EPA-S15-Z-98-004
Wednesday
April 22, 1998
Part VI
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
-------
20038
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6001-4]
RIN-2040-AC27
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of data availability with
request for comments.
SUMMARY: On April 12, 1996, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published proposed minor revisions to
the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRS) for Lead and
Copper (61 FR 16348). EPA is providing
additional information that the Agency
is considering for public review and
comment. The Agency also is soliciting
comment on several additional options
that EPA is considering for adoption
into the final regulatory revisions.
DATES: Written comments should be
postmarked or delivered by hand by
June 22, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
the Lead and Copper Rule Comment
Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Please submit an original and three
copies of your comments and enclosures
(including references). If you wish to
hand-deliver your comments, please call
the Docket at (202) 260-3027 between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, to
obtain the room number for the Docket.
Please see Supplementary Information
under the heading "Additional
Information for Commenters" for
detailed filing instructions, including
electronic submissions.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket name
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. The
record includes supporting
documentation as well as printed, paper
versions of electronic comments. The
record is available for inspection from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays at the Water
Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460. For access to the Docket
materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to
schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free 1-
800-426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water
Hotline is open Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For technical
inquiries, contact Judy Lebowich,
Standards and Risk Management
Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, EPA (MC-4607), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone (202) 260-7595. Please see
Supplementary Information under the
heading "Additional Data and
Analyses" for information on obtaining
access to the references cited in this
Notice at EPA Regional Office locations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by the
Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule
are public water systems that are
classified as either community water
systems (CWSs) or non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs).
Regulated categories and entities
include:
Category
Industry
State, Tribal, and
Local Governments.
Examples of regu-
lated entities
Privately-owned
CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
Publicly-owned CWSs
and NTNCWSs.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by the Lead and Copper Minor
Revisions Rule. This table lists the types
of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by the Lead and
Copper Minor Revisions Rule. Transient
non-community water systems
(TNCWSs) may also be regulated by the
Lead and Copper Rule in the future
depending on EPA's assessment of the
data referenced in this notice pertaining
to the short-term health effects of lead
in drinking water at TNCWSs and the
public comments received in response
to today's notice. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by the Lead and
Copper Minor Revisions Rule, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in §§ 141.3 and
141.80 (a) of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
the Lead and Copper Minor Revisions
Rule to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Additional Information for Commenters
To ensure that EPA can read,
understand and therefore properly
respond to your comments, the Agency
requests that commenters follow the
following format: Type or print
comments in ink, and cite, where
possible, the paragraph (s) in this Notice
to which each comment refers. Please
use a separate paragraph for each issue
discussed and limit your comments to
the issues addressed in today's Notice.
If you want EPA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments, enclose a
self-addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments also may be submitted
electronically tp ow-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as a
WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect 6.1, or
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and forms of encryption and
must be transmitted by midnight June
22, 1998. Electronic comments must be
identified by the docket name, number,
or title of the Federal Register.
Comments and data also will be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1,
WordPerfect 6.1, or ASCII file format.
Electronic comments on this notice may
be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
List of Abbreviations Used in This
Document
(b) (1) system—a small or medium-
sized water system that is deemed to
have optimized corrosion control
pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(l)
(b) (2) system—a water system that is
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2)
(b) (3) system—a water system that is
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81 (b) (3)
D/DBP—disinfectants and disinfection
byproducts
LCR—Lead and Copper Rule
NPDWRs—National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
NTNCWS—non-transient non-
community water system
OWQP—value or range for a water
quality parameter that has been
designated by the State as
representing optimal corrosion
control
SDWIS—Safe, Drinking Water
Information System
TNCWS—transient non-community
water system
WQP—water quality parameter
Table of Contents
A. Additional Data and Analyses
1. Exclusion of TNCWSs
2. Timing of Monitoring for Systems
Subject to Reduced Lead and Copper Tap
Monitoring
B. Additional Regulatory Options EPA is
Considering
1. Requirement that Systems Operate
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
zoose
2. Monitoring for WQPs after the
Installation of Corrosion Control
Treatment
3. Notification of Residents of Buildings
Served by Partially-Replaced Lead
Service Lines
4. State Reporting Requirements
(a) Clarify the Manner of Reporting
(b) Data to be Reported
C. Simultaneous Compliance Considerations:
D/DBP Stage 1 Enhanced Coagulation
Requirements and the LCR
A. Additional Data and Analyses
On April 12, 1996, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published
proposed minor revisions to the
NPDWRs for Lead and Copper (61 FR
16348). EPA is making available for
public review and comment additional
data and analyses associated with two of
the topics discussed in that proposal: (1)
The continued exclusion of TNCWSs
from coverage under the LCR; and (2)
the requirement for water systems
subject to reduced monitoring under the
rule to collect tap water samples for lead
and copper during the months of June
through September.
The new data and analyses are cited
below. In addition to being available for
review by anyone in the LCR Docket,
EPA has a limited number of copies
available to provide to requesters. A
single set of materials pertaining to each
of the above topics may be ordered free-
of-charge, while supplies last, by calling
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-
800-426-4791 and providing the
following document information.
• EPA Publication #EPA 815-B-97-003.
December 1997. Information Pertaining to
Lead in Drinking Water at Transient Non-
Community Water Systems. (This document
contains all of the materials cited below
under the heading of Exclusion of TNCWSs.)
• EPA Publication #EPA 815-B-97-004.
December 1997. The Effect of Temperature
on Corrosion Control. (This document
contains all of the materials cited below
under the heading of Timing of Monitoring
for Systems Subject to Reduced Lead and
Copper Tap Monitoring.)
These materials also are available for
viewing at the following Regional
locations.
I. John F. Kennedy Federal Building, One
Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-001.
Contact: Ellie Kwong, Phone: (617) 565-3604.
II. 260 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-
1866. Contact: Taj Khan, Phone: (212)
637-3826.
III. 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA
19107. Contact: Ed Hotham, Phone: (215)
566-5778.
IV. AFC-Tower 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. Contact: Region
4 Library, Phone: (404) 562-8190.
V. 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604-3507. Contact: Miguel Del Toral,
Phone: (312) 886-5253.
VI. Fountain Place, 12th Floor, Suite 1200,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
2733. Contact: Dave Reazin, Phone: (214)
665-7501.
