815-Z-99-005
Wednesday
January 12, 2000
Part H
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule
-------
1950
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12,-2000/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9,141 and 142 '
[FRL-6515-6]
RIN 214O-AC27
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making several minor
revisions to the national primary
drinking water regulations (NPDWRs)
for lead and copper to improve
implementation. The intended effect of
this action is to'eliminate unnecessary
requirements, streamline and reduce
reporting burden, and promote
consistent national implementation. The
changes promulgated in today's action
do not affect the lead or copper
maximum contaminant level goals, the
action levels, or the basic regulatory
requirements. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
action also amends the table that lists
the Office of Managment and Budget
(OMB) control numbers issued under
the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and
Copper.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
11, 2000.
For judicial review purposes, this
final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m.,
eastern time on January 26, 2000, as
provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record,
including public comments on the
proposed revisions and EPA's
responses, applicable Federal Register
notices, other major supporting
documents, and a copy of the index to
the public docket for this rulemaking,
are available for review at EPA's Water
Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460. For access to the Docket
materials, call (202) 260-3027 between
9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for
an appointment and directions to room
EB57.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
(800) 426-4791, or Judy Lebowich;
Standards and Risk Management
Division; Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M
Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460;
telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
' Entities potentially regulated by this
Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
(LCRMR) rulemaking are public water
systems (PWSs) that are classified as
either community water systems (CWSs)
or non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated
categories and entities include:
Category
Industry
State, Tribal, and
local governments.
Examples of
regulated 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 regulated
by the LCRMR. This table lists the types
of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by the LCRMR.
Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your facility is
regulated by the LCRMR, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in §§ 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). If you have questions regarding
the applicability of the LCRMR to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT Section.
Effective Date
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1996 specifies that any
amendments to a NPDWR promulgated
under SDWA section 1412 shall take
effect on the date that is 3 years after the
'date on which the regulation is
promulgated "unless the Administrator
determines that an earlier date is
practicable, except that the
Administrator, or a State (in the case of
an individual system), may allow up to
2 additional years to comply with a
maximum contaminant level or
treatment technique if the Administrator
or State (in the case of an individual
system) determines that additional time
is necessary for capital improvements."
Section 1445 (a) of the SDWA, which
authorizes EPA to establish
recordkeeping, reporting and
monitoring requirements, does not
specifically address when such
requirements shall become effective.
The Agency's authority to establish
effective dates for requirements under
this provision, therefore, is governed by
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an
Agency publish a final rule in the
Federal Register not less than 30 days
before its effective date, although an
earlier effective date can be established
under certain circumstances.
The Agency believes that a delay of
three years is not necessary, or
appropriate. The revisions in today's
action are effective April 11, 2000. Until
today's action takes effect, the existing
requirements of the NPDWRs for Lead
and Copper, and applicable State
requirements, remain in effect and are
enforceable.
As noted above, section 1412(b)(10)
provides the Agency with flexibility to
establish an effective date for a NPDWR
earlier than 3 years after promulgation
where "practicable". In addition, under
section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility
to establish an effective date for
recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring requirements any time not
shorter than 30 days after promulgation.
EPA is promulgating the recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring requirements
under both sections 1445 and 1412 of
the SDWA, and the remainder of the
rule under section 1412. EPA believes
that a 90-day effective date is
appropriate under both of these
provisions. For purposes of its effective
date under section 1412, EPA believes it
is practicable for systems to implement
the revised rule requirements in today's
rule in 90 days. First, the revisions to
the existing regulation are minor and
generally do not require any installation
of new or different treatment by PWSs.
Second, this rule in many respects
streamlines existing requirements and
some of the benefits of the regulation
will not be realized if implementation
were to be delayed for three years.
Because the effective date is well in
advance of the deadline for State
adoption of these revised regulations,
EPA will take steps to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the States to
ensure that the primacy States (rather
than EPA) continue to be the lead entity
implementing these new requirements.
Although EPA will enforce the new
regulations until States get primacy for
the revised regulations, States will share
information with EPA about water
system compliance with the new
requirements.
More Stringent State Provisions
For water systems in those States that
have primary enforcement
responsibility for the 1991 Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR), State program
requirements that are more stringent
than revisions in today's rule will
continue to govern until the primacy
State incorporates these revisions into
its approved Primacy program. As
discussed in the next section, States
have two years, from the date of
promulgation, to revise their Primacy
program to incorporate the revisions in
today's rule, unless they qualify for an
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1951
extension. Table I identifies which
provisions in today's rule, which are
less stringent than the 1991 LCR and
which, therefore, must be adopted into
the primacy State's regulations before
they can be implemented by water
systems within the State's jurisdiction.
Water systems, therefore, should check
with their Primacy Agency before
implementing any of these less stringent
provisions.
TABLE 1.—LCRMR PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
CFR Section
Revision
141.81
141.82
141.85
141.86
141.87
141.88
141.89
141.90
Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81 (b)(3)(i).
Compliance determinations under § 141.82(g).
All revisions to section.
Following revisions:
• Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample sites
(formerly under § 141.86(a)(9));
• NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw sites under §§ 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5);
• Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior to analysis under §.141.86(b)(2);
• Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for re-
duced monitoring under §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii);
• Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper tap monitoring under §141.86(d)(4)(iv);
• Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap under § 14i.86(d)(4)(v);
• Sample invalidation under § 141.86(f); and
• Monitoring waivers under §141.86(g).
All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section.
Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum permissible source water levels.
All revisions to section.
All revisions to §§141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4), 141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).
Primacy State Program Revisions
States with primary enforcement
responsibility ("primacy") under 40
CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and
submit to EPA for approval, a primacy
program revision to incorporate all new
and revised EPA regulations into their
approved primacy program. As a
condition of primacy, a State is required
to adopt, a State rule that is no less
stringent than EPA's regulations. Table
2 identifies those provisions in today's
action that States must adopt to retain
primacy. The requirements States must
meet to receive primacy are listed in
§ 142.10 and requirements to revise an
approved primacy program are in
§ 142.12. Special primacy requirements
unique to specific regulations are in
§142.16.
On April 28,1998, EPA amended its
State primacy regulations at 40 CFR
142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In
accordance with these regulations,
States must adopt the LCRMR by
January 14, 2002; however, under
certain circumstances States may
receive an extension of up to two years.
These State primacy regulations also
incorporate the new process identified
in the 1996 SDWA amendments for
granting primary enforcement authority
to States while their applications to
modify their primacy programs are
under review. The new process grants
interim primary enforcement authority
for a new or revised regulation during
the period in which EPA is making a
determination with regard to primacy
for that new or revised regulation. This
interim enforcement authority begins on
the date of the primacy application
submission or the effective date of the
new or revised State regulation,
whichever is later, and ends when EPA
makes a final determination. However,
this interim primacy authority is only
available to a State whose existing
approved primacy program is current
with respect to every existing NPDWR
in effect when the new regulation is
promulgated. As a result, States that
have primacy for every existing NPDWR
already in effect may obtain interim
primacy for this rule, beginning on the
date that the State submits its complete
and final application for primacy for
this rule to EPA, or the effective date of
its revised regulations, whichever is
later. In addition, a State which wishes
to obtain interim primacy for future
NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this
rule.
TABLE 2.—LCRM PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIMACY
CFR Section
Revision
141.81
141.82
141.84
141.86
141.88
141.90
All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under §141.81 (b)(3)(i).
All revisions to section except compliance determinations under §141.82(g).
All revisions to section.
Following revisions:
• Requirement to use representative sites under §§141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2, or 3
sites;
• Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative and that States may specify sampling locations for re-
duced monitoring under §141.86(c); and
• Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or additional of a new source for sysems on reduced moni-
toring under §141.86(d)(4)(vii).
Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State allows compositing
All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).
