ 141.81(b)(3) giving States flexibility to
require additional monitoring and/or
other action(s) the State deems
appropriate in these situations.
Finally, EPA recognizes that the
revised requirements in § 141.81(b)(3)
may result in a few systems being
triggered into corrosion control
treatment. The Agency is proposing that
any such system comply with the
requirements of § 141.81(e) and that any
such large system adhere to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-sized systems.
2. Accelerated Reduced Monitoring for
Water Systems With Very Low Lead and
Copper Levels
(a) Monitoring for Lead and Copper at
the Tap. EPA is proposing to allow
water systems that demonstrate for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods that they have very low lead
and copper levels at the tap to reduce
the frequency of lead and copper tap
water monitoring to once every three
years (triennial monitoring) more
rapidly than the current regulations
permit. Under the current regulations,
qualifying systems must demonstrate
they have maintained optimal corrosion
control for three consecutive years of
monitoring before they are eligible to
reduce to triennial monitoring.
Sampling results for the initial two
rounds of monitoring submitted by large
and medium-size systems indicate that
over 20% of these systems had 90th
percentile lead levels less than or equal
to 0.005 mg/L for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods.1 EPA
expects similar results for the small-size
systems. EPA believes it is reasonable to
allow systems with lead and copper
results significantly below the action
levels during consecutive monitoring
periods to reduce the frequency of
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap to triennially without first going
through three years of monitoring.
EPA proposes to add provisions for
accelerated reduced monitoring to
§ 141.86(d)(4) by redesignating
paragraph (d)(4)(v) as (d)(4)(vi) and
adding a new paragraph (d)(4)(v)
containing the accelerated reduced
monitoring provisions. In order to
qualify for accelerated reduced
monitoring, a water system would need
to demonstrate to the State that its 90th
percentile lead level was less than or
equal to the PQL for lead (i.e., the lead
level was less than or equal to 0.005 mg/
L) and its 90th percentile copper level
was less than or equal to one-half the
copper action level (i.e., the copper
level was less than or equal to 0.65 mg/
L) for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods.
Because of the high degree of
variability in lead and copper levels at
household taps, EPA believes it is
important to establish criteria that
minimize the risk of allowing systems
that are likely to have elevated levels of
lead or copper at the tap during
subsequent monitoring periods to
accelerate reduced monitoring. The PQL
represents the lowest level that
laboratories can reliably and
consistently measure within specified
limits of precision and accuracy. The
Agency considered using the PQL as the
upper limit for allowing accelerated
reduced monitoring for both lead and
copper. EPA believes the PQL for lead,
which is one-third of the lead action
level, is the appropriate lead level to set
for accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA
believes the PQL for copper for these
purposes would be unnecessarily
restrictive, however. The copper PQL is
less than one-tenth the copper action
level. Moreover, unlike the lead action
level, the copper action level is the same
as the copper MCLG. For these reasons,
EPA proposes to use one-half the copper
action level as the copper threshold for
determining eligibility for accelerated
reduced monitoring.
The Agency believes water systems
that have met these low levels for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods will still provide adequate
public health protection if such systems
1 Based on 90th percentile lead levels for large
and medium-size systems reported to EPA through
March 20,1995 (EPA, 1995a). Prior to August 15,
1995, the EPA data system of record was known as
the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). Effective
August 15,1995, the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) became the official
EPA data system of record.
are allowed to conduct accelerated
reduced monitoring while saving
significant monitoring costs and
minimizing the inconvenience to
homeowners in the sampling pool.
(b) Monitoring for Water Quality
Parameters at the Tap. EPA is proposing
that water systems which meet the
criteria for accelerated reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap also be allowed to accelerate
reduced monitoring for water quality
parameters at the tap to once every three
years more rapidly than currently
allowed. Because small and medium-
size systems that have very low levels
of lead and copper at the tap are not
required to conduct water quality
parameter monitoring, this proposed
change would apply only to large water
systems. EPA proposes to add
provisions for accelerated reduced water
quality monitoring by redesignating the
current § 141.87(e)(2) as § 141.87(e)(2)(i)
and adding a new § 141.87(e)(2)(ii)
containing the provisions for
accelerated reduced monitoring at the
tap. Systems eligible for this accelerated
reduced monitoring would have to
continue to monitor for water quality
parameters at the entry points to the
distribution system. The frequency of
this monitoring is one sample every two
weeks, as specified in § 141.87(c).
3. Sample Invalidation
EPA proposes to add provisions, in a
new § 141.86(f), to allow States to
invalidate samples under four
circumstances: (1) if the laboratory
establishes that improper sample
analysis caused erroneous results; (2) if
the State determines that the sample
was taken from a site that does not meet
the site selection criteria of § 141.86; (3)
if the sample container is damaged in
transit; or (4) if the State has substantial
reason to believe that the sample was
subject to tampering. EPA agrees that
these circumstances are likely to yield
results that may not represent the tap
water levels of lead and copper from the
water system's high risk sites and
therefore the State should have.
authority to exclude such results.
Systems will be required to report the
results of all samples to the State and
must provide evidence of
documentation for any sample the
system believes should be invalidated.
The proposed § 141.86(f)(3) requires
States to document all decisions in
writing and prohibits States from
invalidating a sample solely on the
grounds that a follow-up sample is
higher or lower than the original
sample. In addition, § 141.86(f](4)
would require that any replacement
sample be taken at the same location as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16351
the invalidated sample or, if that is not
possible, then at a location other than
those already used for sampling during
the monitoring period. Any replacement
samples also must be taken by the end
of the applicable monitoring period, if
possible, or within 20 days of the date
the State invalidates the sample,
whichever date is later.
Allowing at least a 20-day window to
replace invalidated samples provides
water systems the opportunity to correct
what might otherwise be a monitoring
violation. The Agency recognizes that,
in some cases, the system may not know
before the end of the applicable
monitoring period that a sample has
been invalidated. Some water systems
take only the required number of
samples, and, in such cases, any
invalidated samples would mean an
insufficient number of samples would
be available for 90th percentile
calculations. Absent the opportunity to
replace invalidated samples, the system
would incur a monitoring violation
under this scenario. EPA believes it is
reasonable to allow such systems to
replace invalidated samples as long as
the replacement samples are taken in a
timely manner. Any replacement
samples taken after the end of the
applicable monitoring period cannot
also be used to meet the sampling
requirements of the subsequent
monitoring period.
A water system would need to replace
invalidated samples only if it did not
have sufficient valid samples to meet
minimum sampling requirements. EPA
encourages systems to take more
samples than required by the rule and
not to wait until the end of the
monitoring period to complete
sampling. In this way, if one or more
samples is invalidated, the system has a
"cushion" and should not need to take
replacement samples. If replacement
samples are required, however, the
system will still have the opportunity to
avoid a monitoring violation.
Adding provisions for sample
invalidation necessitates a change to the
system reporting requirements in
§ 141.90. EPA proposes to add the
requirement, as a new § 141.90(a)(l)(ii),2
for a system requesting sample
invalidation to submit the appropriate
documentation to the. State.
4. Monitoring Waivers for "AH Plastic"
Systems
Small systems that believe they are .
free of sources of lead and copper
contamination within the system view
'EPA is proposing to eliminate the current
requirement at § 141.90(a)(l)(ii)- See preamble
discussion in section B.8.
the tap water monitoring requirements
for lead and copper to be excessive.
Some States also have requested relief
from monitoring requirements for such
systems from both a common sense and
a public health standpoint. EPA believes
such relief makes sense for small
systems, so long as the State is satisfied
that the system is free of faucets, valves,
and water meters made of brass or
bronze containing lead, lead sendee
lines, lead solder pipe joints, copper
pipes, and other sources of lead and
copper contamination within the system
itself and all buildings, and that source
waters are not subject to lead or copper
contamination.
Many manufacturers of brass and
bronze fittings and fixtures (e.g., faucets)
are attempting to meet-the standard
recently established by NSF,
International for lead leaching from
faucets (NSF, 1995) by producing
faucets that contain low levels of lead or
are completely free of lead-containing
materials. EPA believes the existence of
so-called "all plastic" systems will
become more common as industry
practices evolve. This makes it more
likely that smaller systems can
demonstrate that they are free of lead-
containing materials. The Agency is
therefore proposing to give States
discretion to waive some of the
monitoring requirements for small
systems where the State has determined
that, after at least one round of standard
tap water monitoring for lead and
copper performed since the system
became "all plastic," that the system is
free of lead and copper-containing
materials in the distribution and
plumbing systems.
EPA proposes to provide States this
discretion by adding a new paragraph
(g) to § 141.86. This provision specifies
that any small-size system, in which the
, distribution system and service lines,
and all buildings (e.g., residences,
schools, commercial buildings), are free
of lead or copper pipes or service lines,
leaded brass or bronze fittings or
fixtures, lead soldered pipe joints and
other sources of lead and copper
contamination, may apply to the State
for a waiver from the tap water
monitoring requirements of § 141.86(d)
once it has completed one six-month
round of standard tap water monitoring
for lead and copper since it became free
of these materials. The system must
demonstrate that the 90th percentile
lead level for any monitoring period
since the system became free of lead-
containing and copper-containing
materials did not exceed 0.005 mg/L
and that the 90th percentile copper level
did not exceed 0.65 mg/L. The system
must also support this request with
certification regarding the absence of
lead and copper materials throughout
the system, including buildings.
States would have to notify the
system of its determination in writing,
setting forth the basis of its decision and
any conditions of the waiver. As a
condition of the waiver, the State may
require certain activities such as ,
monitoring at specific sites or public
education. Even if a waiver is approved,
limited monitoring at a reduced number
of sites would be required once every
nine years. A system would have to
resume more frequent tap water ,
monitoring if it could no longer certify
that it was free of materials containing
lead or copper and the State would have
the discretion to require the system to
resume more frequent tap water
monitoring based on changes in
treatment, source waters, or tap water
lead or copper levels.
In some cases, States or local '
communities may have plumbing codes
that prohibit the use of faucets not
meeting the NSF, International lead
leaching standard. Where such codes do
not exist, States may decide, as a;
condition of the waiver, to require that
systems provide consumers with public
education materials encouraging the use
of faucets meeting the standard. Some
States may wish to review all waivers
periodically even in the absence of any
changes in treatment or materials which
would necessitate such a review.
EPA does not expect any decrease in
public health protection if States
implement the proposed waiver
provisions. The Agency believes ,that
these waivers will be granted where
States have substantive documentation
or equivalent evidence that the system
is truly free of lead and copper, e.g.,
uniform construction and plumbing
specifications requiring lead-free and
copper-free materials. In the
circumstances under which a waiver
would be permitted (very low lead and
copper levels in tap water monitoring,
absence of lead and copper materials in
the system), the Agency sees no value to
requiring States and water systems to
invest limited resources on a situation
that appears to be non-existent. EPA
believes such resources should be
redirected to areas of the program where
the potential of higher public health risk
exists.
These provisions necessitate two
changes to the system reporting
requirements in § 141.90. The
introductory text at § 141.90(a) specifies
that water systems must provide;
monitoring data to the State within the
first 10 days following the end of each
applicable monitoring period specified
in §§ 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. EPA
-------
16352
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
proposes to revise this paragraph to
include a frequency of "every 9 years"
to reflect the monitoring frequency of
"all plastic" systems with monitoring
waivers. EPA also proposes to include
the reporting requirements associated
with applying for the waiver at a new
§ 141.90(a)(4).3
5. Sample Site Location
(a) Systems Unable to Locate
Sufficient Tier 1, 2, and 3 Sites. The
current regulations do not address
situations where a water system is
unable to locate a sufficient number of
sites meeting the tiering criteria
specified in § 141.86(a). This has
resulted in some confusion regarding
whether such systems are required to
monitor and, if so, how they should
select sample sites. The Agency
intended that all CWSs and NTNCWSs
monitor for lead and copper at the tap.
EPA therefore proposes to revise
paragraph 141.86(a)(5) to clarify that
any CWS with insufficient tier 1, 2, and
3 sites shall complete its sampling pool
with representative sites throughout the
distribution system. Likewise, EPA
proposes to revise paragraph
141.86(a)(7) to clarify that any NTNCWS
with insufficient tier 1 and 2 sites shall
complete its sampling pool with
representative sites. EPA's guidance,
Lead and Copper Rule Guidance
Manual; Volume I: Monitoring, contains
suggestions for selecting sites in these
circumstances.
(b) NTNCWSs Without Enough Taps
That Can Provide First-Draw Samples.
The existing regulations require that
lead and copper tap samples must "have
stood motionless in the plumbing * * *
for at least six-hours." This is known as
a "first-draw" sample. In implementing
the regulations, States have found that
some NTNCWSs cannot achieve this
standing time because they operate 24
hours a day. Such facilities may include
factories operating on a three-shift basis
and other facilities that provide
drinking water continuously. These
systems are unable to ensure that water
will have stood in the plumbing for at
least six hours. EPA believes that
requiring such systems to sample after
a standing time that does not exist is
unnecessary. The Agency therefore
proposes to add paragraph § 141.86(b)(5)
to allow NTNCWSs that do not have
enough taps where the water will have
stood in the plumbing for at least six
hours to ask the State, in writing, for
approval to sample from taps where the
water will have stood for less than six
hours. Such systems will be required to
collect first-draw samples from as many
appropriate taps as possible. Section
141.86(b)(5) also will require such
systems to identify sampling times and
locations that would likely result in the
longest standing time and to sample at
times and locations approved by the
State for the remaining required
samples. EPA also proposes to add the
corresponding reporting requirements in
a new paragraph 141.90(a)(2).4
The Agency invites comment on an
alternative which would allow
NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps
where the water will have stood in the
plumbing for at least six hours to
proceed without up-front State approval
to'sample from taps where the water
will have stood less than six hours. The
system would still be required to sample
from taps with the longest standing
times possible, however, States would
not need to specify sites prior to
monitoring. States would have
discretion to verify at any time that the
proper sample was conducted.