VII. 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101. Contact: Elizabeth Murtagh-Yaw,
Phone:(913)551-7440.
VIII. 999 18th Street Suite 500, Denver, CO
80202-2466. Contact: Marty Swickard,
Phone: (303) 312-7021.
IX. 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Contact: Roger Yates, Phone:
(415) 744-1843.
X. 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Contact: Region 10 Library, Phone: (206)
553-1289.
1. Exclusion of TNCWSs
In the preamble to the April 12, 1996,
proposal, EPA indicated that the Agency
was in the process of collecting
additional data relevant to the exclusion
of TNCWSs from coverage under the
LCR and that the Agency would make
that data available for public review and
comment prior to the promulgation of a
final rule. EPA is providing the
following additional information
pertaining to the short-term health
effects of lead and the likely occurrence
of high levels of lead in drinking water
at TNCWSs for public review and
comment in fulfillment of that
commitment. Based upon review of
these documents, which are listed
below, the Agency continues to support
the position articulated in the proposed
minor revisions (61 FR 16349 first
column) that the exclusion of this
category of public water systems from
coverage under the LCR should be
maintained. EPA solicits comment on
whether the data cited below should
alter this position.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), 1992. Toxicological
Profile for Lead. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health
Services, Atlanta, GA. TP-92/12. Pages 9,
65, 66, 98, and 99.
Giridhar, J. and Isom, G.E. 1990. Interaction
of Lead Acetate with Atrial Natriuretic
Factor in Rats. Life Science, 46(8):569-576.
Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphyrias:
Recent Advances. Clinical Chemistry,
32(7):1255-1263.
Karmakar, N., Saxena, R., and Anand, S.
1986. Histopathological Changes Induced
in Rat Tissues by Oral Intake of Lead
Acetate. Environmental Research,
41(l):23-28.
Khan, A.J., Patel, U., Rafeeq, M., Myerson, A.,
Kumar, K., and Evans, H.E. January 1983.
Reversible Acute Renal Failure in Lead
Poisoning. Journal of Pediatrics,
102(1):147-149.
Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E. Brautbar, N., Hu, N.,
McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golub, M.S.;
Berger, M. Chang, C., Jamgotchian, N., and
Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid Hypertensinogenic
Effect of Lead: Studies in Spontaneously
Hypertensive Rat. Toxicol In. Health, 8(1-
2):89-102.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1995. A Survey Study of Lead in
Drinking Water Supplied by Transient
Water Systems. Prepared by R.P. Maas, S.C.
Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown,
Environmental Quality Institute, The
University of North Carolina at Ashville.
Technical Report # 95-019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 20, 1996. Note from Jeff Cohen to
Judy Lebowich and Connie Bosma entitled:
Analysis of UNC-Ashville Survey of Lead
at Transient Systems.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
November 3, 1997. Effects from Short-Term
Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water.
EPA solicits public comment on these
data as well as any additional data
relevant to the continued exclusion of
transients from coverage under the rule
that commenters may wish to submit.
2. Timing of Monitoring for Systems
Subject to Reduced Lead and Copper
Tap Monitoring.
In the April 12, 1996, notice, EPA
proposed a revision to § 141.86(d)(4)(iv)
that would allow seasonal NTNCWSs
subject to reduced monitoring that do
not operate between the months of June
and September to collect lead and
copper tap water samples during their
warmest months of operation. Several
commenters suggested that all water
systems be allowed greater flexibility in
the timing of collection of lead and
copper tap water samples on the basis
that the ambient outdoor temperature is
not the only variable that may
significantly affect tap water levels of
lead and copper. The Agency agrees that
it may be appropriate to provide such
flexibility and is providing for public
review and comment the following
documents which present data and
analyses pertaining to the effect of
temperature on lead and copper
leaching.
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E.,
and Harward, C. June 1992.
Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in
Hard Waters. Journal IWEM, 6(3):259-268.
Dodrill, D.M., and Edwards, M. July 1995.
Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility
Experience. Journal A WWA, 74-85.
Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E.
March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper
Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal
AWWA, 81-94.
Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996.
Copper Corrosion and Iron Removal Plants.
Conference Paper. Section of Drinking
Water Protection, Minnesota Department of
Health.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An
Evaluation of the Secondary Effects of
Enhanced Coagulation, With Emphasis on
Corrosion Control. Conference Paper
prepared by D.A. Lytle, M.R. Schock, and
R.J. Miltner, Treatment and Technology
-------
20040
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 777Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
Evaluation Branch, Water Supply and
Water Resources Division, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 19. 1996. Memo from Michael R.
Schock, Treatment and Technology
Branch, Water Supply and Water
Resources Division, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, to
Jeffrey B. Kempic of the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, entitled:
Seasonal Monitoring Revision. (Note:
References 5, 6. and 7 cited in the memo
arc not provided for public review and
comment. The Agency is not factoring the
data contained in these studies into its
decision making.)
Wagner, I.June 18-22.1988. Effects of
Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal
Uptake. Proceedings of American Water
Works Conference.
In light of the data presented in the
documents cited above, the Agency is
considering allowing any water system
subject to reduced monitoring to collect
lead and copper tap water samples
during the months of normal operation
when lead levels are likely to be the
highest, or as otherwise designated by
the State, instead of prescribing the
specific months during which reduced
monitoring may occur. EPA recognizes
that it will be difficult in many cases to
predict beforehand whether a given
water chemistry coupled with physical
factors will cause the highest values at
a particular time. There may be
instances, however, where monitoring
data from similar systems or prior
monitoring or survey experience at a
particular system is available that would
suggest when the most appropriate
monitoring time(s) will occur. In the
absence of such data, the Agency
believes it could still be appropriate to
provide States and systems flexibility to
decide when to schedule sample
collection within the monitoring period.
EPA recognizes that water systems
already monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap on an annual or triennial
frequency may feel locked in to
collecting samples during the months of
June through September in order either
to avoid collecting samples sooner than
they otherwise would have to or to
avoid a monitoring violation for not
sampling on time. For example, assume
a water system is monitoring triennially
and last collected samples during the
months of June through September
1997. If it were determined that it would
be more appropriate for the system to
collect samples during the months of
December through March, it might be
assumed that the system would need to
collect the next round of samples six
months early Pecember 1999 through
March 2000) in order to avoid incurring
a monitoring violation for not collecting
the next round of samples by September
2000.