-------
1952
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions
Used in This Document
A. Background
1. Reason for this rulemaking
2. Overview of public comments received
3. Impacts on costs and benefits
B. Continued exclusion of transient non-
community water systems
1. Overview and summary of Agency
position
2. Detailed discussion of rationale
a. Background
b. Occurrence and exposure at transient
systems
c. Health effects of lead
d. Objections to the exclusion
C. Revisions to 40 CFR141, requirements for
public water systems
1. Revisions to § 141.81
a. Clarification of the requirement to install
and maintain operation of optimal
corrosion control
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Water systems deemed to be optimized
pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) .Today's action
, c. Water systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under
§141.81(b)(3)
(i) Copper action level requirements
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(iii) State discretion to impose additional
requirements
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion
control
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(v) Difference between source water lead
concentrations and 90th percentile lead
levels
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
2. Revisions to §141.82
a. Clarification of requirement to operate
and maintain optimal corrosion control
b. Excursions from State-designated
optimal water quality parameter ranges
or values
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
3. Revisions to § 141.84
a. Proposed revision and background
b. Comments and analysis
(i) Definition of "control"
(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable
presumption
(iii) Possible adverse health effects
associated with partial LSL replacement
(iv) Resident notification of partial LSL
replacement
(v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling
results to the State
(vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement
(vii) Other LSL comments
c. Today's action
4. Revisions to § 141.85
a. Changes affecting content of written
materials
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Public education delivery requirements
(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(ii) Timing and method of distribution
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
c. Schedule for reporting completion of
public education tasks
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
5. Revisions to § 141.86 •
a. Systems with an insufficient number of
tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Elimination of justification letters for use
of non-tier 1 sample sites and
insufficient lead service line sample sites
(i) Proposed revision'and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to
provide first-draw samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
d. Minimum holding time for acidified
lead and copper samples prior to
analysis
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
e. Selection of sample sites under reduced
monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action f. State determination
of eligibility for reduced monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
g. Timing of sample collection under
reduced monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold
(B) Usefulness of proposed provision
(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for
only one contaminant
(D) Monitoring less frequently than
biennially
(E) Prior State approval
(iii) Today's action
i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and
copper tap water monitoring
j. Requirements for systems subject to
reduced monitoring that change
treatment or source water
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
k. Sample invalidation
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
1. Monitoring waivers for small systems
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(A) Materials specification
(B) Monitoring issues
(C) Changes potentially affecting
monitoring waivers
(D) Waiver renewals
(E) Partial waivers
(F) Pre-existing waivers
(iii) Today's action
6. Revisions to § 141.87
a. Monitoring for optimal water quality
parameters
b. Use of representative sites for entry
point water quality parameter
monitoring at ground water systems
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
water quality parameters at the tap
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
d. Summary of water quality monitoring
requirements
7. Revisions to §141.88
a. Resampling triggers for composite source
water samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Reduced source water monitoring for
systems without State-designated
maximum permissible source water
levels
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
8. Revisions to laboratory certification
requirements in § 141.89
a. Proposed revision and background-
b. Comments and analysis
c. Today's action
9. Revisions to system reporting
requirements in § 141.90
a. Timing of reporting of tap water
monitoring for lead and copper and
water quality parameter monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Elimination of certification requirements
pertaining to first-draw samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. State calculation/reporting of 90th
percentile levels
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
-------
Federal Register /VoL 65, No. 8 /Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1953
(iii) Today's action
10. Revisions to § 141.43
D. Revisions to requirements for States
1. Records kept by States
2. Reporting requirements for States
a. Proposed revision and background
b. Comments and analysis
c. Today's action
3. Special primacy considerations
E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted
1. Reduced frequency of water quality
parameter monitoring at entry points for
systems subject to water quality
parameter monitoring requirements
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background
b. Comments and analysis
2. Use of flushing/bottled water at
NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion control
treatment
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background
b. Comments and analysis
3. Requirement for water systems to justify
corrosion control methods not
recommended
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background
b. Comments and analysis
4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to
assess corrosion control effectiveness
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background
b. Comments and analysis
5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of
90th percentile and milestone data
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background
b. Comments and analysis
F. Simultaneous compliance comments
1. Request for comments and background
2. Comments and analysis
3. Today's action
G. Administrative requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
5. Executive Orders on Federalism
6. Consultation with Indian tribal
governments
7. Risk to children analysis
8. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
9. Likely effect of compliance with the
LCRMR on the technical, financial, and
managerial capacity of public water
systems
10. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office
H. References
List of Tables
Table 1—LCRMR provisions requiring State
adoption prior to implementation
Table 2—LCRMR provisions requiring State
adoption to maintain primacy
Table 3—Summary of monitoring
requirements for water quality
parameters
Table 4—Summary of changes to system
reporting requirements
Table 5—Net Effect of LCRMR on Average
Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting
Burden and Cost
Glossary of Abbreviations and
Definitions Used in This Document
The following definitions are
presented to assist the reader in
understanding acronyms and other
short-hand phrases used in the
preamble.
(b)(l) System: A small or medium-size
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).
ug/D: Micrograms per day.
|ig/L: Micrograms per liter.
1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead
and Copper as promulgated on June 7,
1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently
modified by technical amendments
published on July 15,1991 (56 FR
32113), June 29,1992 (57 FR 28786) and
June 30,1994 (59 FR 33860).
90th Percentile Value: The
concentration of lead or copper in tap
water exceeded by 10 percent of the
sites sampled during a monitoring
period.
Action Level: The 90th percentile
value for lead or copper in water that
determines, in some cases, whether a
water system must install corrosion
control treatment, monitor source water,
replace lead service lines, and
undertake a public education program.
April 1996 Proposal: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (61 FR
16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public
comments on proposed minor revisions
to the 1991 Rule.
April 1998 Notice: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR
20038, April 22,1998) containing
additional data and regulatory options
relating to the April 1996 Proposal and
requesting public comment on these
new data and options.
August 1998 Notice: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR
44214, August 18,1998) requesting
public comment on a refinement of a
regulatory option discussed in the April
1998 Notice.
ASDWA: Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators.
A WWA: American Water Works
Association.
CCT: Corrosion control treatment.
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
CWS: Community Water System.
DDBP: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations—Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63
FR 69389, Dec. 16,1998).
DSC: Data Sharing Committee.
EPA: Environmental Protection
Agency.
Excursion: A "daily value"
(calculated pursuant to § 141.82(g)) for a
water quality parameter at a sampling
location that is below the minimum
value or outside the range of values
designated by the State under § 141.82(f)
as representing optimal corrosion
control for the water system.
. FDA: Food and Drug Administration.
FR: Federal Register.
IESWTR: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations—Interim Enhanced
. Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63
FR 69477, Dec. 16, 1998).
Large System: For purposes of the
Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
system serving more than 50,000
people.
' LCR: Lead and Copper Rule.
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions.
LSL: Lead service line.
MCLG: Maximum contaminant level
goal.
MDL: Method Detection Limit.
Medium-Size System: For purposes of
the Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
system serving from 3,301 to 50,000
people.
mg/L: Milligrams per liter.
NAS: National Academy of Sciences.
NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
NRDC: National Resources Defense
Council.
NSF: National Sanitation Foundation.
NTNCWS: Non-transient non-
community water system.
OCCT: Optimal corrosion control
treatment.
OMB: Office of Management and
Budget
OWQP: Optimal water quality
parameter.
PE: Performance evaluation.
pH: Negative logarithm of the
effective hydrogen-ion concentration.
Phase I Rule: National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic
Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for
Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule
(52 FR 25690, Jul. 8,1987).
Phase II Rule: National Revised
Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for
. Unregulated Contaminants; National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation; National Secondary
-------
1954 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR
3526, Jan. 30, 1991).
Phase VRule: National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;
Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule (57, FR
31776, Jul. 17, 1992).
pp&.-Part per billion.
PQL: Practical quantitation level.
PBA: Paperwork Reduction Act.
PWS: Public water system.
UFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act.
SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water
Information System.
Small System: For purposes of the
Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
system serving 3,300 or fewer people.
TNCWS: Transient non-community
water system.
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
: Water quality parameter.
A. Background
1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA
promulgated maximum contaminant
level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for
lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460,
June 7; 1991). The goal of the LCR is to
provide maximum human health
Erotection by reducing lead and copper
svels at consumers' taps to as close to
the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish
this goal, the LCR establishes
requirements for CWSs and 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.
In April 1996, EPA proposed a
number of minor revisions to the LCR
(60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The
proposed revisions do not affect the lead
and copper MCLGs, action levels, or
basic regulatory requirements. EPA
proposed some of the minor revisions to
streamline and reduce regulatory
burden where such changes can be
made without jeopardizing the level of
public health protection or protection of
the environment. The Agency proposed
other minor changes to clarify
requirements and to improve the rule's
implementation. Finally, the Agency
addressed two issues that were the
subject of a judicial remand. The April
1996 Proposal also requested comment
on several provisions for which no
specific regulatory changes were
proposed.
In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency
published, and made available for
public review and comment, new data
relating to two of the provisions
discussed in the April 1996 proposal
and several additional regulatory
options that the Agency was considering
(63 FR 20038, April 22,1998). Finally,
in August 1998, EPA requested
additional public comment on a
refinement of one of the options
discussed in the April 1996 Notice (63
FR 44214, August 18,1998).