(c) Sample Site Justifications. Sections
141.86(a){8) and 141.90(a)(2) and (3)
require any water system that uses non
Tier 1 sites in its sampling pool to send
a letter to the State demonstrating why
it is necessary to use non Tier 1 sites.
Sections 141.86(a)(9) and 141.90(a)(4)
require any water systems with lead
service lines that cannot identify
enough sites connected to lead service
lines for its sampling pool to send a
letter to the State demonstrating why it
is Unable to collect 50 percent of the
samples from sites served by lead
service lines. EPA included these
requirements to help ensure that
systems collect samples from high risk
sites. The Agency expected these to be
"one time" requirements that would be
completed,: if necessary, prior to the
start of initial monitoring.
Water systems, particularly those not
exceeding the lead and copper action
levels, are finding it necessary to adjust
the sampling pool every monitoring
period because they are experiencing
difficultly obtaining continued access to
the same sites. Changes to the sampling
pool frequently trigger the need for
letters to the State justifying the
selection of new sampling sites. EPA
believes that requiring systems to justify
the use of other than high risk sites on
an ongoing basis imposes an
unnecessary burden as States can
determine whether systems are
sampling routinely at appropriate sites
through other mechanisms such as
3 EPA is proposing to eliminate the current
reporting requirement at § 141.90(a)(4). See
preamble discussion in section B.5(c).
4 EPA is proposing to eliminate the current
reporting requirement at § 141.90(a)(2). See
preamble discussion in section B.5(c).
periodic on-site inspections and file
reviews. The Agency therefore proposes
to eliminate these requirements. To
accomplish this, EPA proposes to: (a)
delete the current §§ 141.90(a)(2)
through (4); and (b) revise § 141.86(a) by
deleting paragraph (8) and revising
paragraph (9) and redesignating it as
paragraph (8).
(d) Selection of Sample Sites Under
Reduced Monitoring. Section
141.86(d)(4) allows systems serving
more than 100 people that qualify for
reduced monitoring to decrease the
number of required sample sites by fifty
percent. Section 141.86 currently does
not specify which sampling sites should
be included in the reduced sampling
pool. EPA is concerned that, rather than
select representative locations, some
systems might select those sites which
yielded the lowest concentrations of
lead and copper during the previous
rounds of tap water sampling. EPA
proposes to clarify § 141.86(c) so that
systems shall choose representative sites
and States shall have the authority to
designate which sample sites must be
used for reduced monitoring in those
situations where the State believes that
such designation is appropriate. The
Agency believes this proposed revision
minimizes additional regulatory burden.
The State will not be required to specify
sampling sites for any system. Rather,
the proposed revision allows.States to
specify locations for those systems that
they believe may attempt to "game" the
system, thus allowing the State to
concentrate on water systems that need
the extra attention.
6. Optimized Systems That Change
Treatment or Source Water
EPA expects most systems that have
optimized corrosion control will
continue to apply the same chemicals
and maintain roughly uniform dosage
rates in order to maintain suitable
passivation or corrosion inhibition.
Some systems, however, may find it
necessary to change their treatment to
comply with other regulatory
requirements or changes in source
water. For example, more stringent
regulations for disinfection and
disinfection by-products could result in
a water system switching from one
corrosion control treatment (e.g., pH/
alkalinity adjustment] to another (e.g.,
phosphate-based inhibitor). In addition,
over time, some systems may find it
necessary to switch from one source
water to another and, as a result, some
would have to change their corrosion
control treatment to account for
different water chemistry.
It is important that corrosion control
treatment be maintained even in the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16353
face of changes in other aspects of water
quality (either because of a new source
or changes in other treatment). Without
properly maintained treatment,
protective films in the distribution
system can be solubilized within weeks
or even days (Fuge et al., 1992, Colling,
ot al., 1992; Schock et al., 1996) and
lead and/or copper can be released from
the interior surfaces of pipes and other
plumbing or distribution system
materials. This is addressed in the
current rule by requirements for systems
that install treatment to continue to
monitor for lead and copper as well as
various water quality parameters. There
is a concern, however, that the current
rule may not adequately address
systems deemed to have optimized
corrosion control who later make
changes in their treatment for reasons
discussed above. Because these systems
would be monitoring at a reduced
frequency, increases in lead and/or
copper that may occur within a
relatively short time may not be
detected for up to three years.
The Agency believes this will be a
relatively uncommon problem. Further,
the Agency recognizes that any
increases in lead and/or copper levels
would be unintended in systems that
previously expended significant
resources demonstrating they had
optimized corrosion control.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that such a
contingency should be addressed and is
proposing to amend § 141.86(d)(4) by
adding a new paragraph (vii) that would
apply to systems that have been on a
reduced monitoring schedule and either
(a) change their source water, or (b)
change any water quality treatment
process, including disinfection,
disinfection by-product removal, and
corrosion control. EPA also proposes to
add the corresponding reporting
requirement in a new paragraph at
§141.90(a)(3).s Systems falHng into this
category would have to inform the State
of such a change. Adequate data and
case histories are not available for EPA
to ensure accurate a priori estimates of
time and location of problems
associated with treatment changes in
different types of system. Based on such
information, the State could require the
system to resume standardized lead and
copper tap water monitoring, or other
appropriate steps such as increased
water quality parameter monitoring or
re-evaluation of its corrosion control
treatment given the potentially different
water quality considerations.
9 EPA is proposing to eliminate the current
reporting requirement at § 14T.OO(a)(3). See
preamble discussion in section B.5(c).
7. Entry Point Monitoring for Water
Quality Parameters in Ground Water
Systems
Sections 141.81 (d) and (e) require
monitoring for various water quality
parameters at entry points to the
distribution system in those systems
that install corrosion control treatment.
Based on conversations with States
since the rule became effective, the
Agency believes that for some systems
that rely on ground water sources,
monitoring for water quality parameters
at each entry point to the distribution
system may not be necessary. Some
ground water systems, especially in the
western states, can have dozens or even
hundreds of wells, and monitoring for
numerous water quality parameters at
all entry points can be difficult to
coordinate and expensive.
For example, ground water systems
can have distinct hydraulic zones where
water from the different zones do not
mix. In many of these cases, it is
possible that corrosion control treatment
is needed at some wells but not all. The
Agency believes that there would be
little value in monitoring at all wells
with identical water qualities in the
same hydraulic zone if the same
treatment is being applied. Similarly, it
would not be reasonable to monitor
water quality parameters at all wells
receiving no treatment, especially if the
water from these sources is in a distinct
hydraulic zone from wells that do
receive treatment and therefore do not
blend with treated water. In these cases,
it could be sufficient to monitor at a
representative number of wells to
ensure that the treatment being applied
is appropriate for the current water
quality and that treatment conditions
are being maintained.
The Agency proposes to amend
§ 141.87 by adding a new paragraph
(c)(3) to allow ground water systems
that have installed corrosion control
treatment and are required to monitor
for the water quality parameters listed
in § 141.87(c), to limit their entry point
monitoring to those locations that are
representative of water quality
conditions throughout the system. For
those systems, monitoring for water
quality parameters would be required at
some entry points receiving treatment as
well as at some points receiving no
corrosion control treatment if the water
from those points mixes with other
source water in the system that is
treated. Systems taking advantage of this
provision would be required to provide
the State the same kinds of detailed
records regarding chemical additions
and water quality at those entry points
that are monitored, as well as
documentation showing that those
points are in fact representative of water
quality throughout the system. EPA
proposes to add the corresponding
reporting requirement in a new
§ 141.90(a)(5).«
The Agency also proposes to revise
the summary table at the end of §141.87
to reflect this change as well as the
current and proposed provisions in
§ 141.87(e) allowing reduced monitoring
for water quality parameters at the tap
to occur on an annual or triennial
frequency.
8. Other Changes Pertaining to Tap
Water Monitoring for Lead and Copper
(a) First Draw Certifications. Sections
141.90(a)(l) (ii) and (iii) currently
contain requirements for water systems
to provide a certification that each
sample collected by the system pursuant
to § 141.86(d) meets the first-draw
specifications in § 141.86(b) and that
each tap sample collected by residents
was taken after the water system
informed them of the proper sampling
procedures. EPA included these ;
requirements to help ensure use of the
proper sampling protocol contained in
§ 141.86. Most water systems have now
completed at least two rounds of
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap and have experience collecting first
drawn samples. The Agency believes
the continued requirement to provide
these certifications every monitoring
period imposes a burden that can no
longer be justified. EPA therefore
proposes to eliminate this requirement
by deleting these paragraphs.7
(b) State Approval for Reduced
Monitoring. Section 141.86(d)(4) (ii)
contains provisions for any water
system that maintains the range of
values for the water quality control
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment specified by the State
under § 141.82(f) during each of two
consecutive six-month monitoring
periods to request State approval to
reduce the frequency of monitoring for
lead and copper at the tap to onc6 per
year and to reduce the number of
samples in accordance with § 141.86(c).
Section 141.86(d)(4)(iii) contains similar
provisions for such water systems to
request approval from the State to
further reduce the frequency of lead and
copper tap water monitoring to once
every three years after
6 EPA is proposing to eliminate the curre.nt
reporting requirement at § 141.90(a)(5). See
preamble discussion at B.8(b).
7 As discussed in section B.3 above, EPA proposes
to replace paragraph 141.90(a)(l)(ii) with a new
requirement pertaining to sample invalidation
requests. EPA proposes to reserve paragraph
-------
16354
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
demonstrating they have maintained
optimal corrosion control during three
consecutive years of monitoring. The
Agency believes State approval is
appropriate in these instances because
of the number of factors that must be
considered when determining eligibility
for reduced monitoring.
Based on conversations with States
since the rule became effective, EPA
believes the requirement for systems to
explicitly request such approval is
redundant. States routinely review
system eligibility for reduced
monitoring as part of their regular
compliance determination and notify
those systems that are eligible to begin
reduced monitoring. Under these
circumstances, the Agency believes that
asking systems to request such a
determination adds unnecessary
transaction costs. EPA therefore is
proposing to revise §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii)
and (iii) to remove the requirement that
systems explicitly request State
approval for reduced monitoring and to
delete the corresponding system
reporting requirement at § 141.90(a)(5).
This revision reduces system burden
but would not change the State's role.
The revised §§ 141.86(d)(4) (ii) and (iii)
will continue to require States to review
monitoring records and notify the
system in writing of its determination
and to review the determination, as
appropriate, as new data become
available.
(c) Sampling for Water Systems That
Do Not Operate Year Round. Water
systems sampling once per year or less
must take samples in June, July, August,
or September. This requirement causes
problems for some NTNCWSs, such as
schools and ski resorts, that may not be
open, and therefore do not serve water,
during these months. The intent of the
rule is that the sampling be done during
the warmest months of the year. EPA
did not intend, however, that seasonal
systems sample during months when
the system is not in operation as the
results of such sampling would not be
representative of the water used for
drinking. EPA proposes to revise the
current § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to require
water systems that do not operate
between June and September to monitor
at times most likely to represent their
warmest months of operation.
(d) Holding Time for Acidified Lead
and Copper Samples. EPA proposes to
change § 141.86(b)(2) by decreasing the
holding time for acidified lead or copper
samples from 28 to 16 hours. EPA
originally required 28 hours for acid to
redissolve metals in water samples. The
Agency has since obtained data 8 to
show that 16 hours is sufficient to
solubilize all metals including lead and
copper. In a recent methods ^update rule
(59 FR 62456, December 5,1994) EPA
changed the holding time for acidified
samples to 16 hours but neglected to
correct the rule at § 141.86(b)(2) to
reflect this change. This change would
reduce the burden on utilities and
laboratories to have separate
acidification holding times for lead and
copper, and it increases the number of
samples that can be analyzed in a day.
This proposed change does not affect
the accuracy or reliability of lead or
copper determinations.
9. Public Education
(a) Public Education Language. The
regulations prescribe specific language
that systems must include in the text of
all written materials they distribute as a
part of their lead public education
program. Delivery of educational
materials by systems that have exceeded
the lead action level has done much to
educate the public on lead in drinking
water. Some EPA Regions and States
have raised concern, however, that the
required public education material,
while appropriate for CWSs that serve
water to residential customers, may not
be appropriate for NTNCWSs and even
some small CWSs such as prisons and
hospitals. To address these concerns,
EPA is proposing alternative language
that is more appropriate for such
systems.
EPA proposes to make numbering
changes to § 141.85. Paragraph (a) will
continue to contain the public
education language; however, in order
to add language specific to NTNCWSs,
EPA proposes to split paragraph (a) into
two paragraphs. Paragraph (a)(l) will
contain public education material for
CWSs; paragraph (a)(2) will contain
public education material for
NTNCWSs. The numbers inside
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) will be
changed accordingly and conforming
changes will be made in § 141.85(c).
The new NTNCWS language in
paragraph (a)(2) provides more relevant
and helpful information for persons
consuming water in such a system than
the existing public education language.
EPA proposes to replace phrases such as
"some homes in the community" with
"some drinking water samples [taken
from this facility]" because a NTNCWS
typically does not serve water to homes.
EPA proposes to delete the reference to
8 These data are discussed in conjunction with
EPA Methods 200.8 and 200.9 in the manual,
Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples—Supplement 1. [EPA, •
1994]
having water tested for lead because
customers of a NTNCWS are unlikely to
have water tested for lead as they tend
to consume the water for only a short
period of time and have little or no
control over the water in the
distribution system. For similar reasons,
EPA proposes deleting references to
having a plumber check pipes for solder
and having an electrician check for
possible improper grounding.
Additionally, EPA proposes to replace
references to home treatment devices
with a recommendation that bottled
water be consumed if lead levels at the
tap cannot be reduced. EPA also
proposes to change the language for
flushing taps for NTNCWSs. Persons
using taps at such water systems likely
will not know the nature of the
plumbing system as would
homeowners. For example, reference to
lead service lines in the CWS notice
does not have any added health benefit
for NTNCWSs where the consumer is
unlikely to be aware of the existence of
such lines. EPA therefore proposes to
limit the discussion of flushing to
suggesting a 15-30 second flush, which
should clear any water with high lead
levels that come from the faucet.