This assumption, however, is not
necessarily accurate. If this option is
promulgated, it is not the Agency's
intent to force systems already on a
reduced monitoring schedule to
continue to collect samples during the
summer months if some other sample
collection time makes more sense. In
such cases, EPA believes it may be
appropriate to give States the discretion
to determine the need for, and timing of,
a transitional monitoring period. For
example, in the situation described
above, the State may determine that it
would be better to extend the schedule
to March 2001 for that one round of
monitoring. Such a decision may be
appropriate in those instances where the
current monitoring period would end
before system could collect samples in
the new time frame and the State has
determined, based on the system's
consistently low tap water lead and
copper levels, that extending the one
monitoring period is unlikely to result
in an increased risk to public health.
EPA solicits public comment on these
data, the appropriateness of revising the
requirements for the collection of
samples under reduced monitoring as
discussed above, and whether there is a
need for the rule to explicitly provide
States the flexibility to establish a
transitional monitoring period.
B. Additional Regulatory Options EPA
is Considering
The Agency is soliciting public
comment on two additional regulatory
options being considered in conjunction
with requirements pertaining to the
maintenance of optimal corrosion
control treatment, a new regulatory
option regarding notification of
residents of buildings served by lead
service lines where only a portion of the
service line is to be replaced, and two
additional regulatory options being
considered in conjunction with State
reporting requirements. These options
are described below.
1. Requirement that Systems Operate
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
Section 141.80(d) requires all water
systems to install and operate optimal
corrosion control treatment. The method
by which a system demonstrates
compliance with this requirement
depends on its size and the results of
initial monitoring. The four basic
pathways are summarized below.
(1) A small or medium-size system may be
deemed to have optimized corrosion control
if it can demonstrate for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods that it does not
exceed either the lead or the copper action
level pursuant to § 141.81(b)(l). This
demonstration can be made whether or not
treatment is actually physically present. Such
systems demonstrate ongoing compliance
with the requirement to operate and maintain
optimal corrosion control through annual or
once-every-three-year (triennial) monitoring
for lead and copper at the tap.
(2) A system may demonstrate to the
State's satisfaction, pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(2), that it has already completed
activities equivalent to the rule's corrosion
control treatment steps. The State must
designate OWQPs for such a system which
then demonstrates compliance through
routine WQP monitoring.1
(3) A system may demonstrate to the
State's satisfaction, pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(3), that very little corrosion is
occurring in the distribution system.2 In
some cases, a system may be deemed to have
optimized corrosion control even if no
corrosion control treatment is physically
present. In other cases, a system may be
deemed to have optimized corrosion control
if it had previously installed corrosion
control treatment prior to conducting initial
lead and copper tap monitoring. Currently,
such systems are not required to do any
routine monitoring; however, EPA proposed
on April 12, 1996, to require these (b)(3)
systems to monitor for lead and copper at the
tap no less frequently than triennially.
(4) A system may complete the corrosion
control treatment steps specified in
§ 141.81 (d) for large systems or § 141.81 (e) for
small and medium-size systems. As a part of
this process, the system is required to install
the optimal corrosion control treatment
designated by the State3 and to complete two
rounds of follow-up monitoring. Unless the
system meets the criteria of § 141.81(b)(l)
based on the results of the follow-up
monitoring, the State then designates
OWQPs; the system demonstrates it is
maintaining optimal corrosion control
through routine monitoring of these WQPs.
While EPA does not require the
designation of OWQPs or routine WQP
monitoring for (b) (1) systems or for
(b) (3) systems, the Agency believes it is
essential that the State requires these
utilities to implement appropriate
process control mechanisms to assure
proper and consistent operation of any
corrosion control treatment that is in
place at the time the system is deemed
to be optimized that is or subsequently
i Note: EPA proposed on April 12, 1996, to clarify
this requirement for routine WQP monitoring.
2 Section 141.81(b)(3) does not currently include
any conditions pertaining to copper. EPA proposed
on April 12, 1996, to also require systems to meet
the copper action level to be eligible for the a (b) (3)
exception of installing optimal corrosion control
treatment.
3 In many cases, "installation of optimal corrosion
control treatment" will require the physical
installation of a new treatment process. In other
cases, "installation" may be achieved through
adjustment to existing treatment processes) already
in place. In a few instances, the State may
determine that optimal corrosion control already
exists and that no further treatment changes are
necessary.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules
20041
installed. These process control
mechanisms may involve some WQP
monitoring but, in some instances, may
be in the form of daily logs or other
information routinely provided to the
State (or available to the State upon
request). The Agency believes it is more
appropriate to give States the flexibility
to define the specific process control
requirements than to prescribe these
requirements in a national regulation,
since most States routinely require
certain treatment and operational
control verifications as a condition of a
system's operating permit.
EPA is concerned, however, that a
(b) (1) system or a (b) (3) system may
misinterpret the absence of specific
Federal process control requirements as
meaning that it has a license to "turn
off," or depart from, optimal corrosion
control treatment in the absence of
required monitoring under the LCR.
EPA therefore is considering wording
changes to the introductory paragraph of
§ 141.81 (b) and to § 141.82(g) to clarify
that all water systems are required to
operate and maintain optimal corrosion
control even if there are no specific
Federal requirements for the system to
monitor for WQPs.
Currently, the introductory paragraph
of §141.81 (b) reads:
A system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control and is not required to
complete the applicable corrosion control
treatment steps1 identified in this section if
the system satisfies one of the following
criteria: * * *
EPA is considering revising it to read
as follows:
A system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control and is not required to
complete the applicable corrosion control
treatment steps identified in this section if
the system satisfies one of the criteria
specified in paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(3)
of this section. All systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this
paragraph shall continue to operate and
maintain any optimal corrosion control
treatment in place at the time the system is
deemed to have optimized corrosion control
and any requirements that the State
determines appropriate to ensure such
treatment is maintained.
The first sentence of § 141.82(g)
currently reads:
All systems shall maintain water quality
parameter values at or above minimum
values or within ranges designated by the
State under paragraph (f) of this section in
each sample collected under § 141.87(d).