2. Overview of public comments
received. EPA received approximately
900 comments from 97 commenters in
response to the April 1996 Proposal.
With the exception of the proposed
definition of "control" as it applies to
lead service line (LSL) replacement,
commenters generally supported the
proposed minor revisions; however,
many suggested possible refinements of
specific provisions. A few commenters
also expressed frustration that the
proposed changes were "too little" and
"too late" to benefit many systems. The
Agency received comments from 30
commenters in response to the April
1998 Notice and 26 commenters
responded to the August 1998 Notice.
Most of the commenters to the 1998
Notices supported the additional
regulatory options in concept, however,
were concerned with the draft rule
language discussed.
The comments pertaining to topics
addressed in these Notices and EPA's
response are summarized by topic in
sections B through F of this preamble.
The verbatim comments and EPA's
responses to them are contained in
EPA's Response to Comments on the
Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
(EPA, 1999e).
3. Impacts on costs and benefits.
Today's action does not affect fhe
treatment-related costs (e.g., capital
improvements) associated with the LCR.
The revisions affect costs associated
with the monitoring and reporting
requirements of the LCR, however, and
these estimated impacts have been
calculated as part of the Information
Collection Request (EPA, 1999a)
developed in support of today's action.
These impacts are discussed in section
H.3. of this preamble.
As discussed in the April 1996
Proposal, the revisions in today's action
are not expected to change the level of
public health protection resulting from
implementation of the lead and copper
regulations. The Agency therefore has
not identified any quantifiable benefits
associated with today's action. EPA
believes there should be some non-
quantifiable benefits, however, because
improved implementation should result
in some health benefits being achieved
sooner.
B. Continued Exclusion of Transient
Non-community Water Systems
1. Overview and summary of Agency
position. In the preamble to the April
1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) had challenged the rule's
exclusion of transient non-community
water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to
as "transient systems") on the grounds
that persons served by these systems
may be at risk of non-carcinogenic
adverse effects. The court granted the
Agency's request for a voluntary remand
so that the Agency could provide a more
detailed justification of this exclusion.1
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
indicated that the Agency was collecting
additional information relevant to this
issue and would make this new
information available for public review
and comment prior to the promulgation
of a final rule. EPA also requested
public comment regarding the
continued appropriateness of the
exclusion, whether modification of the
current exclusion would be appropriate
and, if so, what alternative approaches
are available for addressing those
systems. EPA included the new
information in the April 1998 Notice
and signaled its preliminary
conclusions that the new information
does not resolve significant data gaps or
present a compelling argument to
change the Agency's policy of excluding
TNCWSs from the provisions of the
LCR.
Eighteen commenters submitted
comments on the appropriateness of the
continued exclusion in response to the
April 1996 Proposal. All of the
commenters supported the continued
exclusion. No new data were submitted;
however, most commenters cited
reasons for continuing the TNCWS
exclusion. These reasons included: the
absence of data suggesting there are .
adverse health effects resulting from
short-term exposure to lead; the limited
exposure that is likely to occur at
transient systems; the potential that
subjecting transient systems to the rule's
requirements will cause many of them
to close, with the possible unintended
consequence that consumers would
utilize other, less protected, sources of
1 This issue was one of several issues included in
legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule
brought by the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). (.American Water Works
Association, etal. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir.,
1994).
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1955
drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and
streams in National Forests); concern
that the rule's monitoring and treatment
requirements were not appropriate for
transient systems; and the tremendous
added burden that would be placed on
limited State resources. EPA received 18
comments in response to the April 1998
Notice. Only one of these commenters
raised concerns with the exclusion. This
commenter recommended that
TNCWSs, except those meeting the
materials criteria for monitoring waivers
that EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be
required to monitor tap and source
water lead and copper levels at least
once every nine years. The commenter
argued that transient systems, where the
difference between the source water and
the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per
billion (ppb) lead, should not be
excluded from the Rule's provisions. As
discussed in the following paragraph,
EPA disagrees with this commenter.
After consideration of the additional
information collected by the Agency
and the public comments received, EPA
believes that it is appropriate to retain
the current exclusion. EPA believes that
maintaining the longstanding exclusion
of transient systems from coverage of
the NPDWR for lead is warranted in
light of the de minimis risk of adverse
health effects cited by NRDC as
justification for regulating these
systems. Very high levels of lead have
clinically evident effects on the brain
(acute encephalopathy). However, the
Agency was not able to identify any
studies that demonstrate critical
neurochemical responses to short-term,
moderate lead exposures. The data on
which the Agency based its health
assessment for short term exposures to
lead came from studies by Cools et al,
(1976), Schlegel and Kufner, (1979) and
Struik, (1974) which indicate that the
most likely adverse effect of the
moderate levels of lead that might on
occasion be encountered at a TNCWS
would be temporary suppression of one
of the enzymes responsible for the
synthesis of hemoglobin, the oxygen
carrying protein in the blood. However,
the data suggest that there are no
clinical effects of the enzyme
suppression unless it continues for a
more extended exposure period than .
would typically occur for persons who
drink water at transient systems such as
rest stops, motels, gas stations and
restaurants, which serve customers for
only short periods of time. Morever,
EPA does not believe that even those
persons who may drink water from
transient systems on a more continuous
2 See section C.5.1. of this preamble for a
discussion of the monitoring waiver provisions.
basis (e.g., employees) would be at
health risk given the likely levels of lead
to which they would be exposed.
2. Detailed discussion of rationale
a. Background. A public water system
is classified as a community water
system if it has at least 15 service
connections used by year-round
residents or if it regularly serves at least
25 year-round residents. All other
public water systems are non-
community water systems and are
considered to be either "non-transient"
or "transient" depending on the number
of the same people regularly served over
6 months of the year. A non-community
water system that does not regularly
serve at least 25 of the same persons
over 6 months of the year is classified
as a transient non-community water
system. Examples of transient systems
include highway rest stops, gas stations,
and recreational facilities where fewer
than 25 of the same individuals
consume the water over an extended
period of time (i.e., at least six months
of the year). In addition, the vast
majority of people who consume water
from such systems (i.e., customers and
members of the public who are at the
facility) generally consume small
quantities over short periods of time.
EPA's longstanding policy is to
exclude transient systems from drinking
water regulations except for those
contaminants, such as nitrate, that EPA
believes have the potential to cause
immediate adverse human health effects
resulting from short-term exposure.
These are known as "acute
contaminants" because the adverse
health effects may occur after limited
exposure. Other drinking water
contaminants are considered to be
"chronic contaminants" because
adverse effects on human health
generally have been associated with
extended periods of exposure. In the
preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA
explained that the Agency does not
believe it necessary to regulate water
systems that only serve transient
populations for chronic contaminants
because exposure to these contaminants
for only brief periods of time, such as
that which occurs at transient systems,
does not pose a long-term health risk (52
FR 25695, first column). For the reasons
discussed in the following section, EPA
considers lead to be a chronic
contaminant.
b. Occurrence and exposure at
transient systems. In 1995, the
Environmental Quality Institute at the
University of North Carolina at
Asheville conducted a survey to collect
actual data on lead in drinking water
from transient systems in order to better
characterize potential exposure risks. Of
8,000 systems throughout the country
invited to receive free lead testing, 115
participated. The relatively small
number prevents conclusive analysis,
although a fairly representative range of
system types across the country is
included.
First draw (1-liter) and one-minute
purged (30 milliliters) samples were
collected at each site. The median and
average concentrations of the first draw
samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2
ppb, respectively). Approximately 12
percent of the sites (13) exceeded the
action level of 15 ppb. The average one-
minute purged sample was 2.3 ppb,
with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The
purged samples had much lower
concentrations (75% lower on average)
and less variable readings than the first
draw samples. The maximum value
reported from all sampling was 229 ppb.
The flushed sample for this sampling
site had a value of 0.7 ppb, raising the
distinct possibility that the results of the
first sample may have been the result of
sampling error such as contamination of
the sample. (EPA, 1995c).
While extensive information is not
currently available, EPA believes that
the results of the University of North
Carolina survey indicate generally that
the levels of lead in transient systems
are not dissimilar to the levels found in
non-transient systems. With both
transient and non-transient systems, it
appears that the levels of lead are
associated strongly with the length of
time that the water has been standing in
household plumbing prior to use.
c. Health effects of lead. Lead is
considered a chronic contaminant that
impairs and damages the nervous
system and other systems or processes
after extended periods of exposure. Lead
toxicity is believed to be a function of
repeated exposures over time that result
in a gradual accumulation of lead in the
soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead
moves from its storage sites to the blood
resulting in adverse effects even after
exposures have diminished.