EPA believes that the public
education language in § 141.85(a)(l) is
not appropriate for some types of CWSs,
such as prisons and hospitals. The
notice for CWSs in these institutions is
inappropriate. Inmates and patients who
are not capable of installing home
treatment devices or having their water
tested should not be given the CWS
public education language. References
to "your home" and "your family's
health" also are inappropriate.
Therefore, EPA proposes to add
§ 141.85(c)(7) to allow a CWS to request
that the State allow it to issue public
education materials as if it were an
NTNCWS if the system is a facility
where the population served is not
capable of, or is prevented from, making
improvements to plumbing or installing
point of use treatment devices and the
system provides water as part of the
covered services and does not directly
bill for water consumption. EPA
believes this is appropriate for certain
institutions and should be allowed
where the State believes it better
protects public health. The Agency also
invites comment on an alternative
whereby a community water system for
which the NTNCWS public education
would be appropriate would not require
up-front approval from the State before
issuing the public education materials.
The system would still have to submit
certification that it completed its public
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16355
education requirements, including the
NTNCWS material that it used.
EPA recognizes that many public
water systems, especially CWSs with
large populations, have had public
education material printed and that
making changes would be costly. The
Agency believes, however, that none of
the changes to the public education
language will be applicable for most
CWSs and expects them to continue to
be able to use already printed materials.
(b) Mailing and Timing of Notices.
Water systems that exceed the lead
action level must perform public
education tasks within 60 days of the
initial exceedance. As part of this
activity, CWSs are required to include
the required materials with the water
bill and print an alert on the billing
statement. EPA's intent in establishing
these requirements was to provide
customers timely notification that the
system had exceeded the lead action
level, information about health risks,
sources of exposure, and steps the
consumer can take to reduce exposure.
While the Agency believes there is value
in requiring notice in the water bill and
that such an approach saves the cost of
a separate mailing, the EPA Regions and
States responsible for implementing the
regulations have found that these
requirements pose unintended problems
for many water systems.
Many water utilities do not bill
frequently enough to meet the 60-day
requirement; ninety days is more the
norm. Also, many systems use postcards
or computer-generated self-mailers.
These formats do not allow the
enclosure of additional materials nor do
they have sufficient space to include the
required alert on the bill itself. Systems
exceeding the action level that have one,
or both, of these problems face difficulty
complying with the current
requirements unless they change their
billing system. This is not the Agency's
intent. EPA therefore proposes to revise
§ 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow community
water systems more flexibility in the
mailing of public education materials.
First, EPA proposes, in a new
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A), to allow such
systems to mail these materials on the
same schedule as the system's billing
cycle, as long as the mailing occurs
within 6 months of the exceedance. EPA
also proposes to revise the language of
§ 141.85(c)(2) by adding the phrase,
"Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2)(i)(A) of this section, * * *"tobe
consistent with this new provision.
Second, EPA proposes to add a new
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) to allow systems
that do not bill using envelopes, or that
will not bill within 6 months of
exceeding the lead action level, the
option of distributing the lead public
education materials to billing units
through a separate mailing as long as the
mailing is completed within 6 months
of exceeding the lead action level and
achieves at least equal coverage.
Systems using an alternative delivery of
lead public education would be
required to include an alert with the
public education materials to minimize
the risk that the materials would be
discarded as "junk mail."
(c) Systems Serving 500 or Fewer
People. In addition to mailing notices to
billing units, CWSs must submit notices
to the major daily and weekly
newspapers circulated throughout the
community, provide lead information to
facilities and organizations visited
frequently by children and pregnant
women, and submit public service
announcements to radio and television
stations with the largest audiences that
broadcast to the community served by
the water system. The preamble to the
final rule (56 FR 26500-26503) explains
why the Agency believes these steps are
necessary and appropriate.
For some small systems, particularly
those that provide water only to a small
number of people in a larger Urban or
suburban area, these requirements have
created unintended consequences. The
rule requires systems to include their
telephone number so consumers can
call with questions about lead in their
drinking water. In some cases, small
systems that serve only a small portion
of a larger metropolitan area have been
flooded with calls from individuals not
served by the system who heard or read
these announcements. Such systems are
ill-equipped to respond appropriately to
a large-scale public response. The
requirement to distribute materials to
locations visited frequently by pregnant
women and children similarly imposes
a significant burden on these systems
since it may involve a large number of
locations if the system is near an urban
or suburban area.
EPA does not believe it is appropriate
to impose such burdens on systems
serving few people. EPA considered the
option of allowing CWSs serving 500 or
fewer people to use the same method of
delivery as NTNCWSs. Non-transient
non-community systems are required to
post informational posters on lead in
drinking water in a public place or
common area in each of the buildings
served by the system and to distribute
information pamphlets and/or
brochures to each person served by the
system. EPA believes the requirement to
post in every building served by the
system could be a problem for a
community system since it would
require access to residences and other
buildings not controlled by the system
in order to post notices in appropriate
locations.
The Agency therefore proposes to add
provisions, in a new § 141.85(c)(8), to
allow CWSs serving 500 or fewer people
to limit or omit some of the required
tasks. Section 141.85(c)(8) will allow
such systems to omit tasks requiring
submission of information to
newspapers and radio and television
stations. In place of these tasks, EPA
proposes to require these systems to
mail or hand deliver the same lead
public education materials the system is
required to mail to billing units to all
other regular consumers (e.g., tenants of
multi-family residences whose water is
included in their rent). EPA also
proposes to allow such systems to limit
the number of locations to which they
must furnish informational pamphlets.
EPA proposes that such systems be
required to provide these materials to
locations frequented by pregnant
women or children within the system's
service area and only those locations
outside the system's service area that are
regularly visited by the system's
consumers. Finally, EPA proposes that a
system performing public education in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 141.85(c)(8) repeat the tasks every 12
months for as long as the system
continues to exceed the lead action
level. The Agency believes this
proposed approach will significantly
reduce the burden imposed on these
systems without jeopardizing the
effectiveness of their lead public
education programs.
In addition to eliminating the
requirement for CWSs serving 500 or
fewer people to provide public service
announcements to radio and television
stations every six months for as long as
the system exceeds the lead action level,
EPA solicits comment regarding the
option of also eliminating this
requirement for CWSs serving between
501 and 3,300 people. Since the "local"
radio and televisions stations for
communities served by small-sized
water systems frequently belong to
larger listening and viewing areas, this
option should reduce small-sized
system burden by reducing the need for
the system to respond to a large number
of inquiries from those not served by the
system. In addition, since radio and
television stations often do not air
public service announcements that
affect only a small subset of their
audience, omitting this task may not
affect the effectiveness of the system's
public education program. On the other
hand, the use of multiple mediate
deliver lead public education to as
many people as possible and the use of
-------
16356
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72. I Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
public service announcements have
been found to be very effective.
Omitting the public service
announcement requirement may reduce
the effectiveness of the lead public
education program for the larger small-
sized systems (i.e., those serving
between 501 and 3,300 people) because
these systems are more likely to have
consumers who cannot be reached
effectively through other approaches
(i.e., direct mailing to billing units,
newspaper notices, and brochures
distributed to locations visited
frequently by pregnant women and
children). Commenters should address
the effect this option would have on the
lead public education program for CWS
serving 501 to 3,300 people, what, if
any, tasks should be required in lieu of
public service announcements for these
systems, and the burden implications of
this option.
(d) Schedule for Repotting
Completion of Public Education Tasks.
Section 141.90(f) requires that each
water system subject to the public
education requirements submit a letter
to the State by December 31st of each
year demonstrating that the system has
delivered the required public education
program. The letter must be
accompanied by a list of all newspapers,
radio and television stations, and
facilities and organization to which the
system delivered the public education
materials during the previous year.
The Agency believes the current
reporting requirement fails to provide
the States and EPA with information .in
a manner timely enough to oversee
systems' compliance with the public
education program mandated in the
final rule. In some cases, the current
provision in § 141.90(f) gives a public
water system as much as ten months
before it submits a letter to the State
certifying that it has delivered the
public education materials to its
customers in accordance with
§ 141.85(c). For example, under the
current provision a system that initially
exceeds the lead action level in the
monitoring period ending January 1 is
required to deliver the public education
program within 60 days of the
exceedance (e.g., by March 1), but does
not have to submit the certification
letter to the State until December 31. If
the system fails to deliver the public
education program in a timely manner,
the State would have difficulty knowing
of a violation until months after it has
occurred.
In place of the current requirement for
a letter submitted by December 31st,
EPA is proposing to require that each
water system subject to the public
education requirements submit a letter
demonstrating compliance with the
public education requirements within
ten days after the end of each period 9
in which it is required to perform public
education tasks. The ten days allows
systems to assemble records and notify
the State. Such a requirement is
consistent with the time frame allowed
in other reporting requirements, which
allow ten days after an action or the end
of a reporting period for a system to
report to the State. The letter would
have to be accompanied by a list of all
newspapers, radio and television
stations, and facilities and organization
to which the system delivered the
public education materials during the
most recent period during which the
system was required to perform public
education tasks.
EPA recognizes that this proposed
revision will require community water
systems that must deliver public service
announcements to radio and television
stations every six months to submit two
letters to the State during a calendar
year instead of the single letter that is
now required. EPA believes, however,
that accelerating the public education
reporting requirement will improve
compliance because, in addition to
making the requirements easier to
enforce, it also will encourage water
systems that exceed the lead action level
to deliver the public education program
to their customers.
10. Control of Lead Service Lines
In the June 7,1991, regulations, EPA
promulgated a broad definition of
"control" as it applies to lead service
lines in the distribution system that
included: (1) Authority to set standards
for construction, repair or maintenance
of the line; (2) authority to replace,
repair or maintain the service line; or (3)
ownership of the service line. As
discussed above, AWWA challenged
this definition, arguing that systems
should not be required to replace lead
service lines they do not own_and that
EPA had substantially changed the
definition of control from that which
had been proposed without providing
opportunity for public comment. The
Court agreed with AWWA that the
Agency had failed to give adequate
public notice that it was considering
requiring systems to replace portions of
service lines that the system does not
own. The Court remanded and vacated
the definition of control as it applies to
9 The regulations require a CWS to provide public
service announcements to the broadcast media
every six months as long as the system continues
to exceed the lead action level. A water system
must repeat the appropriate written public
education tasks every 12 months as long as it
continues to exceed the lead action level.
portions of line beyond a water system's
ownership. (AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d
1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) Because the Court
vacated the rule on this procedural
ground, it did not address AWWA's
substantive argument that EPA was
without statutory authority to require
replacement of privately owned
portions of service lines.
After further consideration, EPA has
decided to propose a revised definition
of "control" of lead service lines (LSLs)
that would obligate water systems to
replace the portion of the line that they
own, as well as any additional portion
which the system has the authority to
replace, in order to protect the quality
of water delivered to the user. EPA is
concerned that the LSL replacement
requirements in the original rule, which
required systems to also replace the
privately owned portion of the line
where the system had standard setting
authority or other forms of authority,
could result in confusion and delay in
implementation of the rule. Confusion
could have resulted from different
perceptions of the precise scope of the
system's legal authority, and resolution
of such disputes would have required
the intervention of the State, a
potentially time consuming process.
To accommodate the revised
definition of LSL control and to further
streamline the LSL replacement
requirements, the Agency proposes that
the rule would not include the
rebuttable presumption contained in the
original rule. Rather, the rule's
provision would be "self-
implementing" and not require
affirmative demonstrations by the
systems or a priori review by the State.
For this reason, EPA proposes to
eliminate the reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(e)(4) for any system seeking to
rebut the presumption that it controls
the entire service line to send a letter to
the State. EPA solicits comment
specifically regarding the degree to
which systems may have the authority
to replace the privately owned portions
of lead service lines.
EPA also solicits comment regarding
the option of only requiring replacement
of the portion of the line owned by the
water system. Such an approach would
further simplify implementation of the
rule, since the division in ownership
between the system and the user should
be clear to all parties.
11. Source Water Monitoring
(a) Composite Samples. Section
141.88(a)(l) requires any system that •
exceeds an action level to collect entry
point samples to determine the
contribution from source water to lead
and copper tap water levels. These
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 /Proposed Rules 16357
systems may composite source water
samples in accordance with the
requirements regarding sample location,
number of samples, and collection
methods specified for inorganic
chemical sampling in § 141.23(a).
Section 141.23(a)(4) specifies that a
water system may composite samples
from as many as five sampling sites.
When the final rule was published in
June 1991, § 141.23 tied the resampling
triggers for inorganic chemicals in
source water to the method detection
limit (MDL). These provisions were
modified by the Phase V Rule (57 FR
31776, July 17,1992). Section
141.23(a)(4)(I) now requires that follow-
up samples be collected if any
composited inorganic chemical sample
concentration is greater than or equal to
one-fifth of the maximum contaminant
level (MCL). The use of one-fifth of the
MCL as the resampling trigger for source
water lead and copper levels is
inappropriate since there are no MCLs
for lead or copper.
EPA considered a resampling trigger
of one-fifth the action level for lead and
copper in a composite source water
sample on the basis that such a
resampling trigger might be analogous to
a resampling trigger of one-fifth of the
MCL for all other regulated inorganic
compounds in drinking water. While
using one-fifth of the MCL as the
resampling trigger is sufficient for most
inorganic chemicals, lead and copper
are regulated through a slightly different
means. That is, an action level at the
90th percentile as measured in tap
samples does not directly correspond to
any particular source water levels.
Contributions to lead and copper levels
at the tap can come from source water
and through corrosion of the
distribution system. In some cases, the
contribution from the source may be
significant and merits treatment. EPA
believes that using one-fifth of the
action level as the resampling trigger is
inappropriate for lead and copper.