It would be revised to read as follows:
All systems optimizing corrosion control
under this subpart shall continue to operate
and maintain any such treatment, including
maintaining water quality parameters at or
above minimum values or within ranges
designated by the State under paragraph (f)
of this section, in each sample collected
under § 141.87(d).
These wording revisions do not add
any new requirements; rather they
clarify EPA's original intent that
systems deemed to have optimized
corrosion control continue to maintain
any treatment in place to ensure that
lead and copper levels remain minimal.
The Agency does not believe there will
be any change in regulatory burden as
a result of this clarification.
EPA solicits public comment on this
clarification.
2. Monitoring for WQPs After the
Installation of Corrosion Control
Treatment
Water systems subject to routine WQP
monitoring requirements must collect
WQP samples at each entry point to the
distribution system once every two
weeks (biweekly). Although EPA did
not request public comment on the issue
of compliance with OWQPs, several
commenters expressed concern that the
current approach for determining water
system compliance with OWQPs could
trigger inappropriate violations and
recommended that EPA change the
approach. After reviewing these
comments, EPA is considering a
regulatory change to modify the
definition of what constitutes a WQP
violation.
Under the current regulation, any
system that has an excursion from the
State-designated OWQP range is
allowed to take a confirmation sample
within three days. Section 141.82(g)
defines an OWQP violation as follows:
* * * If the water quality parameter value
of any sample is below the minimum value
or outside the range designated by the State,
then the system is out of compliance with
this paragraph. As specified in § 141.87(d),
the system may take a confirmation sample
for any water quality parameter value no later
than 3 days after the first sample. If a
confirmation sample is taken, the result must
be averaged with the first sampling result and
the average must be used for any compliance
determinations under this paragraph. States
have discretion to delete results of obvious
sampling errors from this calculation.
Some systems, especially large surface
water systems, conduct WQP
monitoring more frequently than
required by the LCR in order to
maintain effective process control.
Because § 141.87(f) requires that these
"diagnostic" monitoring results also be
considered, § 141.87(f) can complicate
OWQP compliance determinations.
Section 141.87(f) reads as follows:
Additional monitoring by systems. The
results of any monitoring conducted in
addition to the minimum requirements of
this section shall be considered by the system
and the State in making any determinations
(i.e., determining concentrations of water
quality parameters) under this section or
§141.82.
Since § 141.82 describes OWQP
compliance, any "diagnostic"
monitoring results also must be factored
into the compliance determination.
The current regulatory language
requires that even a minor excursion
from the State-designated OWQPs be
identified as a violation, even when it
may not reflect a problem in the
operation of treatment or be of any
public health concern. Rather than
assigning a violation to a situation
which may not be a public health
concern, EPA is considering modifying
the confirmation sample approach in
the existing rule by eliminating the
language in §§ 141.82(g) and 141.87(d)
on confirmation samples and replacing
it with a provision allowing a repeat
sample that would need to be taken
within three days. Instead of basing
compliance on the average of the
original and confirmation samples,
compliance would be determined based
solely on the results of the repeat
sample, if one is collected, or on the
results of the first sample if a repeat
sample is not collected. This would
preclude an attempt by a system to
overcompensate with a treatment
correction (that might adversely impact
other treatment processes) just to ensure
that the average of the two samples
would be within an acceptable range.
The revised regulatory provisions
EPA is considering also provide better
process control than the current
regulation. EPA is concerned that the
averaging approach in the current rule
could allow systems that are not
adequately controlling some WQPs to
remain in compliance. The following
example illustrates the concern. A State
sets a WQP pH range of 7.3-7.8 for a
system that uses a caustic feed pump at
the wellhead or at the'end of a water
plant feeding into the system. If the
pump is not well controlled, it is
possible that the pH can be 6.9 one day
and 8.4 three days later when the
confirmation sample is taken. Under the
procedure in the current rule, the
average (7.65) is within the range, but
adequate process control is not being
maintained. Variability in pH values can
commonly occur with lime feed
treatment at many small and some
medium-sized treatment plants. The
goal of OWQP monitoring is to ensure
good process control. The current
approach, however, has the potential to
reward poor process control, as seen in
this example.
-------
20042
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
Under the new option EPA is
considering, the third and fourth
sentences in § 141,82(g) would be
revised to read as follows:
As specified in § 141.87(d), the system may
take a repeat sample for any water quality
parameter value no later than 3 days after the
first sample. If a repeat sample is taken,
compliance determination under this
paragraph will be based solely on the results
of the repeat sample; if a repeat sample is not
taken, compliance determination under this
paragraph will be based on the results of the
first sample.
The third and fourth sentences in
§ 141.87(d) would be revised to read as
follows:
The system may take a repeat sample for
any water quality parameter value no later
than 3 days after the first sample. If a repeat
sample Is taken, any compliance
determination under § 141.82(g) must be
based solely on the results of the repeat
sample; if a repeat sample is not taken, the
result of the first sample must be used for an
compliance determination under § 141.82(g).
This approach parallels the repeat
sampling approach in the Total
Coliform Rule and is one of the reasons
for changing the terminology from
"confirmation samples" to "repeat
samples." Another reason for changing
the terminology is to avoid confusion
with confirmation samples under the
NPDWRs for organic and inorganic
chemicals where averaging of results is
still required.
EPA does not believe that it is
necessary to change § 141.87(f) as a part
of this option. That is, systems and
States would continue to be required to
factor the results of any monitoring
conducted in addition to the minimum
requirements of § 141.87 into the
compliance determination.
There is no increase in burden to
implement this option since both the
current rule and this option allow a
second sample to be taken. This option
would only change how the results from
the second sample are used to
determine compliance.
EPA solicits public comment on tfiis
new approach.
3. Notification of Residents of Buildings
Served by Partially-Replaced Lead
Service Lines
In the April 12, 1996, notice, EPA
proposed changes to the rule's lead
service line replacement requirements at
§ 141.84(d). While some provisions
within § 141.84(d) pertaining to partial
lead service line replacement were
proposed to be changed, no revision was
proposed to the notification
requirements associated with partial
lead service line replacement. As
proposed, § 141.84(d) contains the
following requirements:
* * * 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 [that is under the system's
control] 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 residents) that the system
will collect a first flush tap water sample
after partial replacement of the service line
is completed if the residents) so desire. In
cases where the residents) accept the offer,
the system shall collect the sample and
report the results to the resident® within 14
days following partial lead service line
replacement.