The Agency decision to exclude
TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by
toxicological data from studies in adults
which identified increased
concentrations of erythrocyte
protoporphrine and depressed activity
of aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as
the critical effects from short-term lead
exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel
and Kufner, 1979; Struik, 1974). These
effects are markers for inhibition of
heme synthesis (ATSDR, 1998;
Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid
dehydratase is the key enzyme
regulating the rate of heme synthesis
and erythrocyte protoporphrine is a
-------
1956
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
precursor to heme and, thus, a
biomarker for heme production. Heme is
the iron containing component of
hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying
pigment in red blood cells.
A study by Struik (1974)
demonstrated the effects of short-team
lead exposure on heme synthesis in
adults. Two groups of 5 women and one
group of 5 men were orally
administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in
the form of lead acetate for three weeks.
Suppression of the activity of
erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid
dehydratase became apparent by the
third day of exposure. The degree of
suppression increased until day 14 and
then remained constant for the
remainder of the study. Effects on
erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted
in the women but not the men after 2
weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels
had increased to 40 ug/dL or higher
before effects on erythrocyte
protoporphrine were noted. The effects
on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and
erythrocyte protoporphrine are
reversible and do not persist after
exposure has ceased. A short term
deficit in heme production is not
immediately manifest in a decreased
supply of red blood cells. The average
red cell remains in circulation for about
120 days and physiological controls on
their turnover insure that there is a
continuous replacement of aging and
damaged cells (Montgomery et al.,
1990). Therefore, a short term deficit in
heme production will not immediately
cause anemia or diminish the oxygen
transporting properties of the blood.
Moreover, the lead levels used in this
study were several orders of magnitude
greater than the median lead levels
observed in TNCWSs in the University
of North Carolina study (EPA, 1995c).
As discussed above, there is very
limited information that can assist in
estimating the levels of lead that may be
of concern due to short-term exposures
from drinking water. Because of the
limited data EPA does not believe that
it is possible to develop guidance at this
time. However, based on the data that
are available, from the Struik study,
EPA estimates that average, short-term,
lead exposures would have to exceed
500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb for
infants or children and would have to
persist for an extended period of time to
cause even a transient effect on the
oxygen carrying capacity of the blood
(EPA, 1998b). The value for infants is
lower than that for adults because
infants are able to absorb greater
amounts of lead from the
gastrointestinal track. In the University
of'North Carolina study, the average first
draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and
the average fully flushed sample was
approximately 2 ppb. The 90th.
percentile value of first draw samples
was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile
fully flushed sample was approximately
3 ppb. Taking into account the available
data regarding acute exposures to lead at
TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there is
any significant risk that exposures
through drinking water at the
concentrations monitored would result
in adverse acute health effects among
users of transient systems, including
infants and children.
d. Objections to the exclusion
As noted above, all but one
commenter during this rulemaking
supported maintaining the exclusion of
transient systems. In its comments on
the original rule—and in subsequent
litigation—NRDC argued that EPA's
exclusion of transient systems from the
rule was both inconsistent with the
SDWA and not justified by the science.
According to NRDC, the Act mandates
that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without
exception, and therefore EPA lacks the
authority to fashion a de minimis
exclusion for transient systems. NRDC
also argued that, even if EPA had the
legal authority to exclude transient
systems, lead causes acute adverse
health effects from short-term exposure,
and that employees of transient systems
would be at risk from longer term
exposures.
EPA first disagrees that the SDWA
does not permit the Agency to fashion
an appropriate de minimis exclusion for
transient systems from regulation of
contaminants like lead. It is the
exceptional case in which an agency
does not possess such authority. In
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle,~636 F.2d
323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit
reviewed EPA's decision to create a de
minimis exclusion under the Clean Air
Act. The court stated that, "[u]nless
Congress has been extraordinarily rigid,
there is likely a basis for an implication
of de minimis authority to provide
exemption when the burdens of
regulation yield a gain of trivial or no
value." 636 F.2d at 360-361. EPA does
not believe that the SDWA falls within
the very narrow class of statutes that
precludes fashioning appropriate
exclusions for activities with de
minimis impact.
Congress has in numerous respects
accorded EPA substantial flexibility in
focusing implementation on areas of
cognizable public health risks. Indeed,
such flexibility was a theme of the most
recent comprehensive amendments to
the Act in 1996. A major impetus for
this legislation was the "need for a more
streamlined and flexible approach to
controlling drinking water ,
contamination consistent with
continued protection of public health."
House Report 104-632,104th Cong., 2d
Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was
concerned that the 1986 amendments to
the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new
contaminants every three years, a
requirement that had "imposed
significant burdens at the State, local
and Federal level, and have led to
questions about whether the Act is
focused on the most significant risks to
public health." Id. at 9. In numerous
ways, the 1996 amendments reflected
Congress' desire for EPA to focus its
efforts taking into account risks to
public health, as well as the benefits
and costs involved in setting standards
under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section
1412(b)(l)(C) (directing EPA to
prioritize selection of contaminants for
regulation based on consideration of
those "that present the greatest public
health concern"); sections 1412(b)(3)
and (b)(6) (directing EPA to consider
information regarding the incremental
costs and benefits in establishing
NPDWRs). While none of these
amendments addressed the precise
question of what PWSs must be covered
by NPDWRs, in light of Congress'
overall concern with encouraging
flexibility and priority-setting in the
Act's implementation, EPA does not
believe it is logical or sensible to
conclude that Congress intended to
deprive EPA of its inherent
administrative authority to fashion
appropriate de minimis exclusions from
the Act's requirements where negligible
risks are present. Moreover, EPA's
policy of excluding transient systems
from NPDWRs for contaminants posing
chronic health risks has been in place
for over a decade. At no time during this
period has Congress sought to modify
EPA's approach.
NRDC has also contended that, even
if EPA has the legal authority to create
a cfe minimis exclusion, EPA's decision
was unlawful because lead does pose
non-carcinogenic adverse health effects
from short-term, acute exposures. EPA
believes that this contention is based on
misunderstandings by NRDC of several
factors. NRDC's claim that lead is an
acute contaminant was based on
information from three reports: The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, Drinking Water and Health
(1982), a study of lead exposure in
infants, and EPA's recommendation
regarding lead in school drinking water
fountains. The Agency disagrees with
NRDC that these citations support
classification of lead as an acute
contaminant. The Agency's conclusions
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1957
are discussed in the following
paragraph.
NRDG's reference to the NAS (1982)
report on Drinking Water and Health
focused on the "maximum daily
exposure recommendations for
children" cited in that report. The NAS
report cites Mahaffey (1977) who
recommended that lead intake for
children less than 6 months of age
should be no more than 100 Jig/day and
the intake for children between 6
months and 2 years of age should be no
more than 150 ug/day. These values
would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb,
assuming a daily water intake for
children of 1 liter per day and no
exposure from other sources. Mahaffey
(1977) concluded that water containing
50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to
infants and children when other lead
exposures were minimized. These
values were derived based on an
assumption of chronic exposure, not
short-term exposures similar to those
that would occur at a TNGWS and, thus,
are not relevant. In fact, NAS
determined that there were "no
adequate data to derive health-based
guidelines for acute exposures, i.e. a 24-
hour or a 7-day 'Suggested No-Adverse
Response Level'."
In its comments on EPA's prior
rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by
Shannon and Graef (1992) which they
claimed showed that for 15 percent of
the lead poisoned infants at one clinic,
the primary source of the lead was
infant formula made with drinking
water. This is not quite what the authors
reported. Although formula preparation
with lead-contaminated water was the
apparent cause for elevated blood lead
levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in
unboiled, "first draw" water was the
problem for only one case (2%).
Excessive boiling of contaminated tap
water for formula preparation was the
problem in 5 cases (10%) and use of a
leaded vessel for the heating of the
water (tap or spring) was the problem
for the other three cases (6%). hi
analysis of formula samples, lead
concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb
were detected, values far greater than
the levels observed at transient
facilities. The blood lead levels of the
children exposed through formula were
similar to those children exposed
through other routes (paint chips,
household renovation), but hemoglobin
and red cell volumes were lower
indicating that the exposures had been
chronic rather than acute.
Finally, NRDC claims that the reason
that the EPA recommends that any
school drinking water outlets that are
found to have more than 20 M-g/L lead
in a 250 mL sample be removed from
service is to protect against acute health
risks to young children. This is
incorrect. The Agency developed that
policy to protect children who are
exposed to lead in drinking water on a
chronic, not acute, basis.