EPA's guidance. Lead and Copper
Rule Guidance Manual Volume II:
Corrosion Control Treatment dated
September 1992 (Document number
EPA 811-B-92-002), provides levels
below which treatment is not an
advisable option for lead and copper in
source water. Below these levels, the
Agency believes it would be more
expedient to control lead and copper
levels through corrosion control
treatment of the distribution system
than through source water treatment.
The Agency believes source water
treatment for lead is generally not
advisable when lead levels in the source
water are less than or equal to 0.005 mg/
L. The Agency also believes that source
water treatment for copper is generally
not advisable when copper levels in the
source water are less than or equal to 0.8
mg/L.
EPA therefore believes the water
system and the State generally should
be concerned when source water lead
levels exceed 0.005 mg/L or source .
water copper levels are greater than 0.8
mg/L. As discussed above, EPA believes
that the less conservative level of
concern for copper is appropriate since
the copper action level is the same as
the copper MCLG. Since the rule allows
compositing of up to 5 samples, the
composite sample concentration can be
as much as one-fifth the level at any of
the sites included in the composite
before treatment would be considered.
EPA believes the resampling trigger
should be set at one-fifth the level of
concern to ensure that sampling sites
with lead and/or copper levels greater
than the level of concern are identified.
EPA proposes that water systems
resample for lead and copper in source
water at each of the sites from which the
composite sample was taken when the
composite sample concentration is
greater than 0.001 mg/L for lead and/or
greater than 0.160 mg/L for copper. The
Agency believes these levels are
appropriate because the final rule
specifies that the State may require a
water system to treat its source water at
the lower levels and it is therefore
crucial that EPA, the States, and water
systems, have information at the lower
levels to make informed decisions on
proper treatment.
The proposed lead resampling trigger
of 0.001 mg/L is the method detection
limit (MDL) for lead. The Agency is
aware that there is concern about using
MDLs as monitoring and compositing
criteria because, statistically, half the
samples whose true value is at the MDL
could be reported as false negatives. The
Agency therefore also is soliciting
comment on the option of not allowing
composite source water samples.
EPA proposes to revise § 141.88(a)(l)
by dropping the reference to § 141.23(a)
(1) through (4)10 and incorporating the
requirements regarding sample location,
number of samples, and collection
methods at a new § 141.88(a)(l) (i)
. through (iii). The proposed new
§ 141.88(a)(l)(iii) will contain the
provisions for compositing source water
10 Section 141.23(a)(l) through (4) contains the
requirements regarding sample location, number of
samples, and timing for inorganic chemicals. Since
the requirements pertaining to sampling for lead
and copper in source water differ somewhat from
those in § 141.23(a) (l)-(4), the Agency believes it
will be less confusing to specify the requirements
regarding lead and copper in Subpart I, where all
other lead and copper sampling is addressed.
samples for lead and copper as well as
the resampling triggers for lead and
copper. This paragraph also clarifies
that compositing of samples must be
done by certified laboratory personnel
and provides a cost-savings option that,
if duplicates of or sufficient quantities
from the original samples from each
sampling point used in the composite
are available, the system may use these
instead of resampling, if resampling is
necessary.
The revised resampling triggers for
lead and copper at § 141.88(a)(l)(iii)
necessitate revisions to the laboratory
certification procedures at
§ 141.89(a)(l)(iii). Currently
§ 141.89(a)(l)(iii) requires that
laboratories that accept composite
samples be capable of achieving the
MDLs that previously were the
resampling triggers for lead and copper.
For lead, at § l41.89(a)(l)(iii)(A), the
MDL of 0.001 mg/L corresponds to the
resampling trigger discussed above that
is proposed to be added to
§ 141.88(a)(l)(iii). However, for copper,
the MDL is below the resampling trigger
proposed to be added at
§ 141.88(a)(l)(iii). The MDL for copper
is 0.001 mg/L, or 0.020 mg/L if atomic
absorption direct aspiration is used.
EPA therefore proposes to revise1
§ 141.89(a)(l)(iii) to delete the
requirement concerning the copper
MDL because the laboratory willbe
sufficiently tested on its capabilities
under § 141.89(a)(l)(ii)(B) where it is
required to achieve a quantitative
acceptance limit of ±10 percent of the
actual amount of the performance
evaluation sample when the actual
amount is greater than or equal to 0.050
mg/L.
(b) Reduced Source Water Monitoring.
Systems that exceed the lead or copper
action level at the tap are required to
monitor for lead or copper in their
source water. States are required to
determine whether source water .
treatment is needed and, if treatment is
required, to establish maximum
permissible levels for lead and copper ,
in the system's source water. The
current-regulations, at § 141.88(e), allow
source water monitoring at a reduced
frequency ultimately for water systems
that meet the maximum permissible
source water lead and copper levels set
by the State. This reduced monitoring is
not currently allowed for systems
required to conduct source water
monitoring but for which the State has
not set maximum permissible source
water levels. In these instances, the
State effectively has determined that
source water treatment is not necessary
and that the source water does not
contribute significantly to lead and
-------
16358
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
copper levels at the tap. EPA believes it
is appropriate to allow such systems to
reduce the frequency of source water
monitoring. Some water systems will
exceed the lead or copper action level
on a continuing basis with little or no
contamination originating from the
source. For these systems, corrosion
control treatment may require a number
of years to take full effect.
EPA therefore proposes to revise
§§ 141.88(e)(l) and (2) to allow water
systems that exceed the action level, but
for which the State has not set
maximum permissible source water
levels, to reduce the frequency of source
water monitoring for lead and copper if
the system maintains source water lead
levels below 0.005 mg/L and source
water copper levels below 0.8 mg/L for
three consecutive monitoring periods, if
using an exclusively ground-water
source, or three consecutive years, if
using a surface water or combined
surface and ground-water source. As
explained above, these are the levels for
lead and copper in source water below
which EPA generally believes source
water treatment is hot necessary. The
proposed monitoring protocol is
consistent with current rule
requirements for systems that meet
State-set maximum permissible levels
after installation of source water
treatment. The preamble to the rule (56
FR 26529) explained that this protocol
is consistent" with the monitoring
protocols for other inorganic chemicals.
12. System Reporting Requirements
As discussed above, EPA is proposing
a number of changes to water system
reporting requirements at § 141.90. The
following chart summarizes these
changes.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Paragraph
141.90(a)(1)(ii)
141.90(a)(1)(iii)
141.90(a)(2)
141.90(a)(3) ...
141.90(a)(4)
141.90(a)(5)
141.90(e)(4)
141.90(f)
Proposed revision
Remove requirement for certification of first draw samples collected by the system
Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation requests
Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first draw samples collected by residents
Reserve paragraph
Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why sufficient Tier 1 sites cannot be
located.
Replace with new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first draw sampling sites to send a
letter to the State.
Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why sufficient Tier 1 sites can-
not be located.
Replace with new requirement for systems subject to reduced monitoring to notify the State if there are
any changes in treatment or source water.
Remove requirement to send letter to State demonstrating why 50% of sampling sites are not served by
lead service lines.
Replace with new reporting requirements associated with "all plastic" system monitoring requests
Remove reporting requirements associated with requesting reduced monitoring
Replace with new reporting requirement demonstrating representative locations for biweekly entry point
water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of corrosion control treatment.
Remove reporting requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of lead service lines
Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks ; .
Preamble
discussion
B.8(a)
B.3
B.8(a)
B.5(b)
B.5(d)
B.5(b)
B.6
B.5(b)
B.4
B.8(b)
B.7
B.10
B.9(d)
13. Other Revisions Suggested by
Stakeholders
As part of a broad "Government
Reinvention" initiative, EPA has been
examining ways to reduce the
paperwork burden on regulated parties
and States associated with
environmental regulations. Through
public meetings, EPA has solicited
input from States, water utilities, and
environmental groups regarding ways to
reduce the burden associated with
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, including the lead and
copper rules. Some of the suggestions
made by these "stakeholders" were
already part of the set of revisions that
are being proposed for public comment
in this notice. Several other suggestions
are not being formally proposed at this
time because the EPA has not had time
to fully assess them, but the Agency
believes that they are worth considering.
Thus, the Agency is requesting
comment, data, or other relevant
information on these additional
suggested revisions to the lead and
copper rule, summarized below, so that
it can more fully evaluate their merits
for possible inclusion in the final rule,
or proposal in subsequent rulemaking.
Stakeholder suggestions regarding other
aspects of the drinking water program
are being addressed through other
regulatory and programmatic pathways.
(a) Eliminate PWS Requirement to
Calculate and Report 90th Percentile
Values. Under § 141.90(a)(l)(i), water
systems are required to submit to the
State the results of all tap samples for
lead and copper. Systems are also
required under § 141.90(a)(l)(iv) to
submit the 90th percentile lead and
copper concentration measure from the
tap water samples. Some States have
found that many systems, especially'
smaller systems, submit incorrect values
for the 90th percentiles. As a result,
some States routinely re-calculate 90th
percentile values based on the
individual tap sample data. Given this
problem, it has been suggested that the
rule be revised to give States flexibility
to eliminate the requirement that
systems submit 90th percentile values
provided that the State performs the
calculation. The Agency has received
other input that the current requirement
for systems to calculate the 90th
percentile values is helpful because it
helps systems that do exceed an action
level begin follow-up steps, especially
water quality parameter monitoring.
Also, 90th percentile values, especially
for smaller systems, are often obvious to
the trained eye reviewing the actual data
and it allows States to quickly sort
through many reports to focus on high
priority cases. Comments on this issue
are invited.
(b) Allow Monthly Monitoring of
Water Quality Parameters at Entry
Points. For systems required to install
corrosion control treatment, the rule
requires collection of one sample, at
least every two-weeks (bi-weekly) for
pH, and if alkalinity or a corrosion
inhibitor is adjusted as part of optimal
corrosion control treatment, a reading of
the dosage rate of the chemical used to
adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16359
and the alkalinity concentration or
concentration of orthophosphate or
silica (whichever is applicable). It has
been suggested that monitoring for these
water quality parameters can be reduced
to a once per month frequency which
would significantly reduce both system
and State burdens. On the other hand,
monthly monitoring may not provide
systems and States with frequent
enough information to insure that
corrosion control treatment is
consistently applied so that protective
films are maintained. Further, even
though the requirement is for bi-weekly
monitoring, systems typically conduct
this monitoring on a daily basis. As
such, bi-weekly measurements should
not present an added burden for most
systems. EPA invites comment on this
issue.
(c) Allow Flushing and Bottled Water
Instead of Corrosion Control in
NTNCWSs. Some stakeholders
recommended that the rule be revised to
give States flexibility to allow non-
transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs) that exceed the lead and/or
copper action level, to substitute
flushing and/or the use of bottled water
rather than having to install corrosion
control treatment. These systems
usually do not have access to trained
operators who can study and properly
maintain corrosion control treatment,
and handle potentially hazardous
chemicals, and facilities that can easily
house the chemical feeders, especially
in systems with wells and buried
pressure tanks. Further, NTNCWSs can
control the use of individual taps and
many are confined to one or a few
buildings that would he amenable to a
flushing program. Allowing the water to
run for several minutes each morning or
prior to a work shift could effectively
reduce elevated lead concentrations,
especially if the source of lead is in the
outlets (e.g., brass faucets, water coolers)
or building plumbing (i.e., lead solder).
Use of bottled water (certified to meet
all EPA standards), combined with
permanently posted notices informing
customers, is another alternative that
would free the system of having to
install and maintain treatment.
Drawbacks to such a provision include
the lack of clear performance measures,
short of more extensive monitoring than
currently required, that States could use
in monitoring the efficacy of the
flushing program in reducing exposure.
EPA welcomes input on this issue
particularly regarding the availability
and reliability of automated flushing
devices, and appropriate monitoring
requirements that could be used to
insure compliance.
(d) Eliminate PWS Need To Justify
Not Recommending Specific Corrosion
Control Treatment. A PWS required to
conduct a corrosion control study is also
required under § 141.82(c)(6) to
recommend to the State the treatment
option that the study indicates will
constitute optimal corrosion control for
that system. The system is required to
provide a rationale for its
recommendation including supporting
data and documentation regarding
constraints on other treatment options
that could have adverse effects on other
water quality treatment processes. Some
stakeholders have recommended
eliminating the requirement for systems
to explain under § 141.82(c)(4) why they
did not choose a specific treatment as
long as they identify a corrosion control
treatment that works. The benefits of
such a change would be to reduce
paperwork which in some, and possibly
many, cases is extraneous. In
determining what constitutes optimal
corrosion control, however, it is
important that States know the potential
adverse effects and other constraints
associated with alternative treatments.
Without this requirement, it could add
to the burden on States in assembling
the necessary data and documentation
to make their decision. EPA invites
comment on this issue.
(e) Allow Alternatives To Tap
Samples To Assess Effectiveness of
Corrosion Control. Collection of lead
and copper tap water samples has
presented water systems with
significant challenges in terms of
conducting materials surveys,
identifying high risk sites, soliciting
assistance from individual households,
and gaining access to homes at often
inconvenient hours or arranging for
sample pickup. Water systems, with
considerable assistance from States,
have met these challenges such that
compliance with the tap water
monitoring requirements is almost
complete. As implementation of the rule
progresses, it would be useful if there
were alternatives to tap water sampling
to assess lead and copper levels that
occur at the tap and that provide
sufficient information for systems and
States in tracking the efficacy of
corrosion control treatment, for
example. At this time, the Agency does
not have data to develop alternative
sampling methods that would provide
information with as much certainty as
direct sampling at taps. The Agency
agrees with some stakeholders that
information is needed on an alternative
monitoring framework to evaluate
corrosion control compliance, without
going into customers' homes. The public
is invited to submit suggestions, and
especially technical data, that could be
used in developing reliable monitoring
methods that do not involve household
tap water sampling, that could be, used
to measure and predict actual and/or
relative exposures of the public to lead
and copper, and that could measure
compliance with, and the efficacy of,
corrosion control treatment
requirements.