Upon further consideration, EPA
believes that this language is somewhat
ambiguous as to who is to be notified in
those instances where the property
owner and the resident are not the same
(e.g., apartment buildings). The Agency
also believes the requirement to take a
follow-up sample upon resident request
could place an undue burden on the
water system in those instances where
a line serves a large multifamily
residence because the system could be
required to take numerous follow-up
samples. EPA does not believe that a
large number of samples is required to
determine the immediate effect of the
partial replacement. Finally, EPA is
concerned that the time frame specified
for the sample collection and reporting
of the results may not provide an
adequate level of public health
protection.
In order to address these concerns,
EPA is considering the following
revision to § 141.84(d).
(1) Replacing the word "user" in the
first sentence of the requirement cited
above with the word "owner" to clarify
that the offer to replace the privately-
owned portion of the line should be
made to the property owner.
(2) Adding a requirement that the
water system provide a notice to the
residents) of the building(s) served by
the line at least 45 days before
commencing with partial lead service
line replacement. The purpose of such
notice would be to inform the actual
consumers) of the tap water affected by
the lead service line that they may
experience a temporary increase of lead
levels in their drinking water due to
material disturbances in the
construction process and to provide
them with guidance about the measures
they can take to minimize their
exposure to lead. The Agency feels that
45 days is a sufficient amount of time
for the recipients to study the guidance
provided by the water supplier, to
familiarize themselves with the
potential ramifications associated with
the partial lead service line
replacement, and to plan and
implement appropriate measures to
avoid exposure to lead.
(3) Replacing the requirement for a
resident-requested follow-up sample
within 14 days of completing the partial
replacement with the following
requirement:
* * * The water system shall inform the
residents) that the system will collect one
tap water sample representative of the water
in the service line for analysis of lead content
as prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3) within 24
hours after the completion of the partial
replacement of the service line. The system
shall collect the sample and report the results
of the analysis to the owner and the
residents) served by the line within three
days of receiving the results.
The Agency feels that the affected
parties should be provided with the test
results as quickly as possible so they
can implement appropriate measures
commensurate with the findings as soon
as they can to minimize their exposure.
In addition, unnecessary expenses and
further concerns will be alleviated in
those instances where the analytical
results indicate no increase in lead
levels resulting from the partial
replacement.
(4) Adding the following provision to
provide for some flexibility in the
method of delivery of the required
notification(s):
The water system shall provide the
required information to the residents of
individual dwellings by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In instances
where multifamily dwellings are served by
the line, the water supplier shall have the
option to post the information at a
conspicuous location.
In order to facilitate State
determination of compliance with the
requirement to collect a follow-up
sample after partial replacement of a
lead service line, EPA believes it is
appropriate that the results from the
follow-up sample also be reported to the
State, in addition to being maintained in
the system's files as required by
§ 141.91. The Agency does not believe
that it is essential that the results be
provided to the State within three days
of receiving the results, however.
Instead, EPA is considering an option
that would require the water system to
provide the results to the State within
the first ten days of the month following
the month in which the system receives
the results. In this way, the reporting of
the results to the State can be combined
with other regularly submitted data to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22,'1998/Proposed Rules
20043
the State so that any increased burden
associated with this additional system
reporting requirement is kept to a
minimum. If the Agency decides to add
this reporting requirement, it will be
codified as a new § 141.90 (e)(4).4
EPA requests public comment on the
above provisions pertaining to
notification associated with partial lead
service line replacement, including
comments on potential burden
implications.
4. State Reporting Requirements
EPA is considering and requests
public comment on the following two
revisions affecting State reporting of
data to EPA.
(a) Clarify the Manner of Reporting
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 142.15
explicitly provide authority to the
Administrator of EPA to specify the
format of reporting for violation, follow-
up actions, and inventory data. Section
142.15(c)(4), which defines 90th
percentile and milestone reporting for
the LCR, is silent concerning the format
of that reporting. As a result, some
States have questioned whether EPA has
the authority to require that the LCR
90th percentile and milestone data be
reported in a prescribed format. EPA
requests public comment on whether
the Agency should clarify in the
introductory text of § 142.15 (c) (4), that
"States shall report to EPA by * * *, in
a format prescribed by the
Administrator, the following
information * * *."
(b) Data to be Reported
In light of the comments received on
State reporting requirements and careful
internal deliberations, EPA is
considering restructuring the State
reporting requirements for the LCR. EPA
has been guided by several principles
during these deliberations and has
sought to achieve a balance between the
information required to oversee rule
implementation and the need to reduce
the reporting burden to the maximum
extent possible without jeopardizing
public health or protection of the
environment. EPA is considering an
option that would reduce the number of
milestones that States would be
required to report to the Agency. This
option would in no way change the
information the States are required to
keep in State files or data systems—only
the information which would be
reported on a regular basis to EPA. A
" On April 12, 1996, EPA proposed to delete the
existing § 141.90(e)(4) since it would no longer be
relevant if the rule is revised to remove the
rebutable presumption that the water system
controls the entire length of the service line.
more complete explanation of EPA's
rationale and guiding principles
follows.
First, implementation of the LCR is,
and will remain, a high priority for the
EPA due to the significant health effects
of lead, especially on children. The
State reporting requirements reflect this
priority in that they go beyond
requirements for other drinking water
regulations (that is, beyond reporting
violation and follow-up actions to the
Agency). In addition, as noted above,
the State record keeping requirements
would not be changed by this revision.
EPA expects States to maintain the
required information in their files. EPA
intends to periodically audit these files
as part of its review of State
performance. EPA may ask States in the
future to provide the Agency additional
detailed information on implementation
of the LCR, for example, a one-time
report on systems for which the State
has designated OWQPs or maximum
permissible source water levels. EPA
believes that this approach will be less
burdensome overall to the States, yet
will provide the Agency the information
it needs to oversee implementation of
this priority rule.