NRDC has also argued that transient
systems should not be excluded from
regulation because frequent users of
these systems, such as employees, could
be exposed to lead in the drinking water
over an extended period of time. Such
persons could include pregnant women
and children, who are particularly
vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic
lead exposure. While such users may
consume water from the same system
repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC's
concern that such persons can
realistically be said to be at risk of
adverse health effects from exposure to
lead. As explained in detail in EPA's
1991 rulemaking, levels of lead at the
tap correlate with the length of time that
water has been sitting motionless in
plumbing materials containing lead. The
longer the water sits, the more likely
lead will leach from lead-bearing
plumbing materials into the water.
Typically, the highest levels of lead in
the water are contained in the first liter
from the tap after the water has been
sitting for some time. In order to have
the best understanding of the extent to
which corrosivity of the water is causing
leaching of lead, the LCR requires that
sampling be done with such "first
flush" water after the tap has not been
used for at least six hours. This
sampling protocol was designed to
ensure that the water system had the
benefit of the best information regarding.
the extent to which water chemistry was
interacting with lead-bearing materials
to cause leaching into drinking water,
and also recognized that some users
could, under some scenarios, repeatedly
drink first flush water.
However, transient systems such as
restaurants and gas stations by their
nature would serve a large number of
persons throughout the day. The vast
majority of the users are, in fact,
"transient." In addition, the nature of
these facilities would mean that taps are
in fairly constant use, reducing the
likelihood of lead leaching into standing
water. Also, given the types of
populations served by transient systems,
we would anticipate that it would be
extremely unlikely that the same
persons would repeatedly be exposed to
the water that has been sitting for an
extended period of time. Data collected
by EPA regarding occurrence of lead in
transient systems suggests that even
frequent users are not at risk. Since it is
unlikely that the same persons would
repeatedly be exposed to "first flush"
water in these systems, the vast majority
of water would consist of fully flushed
water. The median level of lead in
running water in transient systems
found by the University of North
Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7
ppb, and the average level was
approximately 2 ppb. The median first
flush level was approximately 2 ppb,
and the average level was 9 ppb, levels
below those of health concern. Thus,
information collected by EPA strongly
supports its conclusion that there are
only de minimis risks in transient
systems from exposure to lead.
Given the de minimis risks posed by
lead in these systems, EPA continues to
believe that excluding these systems
from the lead NPDWR is appropriate.
EPA believes, in fact, that including
them within the regulation could even
have the unintended effect of harming
public health. In the face of monitoring
and treatment requirements for lead,
EPA anticipates, based on the public
comments received and other anecdotal
data, that many transient systems will
opt to stop providing water rather than
to assume the extra burden of the rule's
requirements. This would leave
consumers in the position of finding
their own alternative source of drinking
water. In some cases, the alternative
source may be less protective of public
health than the transient system. For
example, if National or State parks were
to no longer provide drinking water,
visitors may drink untreated water
directly from nearby lakes, rivers and
streams.
C. Revisions to 40 CFR141,
Requirements for Public Water Systems
1. Revisions to §141.81
a. Clarification of the requirement to
install and maintain operation of
optimal corrosion control, (i) Proposed
revision and background. In the April
1998 Notice, EPA requested comment
on possible revisions to the regulatory
language of § 141.8l'(b) and the first
sentence of § 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 water quality parameters (WQPs). As
EPA explained in that Notice, there are
several "pathways" by which systems
may be considered to be optimized.
Many, but not all, require that corrosion
control treatment (CCT) be physically
installed. The Agency is concerned that
some systems deemed to be optimized
pursuant to § 141.81(b) may
misinterpret the absence of specific
Federal controls in the regulatory
language as meaning that they have
-------
1958 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
license to "turn off' or depart from
optimal corrosion control treatment
(OCCT) between Federally-prescribed
monitoring periods.
(ii) Comments and analysis. With one
exception, commenters supported the
proposed clarification. The one
commenter who objected to the
proposed clarification argued that it is
not necessary since his State already
had established such controls. EPA
believes clarification is appropriate. The
Agency notes that while most States
have reasonable process controls in
place to assure consistent and proper
operation of CCT, some do not. EPA
believes that it is appropriate to clarify
that all systems are expected to
maintain optimal corrosion control even
if they are not subject to Federally-
prescribed WQP monitoring.
Several commenters predicated their
support on the presumption that States
would retain flexibility to determine the
specific nature of the process controls
for (b)(l) and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees
that such flexibility is appropriate.
Today's action, therefore, does not
prescribe specific operating
requirements for water systems to meet
the criteria of § 141.81 (b)(l) or (b)(3).
A few commenters expressed concern
that the proposed language changes
would preclude a (b)(l) or a (b)(3)
system from ever changing its treatment
once it has been deemed to be
optimized. EPA recognizes that water
systems need to make treatment
changes, on occasion, to react to
changing circumstances (e.g., new
requirements, changes in source water
quality, and changes in the distribution
system). Nothing in today's action is
intended to prevent a State from
approving treatment changes when they
are warranted and appropriate. Rather,
the intent of today's action is to ensure
that any such treatment changes are
consistent with the Rule's goal of
minimizing levels of lead and copper at
the tap to the maximum extent
practicable. The Agency believes the
phrase "and meet any requirements that
the State determines appropriate to
ensure such treatment is maintained"
provides States sufficient flexibility to
approve appropriate treatment changes
that may be warranted by emerging
conditions at the water system.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify in the rule language that (b)(2)
systems are not required to have CCT
physically present. EPA disagrees that
this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2)
applies only to those water systems that
completed corrosion control steps
equivalent to those specified in
§ 141.81(d) or (e) before the effective
date of the LCR. The Agency's intent is
to relieve such systems of the need to
repeat those steps merely to comply
with the Rule's milestones. Assuming a
water system had completed an
equivalent corrosion control study and
installed appropriate CCT prior to the
effective date of the Rule, EPA believes
the Rule is clear that additional
treatment may not be warranted if the
State believes the system's CCT already
is optimized. For large water systems,
§ 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the
need to have any CCT in place, unless
the water system can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the State that such
treatment will have no effect on
reducing the levels of lead and copper
at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and
copper action levels is not a sufficient
test for large systems since the Rule
requires these systems to reduce
corrosion to the maximum extent
possible to be considered optimized.
EPA expects few, if any, large water
systems can make this demonstration
without CCT.
(iii) Today's action. After considering
the comments received, the Agency has
decided to promulgate the revisions to
§ 141.81 (b) and the first sentence of
§ 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory
text of § 141.81(b) has been revised to
read: "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. Any such system deemed to
have optimized corrosion control under
this paragraph, and which has treatment
in place, shall continue to operate and
maintain optimal corrosion control
treatment and meet any requirements
that the State determines appropriate to
ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained." The first
sentence (following the paragraph title)
of § 141.82(g) has been revised to read:
"All systems that have installed
treatment optimizing corrosion control
shall continue to operate and maintain
optimal corrosion control treatment,
including maintaining water quality
parameters at or above minimum values
or within ranges designated by the State
under paragraph (f) of this section, in
accordance with this paragraph for all
samples collected under §§ 141.87(d)-
(f)."
This revision necessitates a change to
the State recordkeeping requirements in
Part 142. A requirement has been added
as a new § 142.14(d)(8)(i)3 to require
3 As discussed in Section D.I. of this preamble,
today's action renumbers existing paragraphs of
§ 142.14(d)(8).
States to retain records of any
conditions imposed by the State on
specific water systems deemed to be
optimized under § 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3)
to ensure the continued operation and
maintenance of treatment in place.
These wording changes make clear
the Agency's intent in the 1991 Rule
that all systems operate and maintain
optimal corrosion control. They do not
add any new requirements.
b. Water systems deemed to be
optimized pursuant to §141.81(b)(2).
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested comment on a regulatory
option that would result in minor
wording changes to the language of
§ 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to that paragraph are
required to continue WQP monitoring
after State designation of optimal water
quality parameters (OWQPs). The
Agency proposed this change to
eliminate possible confusion about
monitoring requirements after the
installation of CCT for these systems.
(ii) Comments and analysis. EPA
received several comments on the
proposed clarification. None of the
commenters opposed the proposed
revision, however, one commenter
raised concerns about how the
requirement would be applied in those
instances where no treatment is
installed. The commenter also noted
•that the requirement to monitor WQPs
at every entry point could be onerous at
such a system, particularly if it were a'
ground water system with many wells.