C. State Reporting Requirements in 40
CFR Part 142
1. Proposed Revisions
Section 142.15(c)(4) contains State
reporting requirements for lead and
copper. The current reporting
requirements are as follows.
• Lead and Copper Exceedances—
§142.15(c)(4)(i).
• Systems required to conduct
corrosion control studies and the date of
completion—§ 142.15(c)(4)(ii).
• Systems for which the State has
designated optimal corrosion control
treatment, the date of the designation,
and those systems that have completed
installation—§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii).
• Systems for which the State has
designated optimal water quality
parameters and the date of the
designation— § 142.15(c)(4)(iv).
• Systems which are required to
install source water treatment and those
which have completed installation—
§ 142.15(c)(4)(v).
• Systems for which the State has
specified maximum permissible source
water levels—§ 142.15(c)(4)(vi). :
• Systems required to replace lead
service lines, those systems for which
an accelerated replacement schedule is
required, and those systems in
compliance with their schedules—
§142.15(c)(4)(vii).
EPA proposes to modify these State
milestone reporting requirements to
eliminate redundant or unnecessary
requirements and to add requirements
to report other key information. EPA
anticipates these changes will result in
little or no cost to the States and water
systems. The Agency presented most of
these proposed changes in EPA's May
1992 guidance; entitled Lead and
Copper Rule, Definitions and Federal
Reporting for Milestones, Violations,
and SNCs, in which EPA explained the
Agency's intention to modify the
regulation. In addition, as discussed
below, the Agency is today proposing to
eliminate one of the milestones :
pertaining to the installation of '
corrosion control treatment. The
specific changes proposed are discussed
below.
(a) 90th Percentile Lead Levels.
Section 141.90(a) requires public water
-------
16360
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
systems to submit to'the States the
results of all tap water lead levels,
including the 90th percentile values for
lead and copper. States are required to
submit only a portion of this
information to the Agency. The current
State reporting requirement at
§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) requires each State to
submit the name and PWS identification
number of each public water system that
exceeds the lead and copper action level
and the date the exceedance occurred.
EPA intended this information to be
reported if either the lead or the copper
action level is exceeded, not just in
those instances where a system exceeds
both levels. EPA also believes that the
term "date upon which the exceedance
occurred" is confusing and has advised
States to use the last day of the
compliance period in which the
exceedance occurred. EPA proposes to
revise the language of § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to
clarify its intent by replacing the term
"lead and copper action levels" with the
term "lead or copper action level" and
by replacing the term "date upon which
the exceedance occurred" with the term
"last date of the compliance period in
which the exceedance occurred."
The Agency also is proposing to
broaden this reporting requirement by
adding a new § 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to require
that each State submit to EPA the 90th
percentile lead levels reported by all
large- and medium-size water systems.
EPA is proposing to require reporting of
these data because it believes it is
essential that the Agency maintain a
data base on the national distribution of
tap water lead levels before and after
public water systems install optimal
corrosion control treatment or source
water treatment. EPA believes that data
collected by water systems in
accordance with the monitoring
protocol specified in § 141.86 will
greatly assist the Agency in determining
the effectiveness of treatment to reduce
drinking water lead levels, and in
estimating the benefits that accrue to the
public as a result of systems installing
treatment. Moreover, EPA believes that
collection of such data will prove
invaluable when the Agency reviews the
lead and copper regulations in the
future. While the Agency would like
these data for small systems also, the
Agency is not proposing to require it
because EPA believes that such a
requirement would impose too great a
burden on the States.
The States have shown support for
this effort to collect crucial data on lead
levels and the effectiveness of treatment
around the country by submitting 90th
percentile lead levels for large- and
medium-size systems. The cost of this
change will be minimal. The States
already have the data in question and,
for most of them, the process of
transferring it to the Agency involves
only a minor programming change to
electronically transfer the extra piece of
information during the normal reporting
process. States without automated data
tracking systems will find it more
difficult to report these data. However,
these States do have the data on hand
and the extra reporting steps are
minimal.
(b) Treatment Technique Milestones.
(i) Corrosion control study milestones.
The current § 142.15(c)(4)(ii) requires
States to submit the name of each water
system that is required to conduct a
corrosion control study and the date the
study is completed. EPA is proposing to
eliminate this requirement because a
public water system that fails to conduct
a corrosion control treatment study is in
violation of the regulation and will be
automatically identified for EPA in the
data system. Because all violations are
reported to EPA through the data
system, the Agency does not believe a
separate report identifying each system
required to conduct a study will provide
EPA with information that will be
useful in assessing the status of systems'
compliance with the regulations.
(if) Optimal corrosion control
treatment designation/corrosion control
treatment installation milestones.
Section 142.15(c)(4)(iii) requires each
State to report the name of every system
for which it has designated optimal
corrosion control treatment, the date of
that determination, and each system
that completed installation of treatment
as certified under § 141.90(c)(3). EPA is
proposing to revise this paragraph to
eliminate reporting of systems that have
completed installation of corrosion
control treatment. Failure of a system to
complete this installation is a violation
that must be reported to EPA. EPA
therefore believes that separate
reporting of this milestone is redundant.
(in) Requirement for source water
treatment milestones. Section
142.15(c)(4)(v) requires the State to
report the name of the system for which
it requires installation of source water
treatment and the effective date of that
requirement. EPA is not proposing to
change this requirement. This paragraph
also requires States to report each
system that has completed installation
of source water treatment. EPA proposes
to move this requirement to a new
paragraph, 142.15(c)(4)(vi), and to make
a minor change to include the date the
State receives certification from the
system that the treatment was installed
properly. EPA proposes to add this
reporting requirement so that the
Agency can use the verifiable date of
installation to ensure that further
monitoring proceeds as required by the
rule.
The current § 142.15(c)(4)(vi) requires
the State to report the name of the
system for which it has specified
maximum permissible source water
levels for lead and copper. EPA is
proposing to eliminate this reporting
requirement. The Agency can determine
those systems for which the State will
set maximum permissible levels from
the information reported for the source
water treatment/source water treatment
installation milestones. In addition, EPA
will know if a system fails to meet its
maximum permissible source water
levels because the system will incur a
violation which would be reported to
the data system. The Agency does not
see any added value from having the
State separately report the date it
designated maximum permissible .
levels.
(iv) Cost of changing treatment
technique milestones. As with the
change regarding reporting of 90th
percentile lead levels, the cost of
changing the requirement to report the
date that the system certified
completion of source water treatment
installation will be minimal. The State
will already have this information on
hand and reporting it with the other
required information will be a minimal
increase of effort that will be more than
offset by eliminating the reporting of
several treatment milestones altogether.
(d) Reporting Lead Service Line
Replacement Milestones. Section
142.15(c)(4)(vii) requires the State to
submit three separate pieces of
information on each public water
system required to replace lead service
lines: Each system that must begin
replacing lead service lines; each system
for which the State has established an
accelerated replacement schedule; and
each system reporting compliance with
its replacement schedule. EPA proposes
that instead of the current reporting
requirement, the State report each water
system that must replace lead service
lines and the date replacement must
begin. Reports identifying water systems
in compliance with the replacement
schedule, or with a State-specified
accelerated schedule, would be
redundant because systems in violation
of their replacement schedule would be
reported to the data system as
violations. The Agency also can require
this information from States, if needed.
EPA proposes to revise
§ 142.15(c)(4)(vii) accordingly. EPA
estimates there will be no costs
associated with this change.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16361
2. Other Possible Changes to State
Reporting Requirements
(a) Reporting of State-Designated
Optimal Water Quality Control
Parameters, Maximum Permissible
Source Water Levels and Accelerated
Lead Service Line Replacement
Schedules. Although EPA is not
proposing the following reporting
requirements today, EPA is considering
them and seeks public comment. These
requirements are the reporting of State-
designated optimal water quality control
parameters and maximum permissible
source water levels and the retention of
the requirement to report accelerated
lead service line replacement schedules.
For all systems that have to install
corrosion control treatment, the
regulations require States to designate
the range of optimal water quality
control parameters within which a
system must operate once it has
optimized treatment. For systems with
high source water levels of lead or
copper, the rule also requires States to
specify whether source water treatment
is required, and, if so, to specify
maximum permissible source water
levels after treatment has been installed.
Finally, the rule allows States to
establish an accelerated lead service line
replacement schedule.
Unlike other NPDWRs in which EPA
establishes maximum contaminant
levels with which PWS must comply, in
the lead and copper rule, the levels with
which systems must comply (i.e., the
optimal water quality control
parameters and maximum permissible
source water levels) are set by the
States. Unless the State reports those
levels to EPA, EPA does not know the
limits with which each system must
comply. This lack of information could
place the Agency in a weaker oversight
position and could require EPA to rely
on ad-hoc requests to the States for this
information.
In the same way, when a State
establishes an accelerated lead service
line replacement schedule for a PWS,
this schedule becomes the federal
requirement. Unless this new schedule
is reported or EPA contacts the State,
the Agency would not know the
requirement with which the PWS must
comply. If a system on an accelerated
lead service line replacement schedule
fails to replace the number of lines in a
given year required by the State, EPA
would know that they are out of
compliance, however, just as if the
system was on the standard replacement
schedule.
EPA is sensitive to the burden which
additional reporting places on the States
and this is one reason why the Agency
is not proposing to add this
requirement. EPA also recognizes that
States are required to maintain this
information and that if it is needed, EPA
may request it from the States. It should
be noted, however, that responding to
ad-hoc requests for information can take
the States a good deal of time and.
resources.
EPA requests comment on whether or
not to require the reporting of optimal
water quality control parameters, the
maximum permissible source water
levels, and to retain the requirement to
report accelerated lead service line
replacement schedules. EPA requests
comment on requiring this reporting for:
(a) all PWSs subject to the lead and
copper rule;
(D) only PWSs serving 50,000 or more
persons;
(c) only PWSs serving 10,000 or more
persons; and
(d) only PWSs serving 3,300 or more
persons.
Commenters should address both the
need for the federal government to have
access to the information on a routine
basis as well as the burden of providing
it for each of the options listed above.
EPA may decide to promulgate final
requirements to report this information
for all PWSs, or for a subset of PWSs,
as noted above.
(b) Reduce State Reporting to EPA of
Lead and Copper Action Level
Exceedences and Treatment Technique
Milestone Information from Quarterly to
Annually. In addition to the paperwork
burden suggestions described above in
section B.13, EPA is considering a
stakeholder suggestion to reduce the
frequency of reporting data required
pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4). This section
requires States to report information
about action level exceedences and
information related to treatment
technique milestones for those systems
that are triggered into corrosion control,
source water treatment, and lead service
line replacement. This section currently
requires States to report such
information on a quarterly basis—e.g.,
when a reportable milestone is
completed, the information about that
milestone is to be reported to EPA in the
following calendar quarter.
Some stakeholders have suggested a
modification to this section to change
the reporting frequency for this
information from quarterly to annually.
As an example, the Agency might
specify a date (e.g., January 1) and
require that all new 90th percentile and
treatment technique milestone
information resulting from activities
that occurred during the previous
federal fiscal year (October 1 through
September 30) be reported to EPA by
that date (January 1). Such a change
would mean that States would need to
transmit the 90th percentile and
treatment technique milestone
information only once a year instead of
four times a year.
If such a modification were made,
costs associated with transmission of
data should be reduced. Also, since the
States will be retaining the information
for a longer period of time before
reporting to EPA, this change would
give the States more time to review,
edit, and correct the information that
they are submitting and may help to
improve the quality of the data being
transmitted. Reducing the reporting
frequency may, on the other hand,
increase State burden because States
would need to distinguish between
those data elements which still must be
reported quarterly (violation and
enforcement information under
§ 142.15(a)) and those which may be
reported annually. States do not
currently need to make such a
distinction since they submit all new
information on a quarterly basis.
Further, reducing the reporting
frequency to annually means that some
of the data will be as much as 12 months
old by the time EPA has access to! it. As
an example, a milestone completed and
reported to the State in February would
not be reported to EPA in May, as is
currently required, but instead would
not be reported to EPA until the
following January. This delay could
affect the Agency's ability to quickly
conduct nation-wide trend analyses and
to assist with follow-up actions to
encourage the system to return to
compliance.
EPA asks for comments on this
suggestion and requests that
commenters address the following: (1)
Whether such a reporting frequency
change would significantly reduce or
increase burden; (2) whether EPA and
the public needs this information in a
more current fashion (i.e., quarterly or
semi-annually); and (3) whether
reducing the reporting frequency to
annually would likely have any effect
on data quality. EPA may decide to
include^ provisions to reduce the
frequency of reporting lead and copper
information pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4) in
the final rule.
D. Proposed Effective Dates ,
EPA proposes to promulgate revisions
pertaining to monitoring, analytical
methods, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in § 141.81, §§ 141.86
through 141.90, and § 142.15 pursuant
to both sections 1445 and 1412 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
proposes that these revisions take effect
-------
16362
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
30 days after promulgation. Although
Section 1412(b) of the SDWA provides
that National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (as defined in Section
1401), and amendments thereto, shall
take effect 18 months after their
promulgation, under Section 1445, there
is no such limitation for monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping
compliance. To allow these revisions to
be effective 30 days after promulgation
of these revisions, EPA proposes
promulgating these provisions of the
revisions under section 1445. Effective
18 months after promulgation, these
revisions will also be deemed effective
under section 1412.
The Agency proposes to promulgate
revisions pertaining to treatment
technique requirements, including
public education provisions, in
§§ 141.81,141.84, and 141.85, pursuant
to section 1412 of the SDWA and
proposes that these revisions take effect.
18 months after promulgation.
E. Request for Comments
The Agency invites all interested
persons to submit comments within 90
days on all aspects of this proposal to
make minor revisions to the language of
40 CFR 141 and 142. However, the
Agency only solicits comment on the
proposed changes and the suggestions
for reducing paperwork burden
discussed in this preamble, and not on
provisions of the existing regulation that
would not be altered by this proposal.