Second, EPA has sought to simplify
the reporting requirements. The LCR is
one of the most complex drinking water
regulations. The rule's implementation
period may be as long as 25 years from
the time the Agency promulgated the
rule for systems which are triggered into
lead service line replacement
requirements. Compliance with many
key treatment technique requirements is
based on the system meeting prescribed
milestones, with several years
potentially elapsing between
milestones. Moreover, States have
significant discretion in the
determination of system-specific
requirements such as what constitutes
optimal corrosion control. Finally, a
system may be in compliance with the
rule's requirements, yet still have high
levels of lead or copper at the tap.
As a result of these complexities, EPA
imposed State reporting requirements
that were intended to provide
information on compliance with all of
the interim milestones in order to
oversee rule implementation, to respond
to inquiries from the public and others,
and to target compliance assistance and
enforcement efforts. EPA believes these
activities still must be accomplished for
this priority rule, however, the Agency
is seeking to simplify the State reporting
requirements, while retaining sufficient
information in the national data base to
provide a degree of oversight and to
answer some basic questions. Some
have suggested that EPA eliminate all
milestone reporting. EPA disagrees with
the appropriateness of doing so. Due
primarily to the structure and
requirements of the rule, EPA believes
strongly that the Agency continues to
need more information about the status
of LCR implementation than can be
derived simply from violation and
follow-up action data.
Therefore, EPA is considering an
option that would eliminate the
requirement for States to report
completion of several of the interim
milestones but would provide better
information than the currently required
milestone reporting for a few key
activities. Under this new option, States
would be required to report the
following key elements.
(1) The 90th percentile lead values for all
PWSs that exceed the lead action level, the
90th percentile lead values (even where the
lead action level is not exceeded) for all large
and medium-size systems, and the 90th
percentile copper values for all PWSs that
exceed the copper action level. Note that it
is a data sharing "goal" for States to provide
the 90th percentile lead values below the
action level for small systems as well. EPA
is not planning to require reporting of these
values at this time due to the burden of
reporting that data for the very large number
of small systems.
(2) A "deemed" milestone indicating that
the system has optimized corrosion control
along with an indication of the basis upon
which that determination was made (e.g., the
system is deemed to be optimized pursuant
to § 141,81 (b)(l), (b)(2), or (b)(3), the system
is optimized as a result of installing corrosion
control treatment, or the system is optimized
on the basis of adjusting existing treatment).
(3) Systems required to replace lead service
lines.
(4) A "done" milestone that indicates that
the system has completed all applicable
corrosion control, source water treatment and
lead service line replacement requirements.
Note that for many systems it may be
possible to report this milestone at the same
time as the "deemed" milestone.
This information, along with the
quarterly violation and follow-up
information, will provide EPA data on
the status of rule implementation and
will allow targeting of compliance and
enforcement activities based on the
violations which are reported. As noted
above, additional information may be
obtained through audits of State files or,
if the need arises, through special one-
time reports.
Given the deletion of many of the
milestone reporting requirements, it will
be critical that States report this more
limited set of information completely
and in a timely manner. EPA will be
following up with States to ensure that
this is occurring.
Table 1 compares the current State
reporting requirements, the revisions
-------
20044
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
the Agency's rationale for the new
option.
proposed on April 12, 1996, and the
new option EPA is considering. The
table also provides a brief explanation of
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LEAD
AND COPPER RULE
Requirement
Frequency of reporting
for milestone & ex-
ceedance data.
90th percentile lead
values.
90th percentile copper
values.
Systems required to
conduct corrosion
control study
[CCSR].
Systems that have
completed corrosion
control study
[CCSCJ.
State designation of
optimal corrosion
control treatment
(OCCT) to be in-
stalled [OTDE].
State designation of
source water treat-
ment (SOWT) to be
installed [STDEJ.
Systems that have in-
stalled OCCT [OTIN].
Systems that have in-
stalled source water
treatment [SOWT].
Systems for which
State has des-
ignated water quality
(WQP) ranges
[WQ.PSJ.
Current requirement
Quarterly
Required for all lead
action level (AL)
exceedances; re-
quested via guid-
ance for all large/
medium systems <=
lead AL and for any
small system that
has exceeded the
lead AL at some
time in the past.
Required for all cop-
per AL
exceedances.
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
4/12/96 proposal
Requested comment
on reducing the fre-
quency to semi-an-
nual or annual but
did not propose any
changes.
Require for all lead AL
exceedances and
for large/medium
systems <= lead AL
Retain current require-
ment.
Eliminate ...
Eliminate
Retain .
Retain
Eliminate
Retain
Retain
New option
Retain quarterly re-
porting.
Require as proposed;
make reporting of
values <= lead AL
for small systems a
data sharing goal.
Retain current require-
ment make report-
ing of values <=
copper AL a data
sharing goal.
Eliminate
Eliminate
Eliminate
Redefine to indicate
that system is opti-
mized and the basis
for considering it
optimized. Require
reporting for all sys-
tems.
Eliminate
Rationale
90th percentile data used as part of deter-
mining significant non-compliers (SNC)
which needs to be done quarterly to en-
sure timely & appropriate follow-up action.
Used in calculation of SNC for some viola-
tions; needed to support environmental in-
dicators and to demonstrate effectiveness
of corrosion control treatment; data fre-
quently requested by the public.
Needed to support environmental indicators
and to provide national view of occur-
rences of high copper levels at the tap.
See Note 1 .
See Note 2.
See Note 1 .
See Note 1 .
Even though States are required to report a
violation if the system fails to install the
corrosion control treatment designated by
the State, this milestone provides fun-
damental information on status of LCR im-
plementation. In addition to indicating that
system has installed corrosion control
treatment, where required, it provides data
on the basis by which other systems are
considered to be optimized. This informa-
tion is not readily available through other
mechanisms.
See Note 2. If EPA needs to know how
many systems installed source water treat-
ment specifically to meet LCR require-
ments, this information could be requested
through a one-time report.
See Note 1 .
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
20045
TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LEAD
AND COPPER RULE—Continued
Requirement
Systems for which
State has des-
ignated maximum
permissible source
water levels (MPLs)
[MPLS].
Systems required to
replace lead service
lines [LSLR].
Systems that have
completed all CCT,
SOWT, and LSLR
requirements.
WQP ranges des-
ignated by State as
representing optimal
corrosion control.