EPA developed the § 141.81(b)(2)
optimization criteria to address those ,
water systems that had both completed
a corrosion control study comparable to
that required by the LCR and installed
an appropriate CCT process prior to the
Rule's schedule. To be comparable, the
study would have had to include an
evaluation of the three corrosion control
options—pH and alkalinity adjustment,
calcium hardness adjustment, and
inhibitor addition. This study also
would have had to use some of the
testing methods specified in the Rule to
evaluate the options. EPA believes that
studies that meet the § 141.81 (b)(2)
requirements would indicate that the
installation of a CCT process was
warranted and that it is therefore
appropriate to require (b)(2) systems
deemed to be optimized pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated
OWQPs.
EPA recognizes that it may not be
necessary to install treatment at every
entry point, however, especially at
ground water systems. As discussed in
section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1959
is making a change to § 141.87(c)(3) that
will allow ground water systems to limit
entry point WQP sampling to those
entry points that are representative of
water quality and CCT throughout the
system. This provision means that a
ground water system deemed to be
optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)
may be able to reduce—but not
eliminate entirely—the number of entry
point WQP samples that must be
collected.
(iii) Today's action. EPA therefore is
revising § 141.81(b)(2), as proposed, by
inserting a sentence after the second
sentence in § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify
WQP monitoring requirements for
systems deemed to have optimized
corrosion control. The inserted sentence
reads: "Water systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this
paragraph shall operate in compliance
with the State-designated optimal water
quality control parameters in
accordance with § 141.82(g) and
continue to conduct lead and copper tap
and water quality parameter sampling in
accordance with § 141.86(d)(3) and
§ 141.87(d), respectively."
c. Water systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under
§141.81(b)(3).
(i) Copper action level requirements.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. In 1996, EPA proposed that
water systems demonstrating, pursuant
to § 141.81(b)(3), that very little lead
corrosion is occurring in the
distribution system (i.e., (b)(3) systems)
be required to meet the copper action
level. The Agency proposed such a
requirement to correct an oversight in
the 1991 Rule.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA
received mixed comments on this
proposed change. Several commenters
viewed the revision as a new
requirement that could lead to treatment
modifications in some systems. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
acknowledged that a few systems may
be triggered into CCT because of the
requirement that (b)(3) systems meet the
copper action level. EPA agrees that
there will be additional costs incurred
by the systems if installation/
modification of CCT processes are
necessary. The goal of the LCR,
however, is to minimize the risk from
both lead and copper. EPA believes that
this change is appropriate to better
conform with the stated goal of the LCR.
The copper action level is equivalent to
the copper MCLG, so adverse health
effects from copper should be avoided if
systems meet the action level. Since
(b)(3) systems that do not meet the
copper action level are not triggered into
CCT processes until 18 months after the
LCRMR is published in the Federal
Register, (b)(3) systems that exceeded
the copper action level during the initial
rounds of monitoring have time to make
changes to reduce copper levels before
being triggered out of (b)(3) status.
(C) Today's action. In addition to the
1991 (b)(3) criteria, today's action
prevents systems that exceeded the
copper action level on or after July 12,
2001, from being considered to be a
(b)(3) system. This requirement is
specified at § 141.81(b)(3)(iv).
(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. EPA proposed to correct
another oversight in the 1991 Rule by
requiring (b) (3) systems to continue
routine monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap at least once every three
calendar years (triennially) at the
reduced number of sites specified in
§ 141.86(c). This proposed revision
included a start date for resumption of
monitoring no later than the first full
summer (i.e., June through September
time frame) after the effective date of the
revision.
(B) Comments and analysis.
Commenters generally supported the
reduced monitoring frequency;
however, several preferred less frequent
monitoring cycles, such as once every
six or nine years. EPA disagrees with
the commenters who advocate
monitoring less frequently than once
every three years for (b)(3) systems.
Large systems comprise most, if not all,
of the (b)(3) systems because most small
and medium-size systems that satisfy
§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the
less onerous criteria of § 141.81(b)(l)
that do not require source water
monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not
required to monitor their corrosion
control process using WQPs, lead and
copper tap monitoring is the only
mechanism for determining whether
levels of lead and copper at the tap
remain low. For this reason, EPA does
not believe that monitoring should be
less frequent than once every 3 years for
these systems.
EPA also received comments on the
proposed deadline for the resumption of
monitoring. As proposed, (b)(3) systems
would have been required to resume
monitoring the first full June through
September after publication of the
LCRMR. This requirement would apply
only to those (b)(3) systems that had not
monitored during the three years
immediately preceding promulgation of
the LCRMR. Several commenters did
not realize that the schedule for the
resumption of monitoring would not
apply to those (b)(3) systems that
already are monitoring regularly and
that have conducted at least one round
of monitoring in the past three years.
(C) Today's action. EPA has added
provisions at § 141.81(b)(3)(ii)
pertaining to the routine monitoring
requirement in today's action. The
proposed requirement that routine lead
and copper tap water monitoring occur
at least-once every three years has been
retained. The Rule language has been
clarified to indicate that those (b)(3)
systems that have conducted a round of
standard or reduced monitoring after
September 30,1997, may continue
monitoring at the reduced number of
sites every three years based on the date
of their most recent monitoring. All
other (b)(3) systems must conduct a
round of tap water monitoring for lead
and copper no later than September 30,
2000.
(iii) State discretion to impose
additional requirements.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. The April 1996 proposed
revision to § 141.81(b)(3) states: "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)." EPA proposed this provision to
provide States sufficient flexibility to
require additional actions in those cases
where such actions are necessary to
ensure the system maintains minimal
corrosion in the distribution system.
(B) Comments and analysis. Several
commenters raised concern that this
provision could require (b)(3) systems to
conduct lead and copper tap sampling
whenever treatment changes or a new
source is added. The decision to require
additional monitoring will be made by
the State only after considering the
impact of the treatment change or
addition of a new source on the
corrosion control process. The rule does
not, and is not intended to categorically
require monitoring when treatment
changes are made. The additional
monitoring is not limited to lead and
copper monitoring. The State could
require WQP monitoring and/or source
water monitoring instead of, or in
addition to, lead and copper tap
monitoring.
(C) Today's action. EPA has included
the following provision at
§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii). "Any water system
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to this paragraph shall
notify the State in writing pursuant to
§ 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment
or the addition of a new source. The
-------
I960
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
State may require any such system, 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". EPA also has
added a corresponding State
recordkeeping requirement in a new
§142.14(d)(8)(ix).
Section C.5.J. of this preamble
describes the reporting requirement, and
EPA's rationale for adding it, in more
detail. While the proposed revised
§ 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not
explicitly require (b)(3) systems to
notify the State when a new source is
added or changes in water treatment
occur, the requirement was implicit in
the proposed reporting requirement for
•any system subject to a reduced lead
and copper tap water monitoring
frequency. Today's action clarifies that
(b)(3) systems are included in this
category.
(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion
control.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. Because it would no longer
be possible for large water systems
newly triggered into CCT requirements
to meet the date-specific milestones of
the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in 1996
that any system triggered into CCT steps
because it no longer meets the
§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the
treatment step and deadline
requirements of § I41.81(e) with any
such large system adhering to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-size systems.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA did
not receive any comments objecting to
this provision.
(Cj Today's action. Section
141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a
provision at § 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring
any system triggered into CCT steps
because it no longer meets the
§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria to comply with
the treatment steps and deadline
requirements in § 141.81(e). Any such
large system shall adhere to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-size systems.
(v) Difference between source water
lead concentrations and 90th percentile
lead levels.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. The April 1996 Proposal
did not include any changes to the 1991
criterion that allowed water systems to
demonstrate that the difference between
the highest source water lead
concentration and the 90th percentile
lead tap level is less than the Practical
Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead.
Nevertheless, one commenter suggested
that EPA modify the lead criterion of
§ 141.81 (b)(3) because, as written, a
system with very low 90th percentile
lead levels and undetectable source
water lead levels may be precluded from
becoming a (b)(3) system.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA
agrees with the commenter. Section
141.89(a)(3) requires that all
measurements below the Method
Detection Limit (MDL) be reported as
zero, whereas measurements between
the MDL and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L
may be reported as one-half the PQL
(0.0025 mg/L). A system with source
water lead levels just below an MDL of
0.001 mg/L and a 90th percentile tap
level of 0.005 mg/L would not be
deemed to be optimized using the 1991
(b)(3) criteria which requires the
difference to be less than 0.005 mg/L. In
this example, the difference would be
0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L-Omg/
L=0.005 mg/L). On the other hand,
assuming a lead MDL of 0.001 mg/L, a
system with source water lead levels of
0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of
0.006 mg/L would be considered to be
optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria
since the source water levels could be
reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this
example, the difference would be 0.0035
mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L —0.0025 mg/
L=0.0035 mg/L).