After carefully considering all public
comments pertaining to the proposed
changes, EPA will promulgate final
language for these provisions.
F. Impact of These Revisions
1. Executive Order 1286.6
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4,1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(a) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or •
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
(a) Costs. At the tune of promulgation,
based on data from a select group of
U.S. cities, the Agency estimated that
the cost for water systems to comply
with the various treatment requirements
would total between $500 and $790
million per year. Household costs were
estimated to range from less than $1 per
year for large systems (serving over
50,000 people) to $2 to $20 per year per
household in smaller systems. Now that
water systems have collected lead
samples from hundreds of thousands of
household taps around the country to
comply with the monitoring
requirements of the rule, much more
reliable predictions of costs (and
benefits) can be made. It is clear that
significantly fewer systems will be
required to install corrosion control and,
therefore, both costs and benefits
associated with the rule are less than
originally predicted. We would now
estimate that costs associated with the
rule are roughly $200 million per year,
resulting in reduced lead exposure for
approximately 40 million Americans.
Health benefits associated with these
exposure reductions would still be
substantial, totaling over $1 billion per
year and resulting in an estimated.
200,000 young children whose blood
lead levels are reduced to below the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)/EPA
action level of 10 micrograms per
deciliter.
To calculate the relative magnitude of
the regulatory revisions proposed here,
the original cost model and the same
basic assumptions regarding impacts of
the individual rule components were
used. Regardless of the baseline used, it
is clear that the projected impacts of the
proposed regulatory revisions,
discussed below, will be minimal
compared to the total national costs
associated with the lead and copper
regulations. Overall, we estimate the
proposed changes will result in a very
minor reduction and we do not believe
the percentage reduction will change
substantially if costs for the entire rule
were recalculated.
The estimated national impact of
these proposed changes is shown iri the
following table. EPA estimates the total
national cost of the lead and copper
regulations will decrease by
approximately $1.9 million per year.
SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO LEAD AND COPPER NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
REGULATIONS (EPA, 1996b)
[Annual cost estimates in millions of dollars]
Major rule components
Monitoring
Corrosion Control Treatment (including Corrosion studies)
Source Water Treatment
Public Education
Lead Service Line Replacement
State Implementation Costs
Total
6/7/91 final
ru|e2 ,
39
220
90
30
80-370
40
499-789
Impact of
proposed
revisions
1 02
0
0
-054
001
031
-1.88
Revised
LCR cost
estimate
•^R
220
90
29
80—370
40
497-787
1 Unless otherwise noted, the costs presented in this table represent water system costs.
2 Costs for the 1991 final rule were estimated at-the time of promulgation and do not reflect actual costs associated with implementation since
then.
3 Includes impact of proposed revisions to both the public education requirements and the deadline for system reporting completion of lead
public education tasks to the State.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16363
Overall, EPA estimates that national
system costs will decrease by
approximately $1.5 million annually.
Although most water systems should
benefit somewhat, the systems most
likely to benefit are those that are able
to take advantage of proposed
provisions allowing less frequent
monitoring and/or from the proposed
changes to the public education
requirements. Despite this reduction in
overall national costs, EPA recognizes
that a few individual water systems may
incur increased costs as a result of these
proposed revisions. For example, water
systems affected by the changes to
§§141.81(b)(2) and 141.81(b)(3) may
incur additional costs if they are not
already conducting monitoring
consistent with the proposed revised
requirements.
EPA estimates that-the total national
cost for States to implement the
proposed revised regulations will
decrease by approximately $300,000
annually. This decrease results
primarily from revisions that will result
in fewer compliance determinations
(since some systems will be monitoring
less frequently) and changes in State
reporting to EPA.
(b) Benefits. The intent of this
proposed rulemaking is to improve
implementation of the lead and copper
regulations by eliminating unnecessary
requirements, streamlining and
reducing burden, and promoting
consistent national implementation.
EPA does not intend these revisions to
modify the level of health protection
extended by the lead and copper
regulations and no modification is
expected. While there are no known
changes in health benefits associated
\vith these proposed changes, improved
implementation should result in some
health benefits being achieved sooner.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires EPA to consider the effect of
regulations on small entities (5 U.S.C.
602 et seq.) If there is a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities, die Agency must
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) describing alternatives
that would minimize the impact. The
impact on small entities resulting from
the requirements of the lead and copper
rule was assessed at the time the
requirements were imposed. As
discussed above, the impact of the
revisions proposed in this action will be
to reduce total national annual
monitoring costs slightly and EPA
anticipates many small systems will
benefit from these changes. States are
not considered small entities under this
rulemaking for RFA purposes. Thus,
there is no additional impact on small
entities imposed by these regulations.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 0270.36) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
This proposed rule would add
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for some water systems
and the States in the following
categories: Sampling plans; sample
invalidation; "all plastic" system waiver
requests; and notifications of changes in
treatment or source water. This
proposed rule also would require more
frequent reporting of the completion of
public education tasks for CWSs serving
more than 500. This information
collection is necessary to evaluate
system-specific needs, including
examining treatment effectiveness; to
adjust monitoring frequencies and
schedules to address possible public
health concerns, and to determine
whether the public is receiving timely
notification of possible health risks
associated with high levels of lead at the
tap. In addition, this proposal includes
requirements for States to report to EPA
the 90th percentile lead values for large
and medium-size systems that do not
exceed the lead action level and the date
associated with one of the treatment
technique milestones about which
States currently are required to report.
This information will be used to
develop national compliance trends and
to help evaluate whether changes in
national policy or regulations are
necessary to protect public health. The
information collection in this proposed
rule is mandatory, is authorized under
sections 1401(1)(D), 1413(a)(3) and 1445
of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act and is considered
public information. The additional
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this proposal are offset
by other proposed provisions that will
reduce monitoring burden and eliminate
some system and State reporting
requirements.
The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to decrease
the base Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program burden
(ICR No. 270.30 approved under OMB
Control Number 2040-0090) for 78,703
respondent public water systems by an
average of 1.2 hours per system
annually and to decrease the burden on
each of the 56 State respondents by an
average of 179.0 hours annually. The
frequency of response includes on
occasion, biweekly, quarterly (State
respondents only), every six months,
annual, every 3 years and every 9 years.
With one exception (the change in
deadline for reporting completion of
public education tasks), this proposal
either leaves unchanged, or reduces, the
current frequency of response. The
average annual per system burden cost
is estimated to decrease by
approximately $20.00 ($13.45
operations and maintenance and $6.55
purchase of services). The average •
annual per State burden cost is
estimated to decrease by approximately
$5,600, all of which is operations and
maintenance. Burden means the total"
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
Comments are requested on the
Agency's need for the information
proposed to be added or eliminated, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments
on the ICR to the Director, OPPE '•
Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
N.W.; Washington, DC 20503, marked
-------
16364
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required
to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after April 12,
1996, a comment to OMB is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives
it by May 13,1996. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("UMRA"), P.L. 104-4, which was
signed into law on March 22,1995,
requires EPA to prepare a written
statement with respect to rules that
contain federal mandates that may
result in costs to State, local, or tribal
governments of an estimated $100
million or more in any one year. Also,
before EPA establishes regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
develop under section 203 of the UMRA
a small government agency plan.
The UMRA generally defines a federal
mandate for regulatory purposes as one
that imposes an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Today's rule simply
addresses proposed minor revisions to
the existing national primary drinking
water regulations for lead and copper.
These revisions, when promulgated,
will reduce monitoring burden for some
water systems, make it easier for many
water systems to conduct lead public
education, and modify the definition of
"control" as it applies to the lead
service line replacement requirements
of the existing regulation. This proposed
rule also provides additional flexibility
to States and modifies the information
that States must report to EPA. This
effect of the proposed rule would make
minor revisions to the enforceable duty
imposed on States and other entities.
The estimated impact of these proposed
revisions will result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector,
of less that $100 million per year. Thus,
there are no federal mandates in this
rule for purposes of the UMRA. In
addition, today's action does not
establish any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments, and so does not require a
small government agency plan under
UMRA section 203.
5. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
Executive Order 12875, Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships requires
Federal agencies to consult with State,
local, and tribal entities in the
development of rules and policies that
will affect them. EPA has coordinated
extensively with these entities in
proposing these minor revisions to the
Lead and Copper Rule in the following
ways.
First, the EPA distributed a strawman
draft proposal to interested parties,
including State program officials, the
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) and major
trade associations (e.g., the Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies
(AMWA), the American Water Works
Association (AWWA)) in August 1993.
The Agency took the resulting
comments into consideration while
developing this proposal.
Second, representatives from three
States participated on the Agency work
group. These States were selected in
consultation with ASDWA. In addition,
EPA Regional work group members
consulted with the States in their
Region, in some cases sharing draft
work group products with their States.
Third, in November 1995, the Agency
provided national, local, and tribal
organizations (e.g., the National League
of Cities, the National Association of
Towns and Townships, the National
Association of County Health Officers,
the Native American Water Association,
etc.) a brief article for inclusion in their
newsletters announcing upcoming plans
to publish the proposal. The article
encouraged readers to provide EPA
comment on the proposed revisions and
provided information on how interested
parties could obtain a copy from EPA.
Fourth, the Agency is developing
generic contacts with State, Tribal, and
local fiscal and program officials which
will enable various programs to consult
with affected parties in a coordinated
fashion. Identification of appropriate
contacts was not accomplished in a time
frame which enabled EPA's Office of
Water to have extensive consultation
with affected parties before proposal.
EPA is committed to expanded dialogue
and collaboration with State, Tribal and
local governments, however, and plans
to work with these contacts to provide
for the maximum input from the
regulated community for the drafting of
the final rule. EPA will also send copies
of this proposed rule to these
governmental bodies, as well as to
appropriate national and local
associations.
G. References
The following references are referred
to in this document and are included in
the public docket. The public docket is
available as described at the beginning
of this document.
American Water Works Association, et al.
v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.C. Cir. 1994).
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E.,
and Harward, C. Plumbosolvency Effects and
Control in Hard Waters. J. IWEM, 6:259-268.
(June, 1992). [Colling et al., 1992]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 20. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic
Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated
Contaminants; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Implementation; National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Final
Rule. (Wed. Jan. 30,1991), 3526-3614. [56 FR
3526]
Federal Register, Vol 56, No. 110. Drinking
Water Regulations—Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule. (Fri. Jun. 7,1991), 26460-26564. [56 FR
26460]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135.
Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead
and Copper; Final Rule; Correction. (Mon.
Jul. 15,1991), 32113. [[56 FR 32113]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138.
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals
and Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri.
Jul. 17, 1992), 31776-31849. [57 FR 31776]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125.
Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead
and Copper; Final Rule; Correcting
Amendments. (Mon. Jun. 29,1992), 28785-
28789. [57 FR 28785]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125.
Drinking Water; Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule; Technical corrections. (Thu. Jun. 30,
1994), 33860-33864. [59 FR 33860]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232,
Analytical Methods for Regulated Drinking
Water Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon. Dec.
5,1995), 62456-62471. [59 FR 62456]
Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125.
National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations; Analytical Methods for
Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants;
Final Rule. (Thu. Jun. 29, 1995), 34084-
34086. [60 FR 34084]
Fuge, Ronald, Pearce, J.G. Nicholas, and
Perkins, William T. Unusual Sources of
Aluminum and Heavy Metals in Potable
Waters. Environmental Geochemistry and
Health, 14:15-18. (April, 1992). [Fuge et al.,
1992]
NSF, International Personal
communication from Ann Marie Gebhart,
NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Jeff Cohen,
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, July 28, 1995. [NSF 1995]
Schock, Michael R., Wagner, Ivo, and
Oliphant, Roger. The Corrosion and
Solubility of Lead in Drinking Water. Ch. 4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 16365
In Internal Corrosion of Water Distribution
Systems, Second Edition, AWWARF/EBI.
(1995, in press). [Schock et al., 1996]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
for Lead and Copper. Prepared by Wade
Miller Associates, Inc. (April 1991). [EPA,
1991a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual;
Volume I: Monitoring. Prepared by Black &
Veatch, ECOS, Inc., and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
(Sep. 1991, NTIS PB 92-112101). [EPA,
1991b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions and
Federal Reporting for Milestones, Violations
and SNCs. (May 1992, ERIC G405, NTIS PB-
83-156131). |EPA, 1992a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual;
Volume II: Corrosion Control Treatment.
Prepared by Black & Veatch and Malcolm
Pirnlo, Inc. (Sep. 1992, NTIS PB-93-101583).
IEPA, 1992b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Methods for Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples—Supplement 1.
(May 1994, NTIS PB 94-184942). [EPA, 1994]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
for Lead and Copper; Analysis of Analysis of
Occurrences of Very Low 90th Percentile
Lead Levels. (Oct. 1995, EPA 812-X-95-001,
NTIS PB 95-129-077). [EPA, 1995]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum;
Proposed Changes to National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper. Prepared by The Cadmus Group.
(Jan. 1996, EPA 812-B-96-002, NTIS PB 96-
141494). [EPA, 1996a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Information Collection Request; Proposed
Changes to National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared
by The Cadmus Group. (Jan. 1996, EPA 812-
B-96-003, NTIS PB 96-141502). [EPA,
1996b]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians—lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Administrative practice and
procedure, Chemicals, Indians—lands,
Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: March 22,1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 141
and 142 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4 and
300J-9.
2. Section 141.81 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)
introductory text and paragraph (b)(3) to
read as follows:
§ 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control
treatment steps to small, medium-size and
large water systems.