MPLs designated by
State as meeting
source water treat-
ment objectives.
Current requirement
Required
Required. Must also
report any acceler-
ated lead service
line replacement
schedule and an-
nual compliance.
None
None
None
4/12/96 proposal
Eliminate
Revise to eliminate in-
formation about ac-
celerated schedule
and annual compli-
ance.
None
Comments requested
but no requirement
proposed.
Comments requested
but no requirement
proposed.
New option
Eliminate
Revise to eliminate in-
formation about ac-
celerated schedule
and annual compli-
ance.
Add Require reporting
for all systems.
Do not require
Do not require
Rationale
See Note 1 .
Basic milestone provides fundamental infor-
mation about LCR implementation status.
Without this milestone, there is no other
way to readily determine which systems
are required to do lead service line re-
placement.
If system fails to meet an accelerated re-
placement schedule, the State is required
to report a violation. If EPA needs to know
that a system in violation of the lead serv-
ice line replacement requirement is on an
accelerated schedule, this information can
be provided by the State on a case-spe-
cific basis. Data about annual compliance
also redundant reporting since violation re-
porting required for systems failing to meet
this milestone.
Provides fundamental information on status
of LCR implementation.
Ranges by themselves not meaningful un-
less also have significant other system-
specific data.
Levels by themselves not meaningful unless
also have significant other system-specific
data.
NOTES:
1. State determination/decision. EPA need for this milestone is to ensure that States are making timely decisions; this need can be met
through other mechanisms such as program evaluations and periodic data verifications, etc. As defined, there is no way to accurately interpret
what the absence of a milestone means. (It could mean any one of the following: (a) the State did not make a determination/decision whether or
not to require the activity; (b) the State made a determination/decision that the system is not required to perform the activity; or (c) the State
made a determination/decision that the system is required to perform the activity but the State did not report this determination/decision to EPA.)
Redefining the milestone and requiring it to be reported to EPA for every system that exceeds an AL adds unnecessary burden.
2. Redundant reporting since States are required to report a violation if the system fails to meet the milestone.
Under this new option, the reporting
of the "deemed" and "done" milestones
would be required for every system,
including those that have achieved the
milestone prior to the effective date of
the revised State reporting
requirements. EPA also recognizes that
States may need time to adapt their
internal data management systems to
facilitate reporting under this new
option. For these reasons, EPA plans to
allow States at least 18 months from the
date of promulgation of the LCR Minor
Revisions Rule to submit data in
accordance with the revised State
reporting requirements. At the end of
this transition period, however, EPA
would expect all States to have
submitted the "deemed" and "done"
milestones for all systems which have
completed the milestone (s).
Figure 1 shows the estimated change
in national annual burden hours for the
years 1999 through 20095 if this new
option is implemented. The estimated
additional burden in 1999 and 2000 is
due primarily to the requirement to
report the "deemed" and "done"
milestones for all systems.6 EPA
51998 through 2009 represents the remaining
time in the original 18-year planning window for
which burden/costs were estimated when the LCR
was promulgated in 1991.
6 Consistent with Agency policy, burden
estimates are derived using a static inventory.
estimates that States will need to report
the "deemed" milestone for all systems
and the "done" milestone for all
systems except those triggered into lead
service line replacement by the end of
the 18-month transition period. The
slight increases estimated for the years
2001, 2004, and 2007 are due to the
reporting of all 90th percentile lead
values for large and medium-size
systems.
Therefore, the estimates do not include any burden
for new systems that might come into existence
after the promulgation of the rule. The Agency also
has used simplifying assumptions that all systems
are in compliance with the rule's deadlines and that
action level exceedances occurred during the first
round of initial monitoring.
-------
20046
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
Figure 1
Estimated Annual National Change in State Burden
Associated with New State Reporting Requirements Option
70000-
60000-
50000-
§ 40000-
e
•S 30000-
10000-
m
"-(• , -I
•j •
1939
tV;*
AjCv£
-."5 '- ;
,..'',,.- • •
[r"~R. | p^?s;!igr'| (rj£?"'-Ti
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CalondarYaar
NOTE: Slight increases of < 300 hour/year occur in 2000, 2002,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009.
EPA believes this new State reporting
requirement option will significantly
Improve the Agency's ability to assess
program progress toward the Rule's
goals and, at the same time, minimize
the necessity of requesting additional
clarifying information from the States
on a large number of systems on an ad
hoc, quick turnaround, basis. EPA plans
to use these data to demonstrate
progress toward reducing the levels of
lead and copper at the tap in several
ways. In addition to computing
compliance statistics, the Agency plans
to utilize 90th percentile data for large
and medium-size systems to
characterize overall national changes in
the levels of lead at the tap since these
systems serve approximately 90% of the
population that receives their drinking
water from public water systems. Under
the existing regulation, States are not
required to report 90th percentile lead
levels unless the system exceeds 0.015
mg/L. The Agency therefore cannot
assess changes in 90th percentile levels
below this level. The remaining
milestones to be reported under this
new option also will provide EPA a
much better capability to reflect a
system's actual implementation status.
Some of the milestones that EPA
would eliminate from the State
reporting requirements under the new
option pertain to State decision-making.
Under current reporting requirements,
States report to EPA only when they
determine that a system must complete
certain actions, for example, install new
treatment. The absence of a milestone
does not necessarily imply that a State
has failed to make a timely and
appropriate determination, however,
since there is no way to reflect the fact
that the State determined that no
treatment is needed. Rather than impose
the significant burden of reporting each
State decision for every system, the
Agency plans to use other tools such as
performance agreements, periodic
program audits, and data verifications to
ensure that States are meeting their
primacy requirements satisfactorily. The
explicit reporting of State-determination
milestones to EPA would not eliminate
the need for these tools, since they are
needed if EPA and the public are to
have confidence in the integrity of the
data in the national data base. EPA
believes that the benefits described
above justify the added reporting
burden.
EPA solicits comments on this new
option, including the adequacy of the
information that would be required to
be reported on a routine basis. EPA
requests that commenters who believe
the information to be reported under
this option is not adequate specify the
additional information EPA should seek
to obtain, how often, and in what
manner (e.g., quarterly reports to the
national data base, special one-time
reports, etc.) EPA also solicits comments
on the possibility of requiring a separate
report or reports, by a date or dates
certain, on certain milestones, for
example, those systems for which the
State has designated OWQPs or
maximum permissible source water
levels. EPA is especially looking for
comments on the usefulness of such
information as well as the burden of
providing the information to EPA.