(C) Today's action. Therefore, EPA is
making a slight revision to § 141.81(b)(3)
to address the problem. The following
provision has been added as
§ 141.81(b)(3)(i): "Those systems having
source water lead levels below the
Method Detection Limit may also be
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph if the 90th
percentile tap water lead level is less
than or equal to the Practical
Quantitation Level for lead for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods."
2. Revisions to § 141.82
a. Clarification of requirement to
operate and maintain optimal corrosion
control. As discussed in section C.l.a.,
EPA is revising the first sentence of
§ 141.82(g) to clarify that all systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to § 141.81 (b) are
required to continuously operate and
maintain any installed CCT properly.
b. Excursions from State-designated
optimal water quality parameter ranges
or values.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested
public comment on a regulatory option
that would revise the way in which
compliance with State-designated
OWQPs is determined under
§ 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a
water system would be out of
compliance with the requirements of
§ 141.82(g) if the results of any WQP
sample were below the minimum value
or outside the range of values
designated by the State under
§ 141.82(f). Systems could take a
confirmation sample within three days
of the original sample, however. If such
a confirmation sample were taken, the
results of the original sample and the
confirmation sample were to be
averaged to determine compliance.
Several commenters responding to
issues raised in the 1996 Proposal
expressed concern about this method of
determining compliance. These
commenters, while advocating frequent
WQP sampling, noted that the Rule's
approach for determining compliance
creates a significant disincentive for
sampling more frequently than required,
since the more frequently measurements
are taken, the greater the potential that
some of the results will be outside the
State-specified limits. These
commenters urged EPA to adopt a
percentage-based approach to
determining compliance.
The April 1998 Notice contained a
regulatory option that would replace the
confirmation-sample concept with a
repeat-sample concept. Under the
repeat-sample concept, a water system
whose initial monitoring results were
below the minimum value or outside
the range of values designated by the
State could take a repeat sample within
three days of the original sample. If
taken, the results of the repeat sample
would be used to determine compliance
under § 141.82(g); otherwise, the results
of the original sample would be used.
In the August 1998 Notice, EPA
sought public comment on a refinement
of the repeat-sample concept in order to
better address issues associated with
measuring WQPs more frequently than
once a day. Under the refined option,
compliance with § 141.82(g) would be
determined quarterly. To be in
compliance for the quarter, a water
system would need to be in compliance
for each applicable WQP at each
sampling location at which that WQP is
measured during the quarter. The
method of determining compliance for a
WQP at a sampling location would
depend on the frequency with which
that parameter is measured at that
sampling location during the quarter.
Where the measurements are taken once
a day or less often, compliance would
be determined using a repeat-sample
approach similar to the one described in
the April 1998 Notice. That is, if the
result of any measurement is below the
minimum value or outside the range
designated by the State under
§ 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat
sample within 72 hours of the original
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1961
sample; if a repeat sample is taken,
those results would be used to
determine compliance, otherwise the
results of the original sample would be
used. For sampling locations where the
parameter is measured more frequently
than once a day, a system would be in
compliance with the requirements of
§ 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent
of the measurements taken for the
parameter at the sampling location
during the quarter are within the State-
designated limits and no single
excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In
those instances where monitoring is
continuous, systems would be required
to record the results at least every four
hours and to use the recorded results for
determining compliance. Finally, the
August 1998 option also would revise
the reporting requirements at
§ 141.90(a)(l) to clarify that systems
would be required to report to the State
on a quarterly basis, all water quality
parameter results collected during the
quarter, unless the State specified a
more frequent reporting schedule.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While
commenters responding to the April
1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample
approach represented an improvement
over the confirmation-sample approach,
most expressed concern that the repeat-
sample approach did not eliminate the
disincentives for frequent monitoring or
the problems in determining
compliance that would occur when
WQPs were measured more frequently
than once a day. These commenters
continued to urge EPA to allow a
percentage-based approach, at least in
those instances where WQPs are
measured frequently.
Most commenters to the refined
approach discussed in the August 1998
Notice expressed support for a
percentage-based approach; however,
many disagreed with some of the
specific provisions proposed. Several
commenters, for example, advocated
using a lower percentage than that
proposed by the Agency as the basis for
determining compliance with the
requirements of § 141.82(g). A number
of commenters suggested that 90 percent
would be more appropriate since lead
and copper action level exceedances are
determined based on the 90th percentile
lead and copper tap water values. Other
commenters supported the use of 90
percent because of system-specific or
uncontrollable factors that may affect
water quality. They argued that, if 10
percent, or more, of the water quality
measurements were allowed to be
outside OWQP limits, the State would
tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than
in those instances where 95 percent of
the results were required to be within
the State-specified OWQP limits. A few
commenters suggested that EPA allow
States the flexibility to determine the
percent of samples that must be within
acceptable levels.
EPA believes setting the performance
measure at 95 percent is appropriate.
Today's action adopts a percent-of-time
approach to determining compliance. If
the performance measure were set at 90
percent, for example, a water system
could be out of compliance with WQP
requirements for more than 18 days in
a six-month period or 36 days in a
twelve-month period. The Agency does
not believe that allowing this much
deviation from OWQPs provides
adequate levels of public health
protection. Since States will have the
results of the two 6-month rounds of
follow-up monitoring after the
installation of corrosion control before
designating OWQPs, the Agency
believes it is reasonable for States to set
OWQPs that water systems should be
able to maintain at least 95 percent of
the time. The Agency also believes that
determination of OWQP compliance
(intended to demonstrate proper
operation and maintenance of a
treatment process) is not sufficiently
analogous to determination of action
level exceedances (intended to indicate
a need for treatment) to justify the use
of the same percentage for both just to
maintain consistency in the
calculations.
No commenter objected to using a
percentage-based approach for water
systems that measure WQPs more than
once per day. Many commenters
advocated use of the percentage
approach for systems that collect daily
samples and some advocated using the
percentage approach across-the-board
for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees
that it is reasonable for a single
approach to be used when determining
compliance, as long as the approach can
accommodate large variations in
sampling frequency. To maintain
reasonable fairness between systems
that collect entry point measurements
biweekly and those that collect entry
point measurements several times a day,
the Agency has adopted the suggestion
made by several commenters to shift
from a percent-of samples calculation to
a percent-of-time calculation. EPA also
has revised the compliance-
determination period from quarterly to
every six months. To remain in
compliance, a water system may have
no more than nine days during a six-
month monitoring period when any
excursions occur (or persist). This
corresponds to having no excursions
approximately 95 percent of the time.
Where a system measures a parameter
several times a day at the same location,
the daily value for the purposes of
determining compliance with
§ 141.82(g) will be calculated by
averaging all results collected during the
day unless EPA has approved an
alternative formula under
§ 142.16(d)(l)(ii) in the State's
application for a primacy revision.
A few commenters also disagreed
with the approach outlined in the
August 1998 Notice that would require
each sampling location to be in
compliance in order for the system to be
considered in compliance. The Agency
disagrees that aggregating the results
from all sampling locations before
determining whether or not an
excursion has occurred provides
sufficient health protection. Aggregating
the results from multiple locations
could mask a problem that affects only
a part of the system. EPA has therefore
retained the requirement that excursions
be determined for each WQP and .
sampling location.
Some commenters raised concern
over the requirement that repeat
samples be collected within 72 hours of
the original sample. These commenters
noted that it might not be possible to
make necessary adjustments within 72
hours, particularly if the problem occurs
just before a weekend or holiday and the
system is unable to obtain a necessary
part for several days or if several days
are necessary before the effects of
treatment changes are apparent at
distribution system monitoring sites.
EPA believes the modified approach for
determining compliance in today's
action will provide some relief to those
systems that need several days to effect
necessary repairs. At the same time, the
Agency believes it is essential to
minimize excursion durations to the ,
maximum extent possible. One study,
for example, suggests that disruptions of
four to five days in CCT may potentially
affect levels of lead at the tap adversely
(Colling, et al, 1992). The Agency has
no data that suggest the impact on
copper levels would be any different.
The Agency believes it is appropriate,
therefore, for those systems with
chronic equipment problems to develop
and implement appropriate sampling
schedules and contingency plans to
minimize possible "down" time. Since
the LCR does not require frequent
sampling at distribution system tap
locations, the Agency believes systems
should have sufficient flexibility to
avoid sample collection at these
locations during times of known
equipment problems or other factors not
representative of normal operations.