*****
(b)***
(2) Any water system may be deemed
by the State to have optimized corrosion
control treatment if the system
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
State that it has conducted activities
equivalent to the corrosion control steps
applicable to such system under this
section. If the State makes this
determination, it shall provide the
system with written notice explaining
the basis for its decision and shall
specify the water quality control
parameters representing optimal
corrosion control in accordance with
§ 141.82(f). Water systems deemed to
have optimized corrosion control under
this paragraph shall operate in
compliance with the State-designated
optimal water quality control
parameters (§ 141.82(g)) and continue to
conduct tap sampling (§ 141.86(d)(3)
and § 141.87(d)). A system shall provide
the State with the following information
in order to support a determination
under this paragraph:
*****
(3) Any water system is deemed to
have optimized corrosion control if it
submits results of tap water monitoring
conducted in accordance with § 141.86
and source water monitoring conducted
in accordance with § 141.88 that
demonstrates for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods that the
difference between the 90th percentile
tap water lead level computed under
§ 141.80(c)(3), and the highest source
water lead concentration is less than the
Practical Quantitation Level for lead
specified in § 141.89(a)(l)(ii). Any such
water' system shall continue monitoring
for lead and copper at the tap no less
frequently than once every three
calendar years using the reduced
number of sites specified in § 141.86(c)
and collecting the samples at times and
locations specified in § 141.86(cl)(4)(iv).
The first round of monitoring pursuant
to § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) shall be conducted
in [the year of the first May 1 after
publication of the final rule in Federal
Register] during the months of June-
September with the exception that
systems that have monitored pursuant
to § 14l!86(d) (3) or (4) during any of the
three years prior to [30 days after!
publication of final rule in Federal
Register] may use those results and
continue monitoring every three years
based on the date of that monitoring.
The State may require any system
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to this paragraph to
conduct additional monitoring or to take
other action the State deems appropriate
to ensure that such systems maintain
minimal levels of corrosion in the
distribution system (e.g., if there is a
change in treatment or a new source is
added). As of [18 months after
publication of final rule in Federal
Register] a system is not deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this
paragraph unless it meets the copper
action level. Any system triggered into
corrosion control because it is no longer
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph shall
comply with the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section with any
such large system adhering to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-sized systems.
***** '
3. Section 141.84 is proposed to be
amended by removing paragraph (e),
redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h)
as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g),
respectively, and by revising paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
§ 141.84 Lead service line replacement
requirements.
*****
(d) A water system shall replace that
portion of the lead service line which
the system owns as well as that portion
of the line which the system has the
legal authority to replace in order to
protect the quality of the water
delivered to the user. In cases where the
system does not replace the entire lead
service line, the system shall notify the
user served by the line that the system
will replace the portion of the service
line specified in the previous sentence
and shall offer to replace the building
owner's portion of the line, but is not
required to bear the cost of replacing the
building owner's portion of the line. For
buildings where only a portion of the
lead service line is replaced, the water
system shall inform the resident(s) that
the system will collect a first flush tap
water sample after partial replacement
of the service line is completed if the
resident(s) so desire. In cases where the
resident(s) accept the offer, the system
shall collect the sample and report the
results to the resident(s) within 14 days
-------
16366 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
following partial lead service line
replacement.
*****
4. Section 141.85 is proposed to be
amended by redesignating paragraphs
(a)(l) through (a)(4)(v) as follows:
Old paragraph
(a)(3)
(a)(3)(iii)
New paragraph
(a)(1)(ii).
(a)(1)(iii).
(a)(1)(iv).
(a)(1)(iv)(D)(3).
4a. Section 141.85 is further proposed
to be amended by adding paragraph
(a)(l) heading and paragraphs (a)(2),
(c)(7) and (c)(8) and by revising
paragraphs (c)(2) introductory text,
(c)(2)(i), (c)(2Hii), (cO(2)(iii) introductory
text, and paragraph (c)(4) introductory
text to read as follows:
§141.85 Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
*****
(a) * * *
(1) Content of printed public
education materials for community
water systems—(i) Introduction. * * *
*****
(2) Content of printed public
education materials for non-transient
non-community water systems.—(i)
Introduction. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and [insert name of water supplier] are
concerned about lead in your drinking
water. Some drinking water samples
taken from this facility have lead levels
above the EPA action level of 15 parts
per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of
lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under
Federal law we are required to have a
program in place to minimize lead in
your drinking water by [inse'rt date
when corrosion control will be
completed for your system]. This
program includes corrosion control
treatment, source water treatment, and
public education. We are also required
to replace any lead service line that is
in place and that we control if the line
contributes lead concentrations of more
than 15 ppb after we have completed
the comprehensive treatment program.
If you have any questions about how we
are carrying out the requirements of the
lead regulation please give us a call at
[insert water system's phone number].
This brochure explains the simple steps
you can take to protect yourself by
reducing your exposure to lead in
drinking water.
(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is
found throughout the environment in
lead-based paint, air, soil, household
dust, food, certain types of pottery
porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead
can pose a significant risk to your health
if too much of it enters your body. Lead
builds up in the body over many years
and can cause damage to the brain, red
blood cells and kidneys. The greatest
risk is to young children and pregnant
women. Amounts of lead that won't
hurt adults can slow down normal
mental and physical development of
growing bodies. In addition, a child at
play often comes into contact with
sources of lead contamination—like dirt
and dust—that rarely affect an adult. It
is important to wash children's hands
and toys often, and to try to make sure
they only put food in their mouths.
(iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead
in drinking water, although rarely the
sole cause of lead poisoning, can
significantly increase a person's total
lead exposure, particularly the exposure
of infants who drink baby formulas and
concentrated juices that are mixed with
water. The EPA estimates that drinking
water can make up 20 percent or more
of a person's total exposure to lead.
(B) Lead is unusual among drinking
water contaminants in that it seldom
occurs naturally in water supplies like
rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking
water primarily as a result of the
corrosion, or wearing away, of materials
containing lead in the water distribution
system and household plumbing. These
materials include lead-based solder
used to join copper pipe, brass and
chrome-plated brass faucets, and in
some cases, pipes made of lead that
connect houses and buildings to water
mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress
banned the use of lead solder containing
greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted
the lead content of faucets, pipes and
other plumbing materials to 8.0%.
(C) When water stands in lead pipes
or plumbing systems containing lead for
several hours or more, the lead may
dissolve into your drinking water. This
means the first water drawn from the
tap in the morning, or later in the
afternoon if the water has not been used
all day, can contain fairly high levels of
lead.
(iv) Steps you can take to reduce
exposure to lead in drinking water. (A)
Let the water run from the tap before
using it for drinking or cooking any time
the water in a faucet has gone unused
for more than six hours. The longer
water resides in plumbing the more lead
it may contain. Flushing the tap means
running the cold water faucet for about
15-30 seconds. Although toilet flushing
or showering flushes water through a
portion of the plumbing system, you
still need to flush the water in each
faucet before using it for drinking or
cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple
and inexpensive measure you can take
to protect your health. It usually uses
less than one gallon of water.
(B) Do not cook with, or drink water
from the hot water tap. Hot water can
dissolve more lead more quickly than
cold water. If you need hot water, draw
water from the cold tap and then heat
it.
(C) The steps described above will
reduce the lead concentrations in your
drinking water. However, if you are still
concerned, you may wish to use bottled
water for drinking and cooking.
(D) You can consult a variety of
sources for additional information. Your
family doctor or pediatrician can
perform a blood test for lead and
provide you with information about the
health effects of lead. State and local
government agencies that can be
contacted include:
[1] [insert the name or title of facility
official if appropriate] at [insert phone
number] can provide you with
information about your facility's water
supply; and
(2) [insert the name or title of the
State Department of Public Health] at
[insert phone number] or the [insert the
name of the city or county health
department] at [insert phone number]
can provide you with information about
the health effects of lead.
[2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i)(A) or (c)(8) of this section, a
community water system that fails to
meet the lead action level on the basis
of water samples collected in
accordance with § 141.86 shall, within
60 days:
(i) Insert notices in each customer's
water utility bill containing the
information in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section, along with the following alert
on the water bill itself in large print:
"SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY
HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN
THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN
POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR
HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION."
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16367
(A) A communitjywater system
having a billing cycle that does not
include a billing within 60 days of
exceeding the action level may mail the
materials on the same schedule as the
system's billing cycle, but in no case
may the mailing occur later than six
months after the exceedance.
(B) A community water system that
cannot insert information in the water
utility bill without making major
changes to its billing system may use a
separate mailing to deliver the
information in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section as long as the information is
delivered to each customer within the
time frames specified above. Such water
systems shall include the following alert
in the package, in large print: SOME
HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE
ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR
DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE
A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR
HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION."
(ii) Submit the information in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section to the
editorial departments of the major daily
and weekly newspapers circulated
throughout the community.
(Hi) Deliver pamphlets and/or
brochures that contain the public
education materials in paragraphs
(a)(l)(u) and (a)(l)(iv) of this section to
facilities and organizations, including
the following:
*****
(4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the
lead action level, a non-transient non-
community water system shall deliver
the public education materials
contained in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section as follows:
*****
(7) A community water system may
apply to the State, in writing, to use the
text specified in paragraph (a) (2) of this
section in lieu of the text in paragraph
(a)(l) of this section and to perform the
tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and
(c)(5) of this section in lieu of the tasks
in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this
section if:
(i) The system is a facility, such as a
prison or a hospital, where the
population served is not capable of or is
prevented from making improvements
to plumbing or installing point of use
treatment devices; and
(ii) The system provides water as part
of the cost of services provided and does
not separately charge for water
consumption.
(8) (i) A community water system
serving 500 or fewer people shall
complete the tasks contained in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(iii) of this
section. Such systems may limit
distribution of the public education
materials required under paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and
organizations that are most likely to be
visited regularly by pregnant women
and children served by the system,
including all appropriate facilities and
organizations within the system's
service area.
(ii) A community water system
serving 500 or fewer people that
delivers public education in accordance
with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section
shall repeat the tasks contained in
paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section at least
once during each calendar year in
which the system exceeds the lead
action level.
* * * * *
5. Section 141.86 is proposed to be
amended by removing paragraph (a)(8),
by redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as
paragraph (a) (8) and paragraph (d)(4)(v)
as paragraph (d)(4)(vi), by adding a
sentence to the end of paragraphs (a)(5)
and (a)(7), by adding paragraphs (b)(5),
(d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by
revising newly designated paragraph
(a)(8) and paragraphs (b)(l), (c), (d)(4)(ii)
through (d)(4)(iv), and the sixth
sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in tap water.
(a) * * *
(5) * * * A community water system
with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier
3 sampling sites shall complete its
sampling pool with representative sites
throughout the distribution system.
*****
(7) * * * If additional sites are
needed to complete the sampling pool,
the non-transient non-community water
system shall use representative sites
throughout the distribution system.
(8) Any water system whose
distribution system contains lead
service lines shall draw 50 percent of
the samples it collects during each
monitoring period from sites that
contain lead pipes, or copper pipes with
lead solder, and 50 percent of the
samples from sites served by a lead
service line. A water system that cannot
identify a sufficient number of sampling
sites served by a lead service line shall
collect first draw samples from all of the
sites identified as being served by such
lines.
(b)(l) All tap samples for lead and
copper collected in accordance with this
subpart, with the exception of lead
service line samples collected under
§ 141.84(c) and samples collected under
paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be
first draw samples.
(2) * * * If the sample is not acidified
immediately after collection, then after
acidification to resolubilize the metals
the sample must stand in the original
container for the time specified in the
approved EPA method. * * *
*****
(5) A non-transient non-community
water system that does not have enough
taps that can supply first draw Samples,
as defined in § 141.2, may apply to the
State in writing to substitute non-first
draw samples. Such systems must:
(i) Collect as many first draw samples
from appropriate sample taps as
possible;
(ii) Identify sampling times and
locations that would likely result in the
longest standing time for the remaining
sample sites; and
(iii) Sample at times and locations
approved by the State.
(c) Number of samples. Water systems
shall collect at least one sample during
each monitoring period specified in
paragraph (d) of this section from the
number of sites listed in the first
column ("standard monitoring") of the
table in this paragraph. A system
conducting reduced monitoring under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall
collect at least one sample from the
number of sites specified in the second
column ("reduced monitoring") of the
table in this paragraph during each
monitoring period specified in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Such
reduced monitoring sites shall be
representative of the sites required for
standard monitoring. States may specify
sampling locations when a system is
conducting reduced monitoring. The
table is as follows:
System size (number of
people served)
>1 00 000
10001 to 100,000
3301 to 10,000
501 to 3 300
101 to 500
<100
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
Number ,
of sites
(stand-
ard
monitor-
ing)
100
60
• 40
20
10
5
Number
of sites
(re-
duced
monitor-
ing)
50
30
20
10
5
5
(ii) Any water system that maintains
the range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by
the State under § 141.82(f) during each
of two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods may reduce the
frequency of monitoring to once per
year and reduce the number of lead and
copper samples in accordance with
-------
16368
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (c) of this section if it receives
written approval from the State. The
State shall review monitoring,
treatment, and other relevant
information submitted by the water
system in accordance with § 141.90, and
shall notify the system in writing when
it determines the system is eligible to
commence reduced monitoring
pursuant to this paragraph. The State
shall review, and where appropriate,
revise its determination when the
system submits new monitoring or
treatment data, or when other data
relevant to the number and frequency of
tap sampling becomes available.
(iii) A small or medium-size water
system that meets the lead and copper
action levels during three consecutive
years of monitoring may reduce the
frequency of monitoring for lead and
copper from annually to once every
three years. Any water system that
maintains the range of values for the
water quality control parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment specified by the State under
§ 141.82(f) during three consecutive
years of monitoring may reduce the
frequency of monitoring from annually
to once every three years if it receives
written approval from the State. The
State shall review monitoring,
treatment, and other relevant
information submitted by the water
system in accordance with § 141.90, and
shall notify the system in writing when
it determines the system is eligible to
reduce the frequency of monitoring to
once every three years. The State shall
review, and where appropriate, revise
its determination when the system
submits new monitoring or treatment
data, or when other data relevant to the
number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.