Finally, for the "Done" milestone, EPA
requests comment on whether the
Agency should require reporting for all
systems or only for those systems that
continue to exceed an action level after
optimizing corrosion control.
While the preceding discussion
describes EPA's current thinking
concerning State reporting
requirements, the Agency will carefully
review all comments on this notice as
well as prior comments on the proposed
rulemaking in formulating the
requirements contained in the final
rulemaking.
C. Simultaneous Compliance
Considerations: D/DBP Stage 1
Enhanced Coagulation Requirements
and the LCR
On November 3, 1997, EPA published
a Notice of Data Availability pertaining
to the proposed rule for NPDWRs for
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts (62 FR 59388). In response
to that Notice, the Agency received
comments that express concern
regarding utilities' ability to comply
with the Stage 1 D/DBP enhanced
coagulation requirements and LCR
requirements simultaneously.
Commenters stated that enhanced
coagulation will lower the pH and
alkalinity of the water during treatment.
They indicated concern that the lower
pH and alkalinity levels may place
utilities in noncompliance with the LCR
by causing violations of OWQPs and/or
an exceedence of the lead or copper
action levels. EPA is not aware of data
that suggests that low pH and alkalinity
levels cannot be adjusted upward
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 77/Wednesday, April 22, 1998/Proposed Rules
20047
following enhanced coagulation to meet
LCR compliance requirements.
However, as discussed below, the
Agency solicits further comment and
data on this issue.
The LCR separates public water
systems into three categories: large
(> 50,000), medium-size (< 50,000 but
> 3,300) and small (< 3,300). Small and
medium-size systems that do not exceed
the lead and copper action levels for
two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods are deemed to have optimized
corrosion control. These systems do not
have to operate under OWQPs. Optimal
water quality control parameters consist
of pH, alkalinity, calcium concentration,
and phosphate and silicate corrosion
inhibitors. They are designated by the
State. Small and medium-size systems
that continue to exceed an action level
after installation of corrosion control
treatment must operate under State-
specified OWQPs. Large systems must
operate under OWQPs specified by the
State unless they are deemed to have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to
§ 141.81 (b) (3).
Maintenance of each OWQP
mentioned above (except for calcium
concentration) is directly related to
meeting specified pH and alkalinity
levels at the entry point to the
distribution system and in tap samples
to establish LCR compliance. In
treatment trains that EPA is aware of,
utilities have the technological
capability to raise the pH (by adding
caustic—NaOH, Ca(OH)2) and alkalinity
(by adding Na2CO3 or NaHCO3) of the
water following enhanced coagulation
and before it enters the distribution
system. Although certain utilities may
need to add chemical feed points to
provide chemical adjustment, pH and
alkalinity can be maintained at the
values used prior to the implementation
of enhanced coagulation. Systems that
operate with pH and alkalinity OWQPs
should be able to meet the State-
prescribed values by providing pH and
alkalinity adjustment prior to entry to
the distribution system. Systems that
operate without pH and alkalinity
OWQPs can raise the pH and alkalinity
to the levels they were at before
enhanced coagulation by providing
chemical adjustment prior to
distribution system entry.
The goal of calcium carbonate
stabilization is to precipitate a layer of
CaCOs scale on the pipe wall to protect
it from corrosion. As the pH of a water
decreases, the concentration of
bicarbonate increases and the
concentration of carbonate, which
combines with calcium to form the
desired CaCO3, decreases. At the lower
pH used during enhanced coagulation,
it will generally be more difficult to
form calcium carbonate. However, post-
coagulation pH adjustment will increase
the pH and hence the concentration of
carbonate available to form calcium
carbonate scale. Systems that must meet
a specific calcium concentration to
remain in compliance with OWQPs
should not experience an increase in
LCR violations due to the practice of
enhanced coagulation provided the pH
is adjusted prior to distribution system
entry and the calcium level in the water
prior to and after implementation of
enhanced coagulation remains the same.
EPA recognizes that the inorganic
composition of the water may change
slightly due to enhanced coagulation.
For example, small amounts of anions
and compounds that can affect
corrosion rates (Cl, SO4 ~2> may be
removed or added to the water. The
effect of these constituents is difficult to
predict, but EPA believes they should be
minimal for the great majority of
systems due to the generally modest
changes in the water's inorganic
composition and because alkalinity and
pH levels have a greater influence on
corrosion rates. Increases in sulfate
concentration due to increased alum
addition during enhanced coagulation
can actually lower the corrosion rates of
lead pipe. EPA requests comment on
whether changes in the inorganic matrix
can be quantified to allow States to
easily assess potential impacts to
corrosion control.
EPA requests comment on how
lowering the pH and alkalinity during
enhanced coagulation may cause LCR
compliance problems, given that both
pH and alkalinity levels can be adjusted
to meet OWQPs prior to entry to the
distribution system. EPA also requests
comment on whether decreasing the pH
and alkalinity during enhanced
coagulation, and then increasing it prior
to distribution system entry, may
increase exceedences of lead and copper
action levels.
EPA is currently developing a
simultaneous compliance guidance
document working with stakeholders.
The document will provide guidance to
States and systems on maintaining
compliance with other regulatory
requirements (including the LCR)
during and after the implementation of
the Stage 1 D/DBP rule and the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule. EPA requests comment on what
issues should be addressed in the
guidance to mitigate concerns about
simultaneous compliance with
enhanced coagulation and LCR
requirements. Further, the Agency
requests comment on whether the
proposed enhanced coagulation
requirements and the existing LCR
provisions that allow adjustment of
corrosion control plans are flexible
enough to address simultaneous
compliance issues. Is additional
regulatory language necessary to address
this issue, or is guidance sufficient to
mitigate potential compliance
problems?
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians-lands Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Administrative practice and
procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: April 16, 1998.
Dana D. Minerva,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[PR Doc. 98-10713 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
•&> "D
7Z' fn r~» *^ t"V ^^^1
~OL
-V S
I
------- |