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

-------