(iv) A water system that reduces the
number and frequency of sampling shall
collect these samples from sites
included in the pool of targeted
sampling sites identified in paragraph
(a) of this section. Systems sampling
annually or less frequently shall
conduct the lead and copper tap
sampling during the months of June,
July, August or September. If a water
system does not operate between June
and September, the system must
monitor at tunes representative of
system operation during the applicable
monitoring period. Samples for such
systems must be taken during the
month(s) of operation that will likely be
the warmest.
(v) Any water system that
demonstrates for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods that the tap
water lead level computed under
§ 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to the
PQL for lead specified in
§ 141.89(a)(l)(ii) and the tap water
copper level computed under
§ 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to
one-half the copper action level
specified in § 141.80(c)(2) may reduce
the number of samples in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section and
reduce the frequency of sampling to
once every three calendar years.
*****
(vii) Any water system subject to
reduced monitoring that either changes
its source water or changes any water
treatment shall inform the State within
60 days. The State may require the
system to resume sampling in
accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this
section and collect the number of
samples specified for standard
monitoring under paragraph (d) of this
section or take other appropriate steps
such as increased water quality
parameter monitoring or re-evaluation
of its corrosion control treatment given
the potentially different water quality
considerations.
* * ' * * *
(f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap
water samples. A sample invalidated
under this paragraph does not count
toward meeting the minimum
monitoring requirements of this section.
(1) The State may invalidate a lead or
copper tap water sample only if the
conditions of paragraph (f)(l) (i), (ii),
(iii) or (iv) of this section are met.
(i) The laboratory establishes that
improper sample analysis caused
erroneous results.
(ii) The State determines that the
sample was taken from a site that did
not meet the site selection criteria of
this section.
(iii) The sample container was
damaged in transit.
(iv) There is substantial reason to
believe that the sample was subject to
tampering.
(2) The system must report the results
of all samples to the State and all
evidence of documentation for samples
the system believes should be
invalidated.
(3) To invalidate a sample under
paragraph (f)(l) of this section, the
decision and the rationale for the
decision must be documented in
writing.
(4) Replacement samples for any
samples invalidated under this section
must be taken as soon as possible, but
within 20 days of the date the State
invalidates the sample or by the end of
the applicable monitoring period,
whichever occurs later. Replacement
samples taken after the end of the
applicable monitoring period shall not
also be used to meet the monitoring
requirements of a subsequent
monitoring period. The replacement
samples shall be taken at the same
locations as the invalidated samples or,
if that is not possible, at locations other
than those already used for sampling
during the monitoring period.
(g) Monitoring waivers for "all
plastic" systems. (1) Any small-size
system in which the system's
distribution and service lines and all
buildings connected to the system are
free of materials containing lead and
copper, including but not limited to,
lead or copper service lines, lead or
copper pipes, lead soldered pipe joints,
and leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings
and fixtures, may apply to the State for
a waiver from the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section once it has
completed one six-month round of
standard tap water monitoring for lead
and copper subsequent to becoming free
of materials containing lead and copper.
Such monitoring shall be completed at
sites approved by the State and from the
number of sites required by paragraph
(c) of this section.
(2) To qualify for a waiver the system
must:
(i) Provide certification to the State
that the system itself and all buildings
connected to the system are free of all
lead-containing and copper-containing
materials, as specified in paragraph
(g)(l) of this section; and
(ii) Demonstrate that the 90th
percentile lead level for any and all
rounds of monitoring performed since
the system became free of all lead-
containing and copper-containing
materials, as specified in paragraph
(g)(l) of this section, does not exceed
0.005 mg/L and the 90th percentile
copper level for any and all such rounds
of monitoring does not exceed 0.65
mg/L.
(3) A State may grant a waiver to some
or all of the monitoring requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section after the
State evaluates the information
provided by the system as required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this section. As a
condition of the waiver, the State may
require the system to perform specific
activities (e.g., limited monitoring or
public education) to minimize the risk
of lead or copper contamination in tap
water. The State shall notify the system
of its determination in writing, setting
forth the basis of its decision and any
conditions of the waiver.
(4) A system with a waiver must
conduct tap water monitoring for lead
and copper at the reduced number of
sampling sites identified in paragraph
(c) of this section once every nine years.
If the 90th percentile lead level is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16369
greater than 0.005 mg/L and/or if the
90th percentile copper level is greater
than 0.65 mg/L, the State may require
the system to resume regular tap water
monitoring pursuant to paragraph (d) (3)
or (4) of this section, or to take other
appropriate action to ensure that the
system maintains minimal levels of
corrosion in the distribution system.
(5) If a system with a waiver from
monitoring requirements adds a new
source of water or changes any water
treatment, the system shall inform the
State within 60 days. The State may
require the system to resume regular tap
water monitoring pursuant to paragraph
(d) (3) or (4) of this section. Any such
system may apply for an extension of
the waiver by repeating the steps listed
in paragraphs (g)(2) (i) and (ii) in this
section. If the system continues to
satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(g)(2) of this section, a State may extend
the waiver as described in paragraph
(g) (3) of this section.
(6) If, due to new construction or
repairs, a system can no longer certify
that the system itself and all buildings
connected to the system are free of lead-
containing and copper-containing
materials, the system must resume
regular tap water monitoring pursuant '.
to paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
6. Section 141.87 is proposed to be
amended by redesignating paragraph
(e)(2) as paragraph (e)(2)(i), by adding
paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(2)(ii), and by
revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory
text and the table at the end of the
section to read as follows:
§ 141.87 Monitoring requirements for
water quality parameters.
*****
(c) * * *
(2) For surface water systems, at each
entry point to the distribution system,
one sample every two weeks (biweekly)
for:
*****
(3) Any ground water system can limit
entry point sampling described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those
entry points that are representative of
water quality and corrosion control
treatment conditions throughout the
system. Any such system shall provide
to the State by the commencement of
such monitoring identification of the
selected entry points and information
sufficient to demonstrate that the sites
are representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system.
*****
(e) * * *
,(2) * * *
(ii) Any large water system may
reduce the frequency with which it
collects tap samples for applicable water
quality parameters specified in
paragraph (e)(l) of this section to every
three years if it demonstrates during two
consecutive monitoring periods that its
tap water lead level at the 90th
percentile is less than the PQL fpr lead
specified in § 141.89(a)(l)(ii), that its tap
water copper level at the 90th percentile
is less than one-half the action level for
copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and that it also
has maintained the range of values for
the water quality parameters reflecting
optimal corrosion control treatment
specified by the State under § 141.82(f).
SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1
Monitoring period
Parameters2
Location
Frequency
Initial monitoring
After installation of corrosion
control.
After state specifies parameter
values for optimal corrosion
control.
Reduced monitoring
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or silica3, cal-
cium, conductivity, temperature.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or silica3, cal-
cium4.
pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and concentration
(if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor
residual5.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or silica3, cal-
cium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and concentration
(if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor
residual6.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or silica3, cal-
cium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and concentration
(if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor
residual5.
Taps and at entry point(s) to
distribution systems-
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution
system 6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution
system 6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution
system6.
Every 6 months
Biweekly.
Every 6 months.
Biweekly.
Every 6 months, annually 7 or
every 3 years 8; re'duced
number of sites.
Biweekly.
1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the
lead or copper action level. . '
3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an
Inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is sued as part of corrosion control.
s Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used.
"Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
'Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six months to annually if :they have
maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
8Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if
they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimum control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitor-
ing.
-------
1637O
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
7. Section 141.88 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraphs (a)(l),
(e)(l), and (e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in source water.
(a) * * *
(1) A water system that fails to meet
the lead or copper action level on the
basis of tap samples collected in
accordance with § 141.86 shall collect
lead and copper source water samples
in accordance with the following
requirements regarding sample location,
number of samples, and collection
methods:
(i) A water system shall take a
minimum of one sample at every entry
point to the distribution system after
any application of treatment or in the
distribution system at a point which is
representative of each source after
treatment (hereafter called a sampling
point).
(ii) If a system draws water from more
than one source and the sources are
combined before distribution, the
system must sample at an entry point to
the distribution system during periods
of normal operating conditions (i.e.,
when water is representative of all
sources being used).
(iii) The State may reduce the total
number of samples which must be
analyzed by allowing the use of
compositing. Compositing of samples
must be done by certified laboratory
personnel. Composite samples from a
maximum of five samples are allowed,
provided that if the lead concentration
in the composite sample is greater than
0.001 mg/L or the copper concentration
is greater than 0.160 mg/L, then either:
(A) A follow-up sample shall be taken
and analyzed within 14 days at each
sampling site included in the
composite; or
(B) If duplicates of or sufficient
quantities from the original samples
from each sampling point used in the
composite are available, the system may
use these instead of resampling.
*****
(e) * * *
(1) A water system using only
groundwater may reduce the monitoring
frequency for lead and/or copper to
once during each nine-year compliance
cycle (as that term is denned in § 141.2)
if the system meets one of the following
criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that
finished drinking water entering the
distribution system has been maintained
below the maximum permissible lead
and copper concentrations specified by
the State in § 141.83(b)(4) during at least
three consecutive compliance periods
under paragraph (d)(l) of this section; or
(ii) The State has determined that
source water treatment is not needed
and the system demonstrates that,
during at least three consecutive
compliance periods in which sampling
was conducted under paragraph (d)(l)
of this section, the concentration of lead
in source water was less than 0.005 mg/
L and the concentration of copper in
source water was less than 0.8 mg/L.
(2) A water system using surface
water (or a combination of surface and
groundwater) may reduce the
monitoring frequency in paragraph
(d)(l) of this section to once during each
nine-year compliance cycle (as that term
is defined in § 141.2) if the system meets
one of the following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that
finished drinking water entering the
distribution system has been maintained
below the maximum permissible lead
and copper concentrations specified by
the State in § 141.83(b)(4) for at least
three consecutive years; or
(ii) The State has determined that
source water treatment is not needed
and the system demonstrates that,
during at least three consecutive years,
the concentration of lead in source
water was less than 0.005 mg/L and the
concentration of copper in source water
was less than 0.8 mg/L.
*****
8. Section 141.89 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph
(a)(l)(iii) to read as follows:
§ 141.89 Analytical methods.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Achieve the method detection
limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L according
to the procedures in appendix B of part
136 of this title. This need only be
accomplished if the laboratory will be
processing source water composite
samples under § 141.88(a)(l)(iii).
*****
9. Section 141.90 is proposed to be
amended by removing and reserving
paragraph (a)(l)(iii) and removing
paragraph (e)(4), by revising all
references to ".§ 141.84(f)" in paragraph
(e)(2) to read "§ 141.84(e)", and by
revising paragraphs (a)(l) introductory
text, (a)(l)(ii), (a)(2) through (a)(5) and
(f) to read as follows:
§141.90 Reporting requirements.
*****
(a) * * *
(1) A water system shall report the
following information specified all tap
water samples within the first 10 days
following the end of each applicable
monitoring period specified in § 141.86
and § 141.87 and § 141.88 (i.e., every
six-months, annually, every 3 years, or
every 9 years):
* * * * *
(ii) Documentation for each tap water
lead or copper sample for which the
water system requests invalidation
pursuant to § 141.86(f)(l);
(iii) [Reserved];
* * * * *
(2) By the start of the first applicable
monitoring period in § 141.86(d) that
commences after [30 days following
publication of final rule in Federal
Register], each non-transient non-
community water system that does not
have enough taps that can supply first
draw samples, as defined in § 141.2,
shall send a letter to the State
identifying sampling times and
locations for enough non-first draw
samples to make up its sampling pool
under § 141.86(b)(5).
(3) By 60 days after any change in
source water or water treatment, a water
system subject to reduced monitoring
pursuant to § 141.86(d), or subject to a
monitoring waiver pursuant to
§ 141.86(g), shall send a letter to the
State describing the change along with,
any appropriate monitoring results.
(4) By the start of the first applicable
monitoring period in § 141.86(d) that
commences after [30 days following
publication of final rule in Federal
Register], each small-size water system
that requests a monitoring waiver, or
any extension of a monitoring waiver,
shall send a letter to the State providing
the information listed under
§ 141.86(g)(2).
(5) Each ground water system that
limits water quality parameter
monitoring to a subset of entry points
under § 141.87 (c)(3) shall provide to the
State by the commencement of such
monitoring identification of the selected
entry points and information sufficient
to demonstrate that the sites are
representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system.
*****
(f) Public education program
reporting requirements. Any water
system that is subject to the public
education requirements in § 141.85 shall
submit a letter to the State within ten
days after the end of each period in
which the system is required to perform
public education tasks in accordance
with § 141.85(c) demonstrating that the
system has delivered the public
education materials that meet the
content requirements in § 141.85(a) and
(b) and the delivery requirements in
§ 141.85(c). This information shall
include a list of all the newspapers,
radio stations, television stations, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules
16371
facilities and organizations to which the
system delivered public education
materials during the most recent period
during which the system was required
to perform public education tasks.
PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
10. The authority citation for part 142
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300g, 300g-l, 300g-
2, 300g-3,300g-4. 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4
and 300J-9.
11. Section 142.15 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(iii) and (c)(4)(v) through
(c)(4)(vii) to read as follows:
§142.15 'Reports by States.
*****
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Each public water system which
exceeded the lead or copper action level
and the last day of the compliance
period in which the exceedance
occurred;
(ii) For each large and medium-size
public water system, all 90th percentile
lead levels calculated during each
monitoring period in § 141.86, and the
first and last day of the compliance
period for which the 90th percentile
lead level was calculated;
(iii) Each public water system for
which the State has designated optimal
corrosion control treatment under
§ 141.82(d) and the date of the
determination;
*****
(v) Each public water system which
the State has required to install source
water treatment under § 141.83(b)(2)
and the date of the determination;
(vi) Each public water system that
completed installation of source water
treatment as certified under
§ 141.90(d)(2) and the date the State
received such certification; and
(vii) Each public water system
required to begin replacing lead service
lines as specified in § 141.84 and the
date each system must begin
replacement. j
*****
[FR Doc. 96-7738 Filed 4-11-96; 8;45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-P
------- |