Today's action eliminates the repeat-
sample approach and makes no
-------
1962
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
distinction for compliance purposes
between samples collected at entry
points and those collected from
distribution system taps. The duration
of an excursion for a WQP measured
less frequently than daily at a sampling
location is the number of days between
the excursion and the day a subsequent
sample taken for the same parameter at
the same sampling location is within the
State-specified limits. The day on which
the daily value is outside the State-
specified limits is the first day of the
" excursion. The day preceding the day
that a subsequent sample taken for the
same parameter at the same sampling
location is again within the State-
specified limits is the last day of the
excursion. Thus, if a distribution system
tap location has an excursion (e.g., on a
Monday) and the system collects
another sample three days later (e.g., on
Thursday) that is within the limits, the
system has had an excursion of with a
duration of 3 days and will remain in
compliance if it does not have more
than six other days in the six-month
period during which an excursion
occurs at any sampling location.
The August 1998 Notice proposed
that where a water system is conducting
continuous monitoring, the results be
recorded every four hours for the
purpose of determining compliance
with § 141.82(g). Some commenters
expressed concern that this requirement
could be burdensome for some systems.
One State noted that such a requirement
wouloi necessitate a change to State
• reporting forms which currently only
have room for the system to record a
daily value for each WQP. Other
commenters noted that the proposed
provisions did not address those
instances where continuous monitoring
equipment is not working properly. EPA
has dropped the requirement to record
continuous monitoring results every
four hours. States have the discretion to
specify the frequency of recording
continuous monitoring results. Today's
action makes no distinction between
continuous monitoring results and grab
sample results. If both are collected on
the same day, both must be included in
the calculation of the daily value.
Several commenters objected to the
proposed requirement that OWQP
compliance be determined quarterly and
suggested that a more appropriate
frequency would be annual or every six
months. A few of these commenters
expressed the opinion that a quarterly
compliance determination would be
more stringent than the 1991
requirements. EPA disagrees with this
interpretation. Under the 1991
requirements, a water system could
incur a violation any time the results of
a sample (or the results of a sample
averaged with the results of a
confirmation sample taken within three
days of the original sample) were below
the minimum value or outside the range
of values designated by the State under
§ 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a
violation as frequently as every two
weeks. Under the revisions proposed in
the August 1998 Notice, a water system
would incur no more than one OWQP
violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the
Agency agrees that determining
compliance with OWQPs once every six
months, instead of once every three
months, is more consistent with other
monitoring frequencies in the LCR. For
these reasons, today's action requires
OWQP compliance to be determined
every six months.
Finally, a few commenters responded
that they did not believe the proposed
modifications made clear the
circumstances that would remove a
system's eligibility for reduced
monitoring under §§ 141.86 and 141.87.
Today's action includes some additional
changes to the language of §§ 141.86 and
141.87 to clarify that failure to comply
with the requirements of § 141.82(g)
removes a system's eligibility for
reduced monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap as well as reduced WQP
monitoring within the distribution
system. Systems that lose this eligibility
must requalify in accordance with the
requirements of § 141.86(d)(4) in order
to resume reduced monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap and must requalify
in accordance with the requirements of
§ 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap.
(iii) Today's action. After considering
the comments received, EPA has
modified the OWQP compliance
requirements- of § 141.82(g) as follows:
• Compliance will be calculated for
each 6-month period specified in
§ 141.87(d) during which the water
system is required to conduct WQP
monitoring, regardless of the frequency
of WQP monitoring. The first six-month
period begins on the date the State
specifies the OWQPs under § 141.82(f).
A water system with excursions (see
following paragraph) occurring/
persisting on more than nine (9) days
during the six-month period would be
out of compliance. The 9 days need not
be consecutive, but may be.
• An excursion is defined as a "daily
value" for a parameter that is below the
minimum value or outside the range of
values designated by the State under
§ 141.82(f) as representing optimal
corrosion control.
• "Daily values" will be determined
for each parameter at each sampling
location. The daily values are to be
calculated based on the frequency of
sampling for the parameter at the
sampling location. If measurements for
the parameter are collected at the
sampling location more frequently than
once a day, the daily value will be
calculated by averaging all of the results
measured at the sampling location for
the parameter during the day (regardless
of whether the results are measured
through continuous monitoring, grab
samples, or both) unless EPA has
approved an alternative formula under
§ 142.16 as a part of the State's
application for a primacy revision
submitted pursuant to § 142.12. If
measurements for the parameter are
collected only once a day at a sampling
location, the daily value will be the
daily measurement. If measurements for
the parameter are collected less
frequently than once a day at the
sampling point, the daily value will be
the most recent measurement taken,
even if that measurement was collected
during a previous monitoring period.
Under this calculation, there is no
distinction between a measurement
taken at an entry point and one
collected from a distribution system tap.
The Agency recognizes that systems
subject to reduced monitoring for WQPs
at the tap may not collect samples from
every site during each six-month period.
In such cases, where the system does
not collect any samples for a
distribution system tap sampling
location during the six-month period,
the sampling location would have no
excursions if the most recent
measurements at that site were within
the State-specified limits. If, on the
other hand, the system's most recent
measurements were taken at the
distribution system tap sampling
location during the previous monitoring
period and were outside the State-
specified limits, the system would be
out of compliance with § 141.82(g) and
would therefore be triggered back into
standard WQP monitoring.
Corresponding revisions have been
made to the language of §§ 141.86,
141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the
language of §§ 141.86(d)(4)(v)—
redesignated as § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)—and
141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water
system that is out of compliance with
the requirements of § 141.82(g) is
ineligible to conduct reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap and for WQPs within the
distribution system. Systems that lose
their eligibility for reduced monitoring
cannot resume reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the tap or for WQPs
within the distribution system until
they have completed two consecutive
six-month rounds of monitoring that
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1963
meet the requirements of §§ 141.86(d)(4)
and 141.87(e), respectively.
Section 141.87(d) has been revised to
define the six-month periods for the
purpose of WQP monitoring once the
State has designated OWQPs under
§ 141.82(f). The first such period shall
begin on the date the State specifies the
OWQPs. For small and medium-size
systems conducting reduced monitoring
for lead and copper at the tap that are
triggered into WQP monitoring pursuant
to § 141.87(d), the end of the six-month
period for monitoring under § 141.87(d)
shall be synchronized with the end of
the reduced monitoring period under
§ 141.86(d)(4) during which the action
level exceedance occurred. The wording
of § 141.87(d) has been streamlined by
referencing, but not repeating, the
compliance requirements specified in
§ 141.82(g). The Agency has revised the
requirements of § 141.90(a)(l) to require
that the WQP monitoring results be
provided to the State no less frequently
than ten days after the end of each six-
month monitoring period, unless the
State has specified a more frequent
reporting requirement.
Finally, today's action revises the
provisions of § 142.16(d)(l) to add an
'optional special primacy condition for
States that want to use a formula, other
than that specified in § 141.82(g), to
calculate the daily value when multiple
measurements are taken on the same
day for a water quality parameter at the
same sampling location.
3. Revisions to §141.84
a. Proposed revision and background.
Section 141.84 requires systems that fail
to meet the lead action level after
installing CCT and/or source water
treatment to replace lead service lines
(LSLs). As promulgated in 1991,
§ 141.84(d) required a water system to
replace the entire LSL, up to the
building inlet, unless the system
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
State that it controlled less than the
entire service line. EPA promulgated a
definition of "control" that was
subsequently vacated and remanded to
EPA as a result of a judicial.challenge
to this aspect of the Rule to the extent
the definition of control applied to
portions of the line beyond a water
system's ownership.4 The court in that
case ruled that EPA did not provide an
opportunity for the public to comment
on the Agency's expansive definition of
control. The court did not address the
question of whether the definition was
within EPA's authority under SDWA. In
the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested
comment on a revised definition of
*AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
"control" that would include the '
portion of the line the water system
owns as well as any additional portion
over which it has the authority to
replace. The Agency explained that it
was concerned that the LSL replacement
requirements in the 1991 LCR, which
obligated systems to also replace the
privately-owned portion of the line
where the system had the authority to
replace, repair, or maintain the line, or
had other forms of authority over the
line, could result in confusion and delay
in implementation of the Rule.
Confusion could result from different
perceptions of the precise scope of the
system's legal authority, and resolution
of such disputes could require the
intervention of the State in a potentially
time-consuming process. EPA also
proposed to remove the rebuttable
presumption in § 141.84(e) that the
water system controls the entire length
of the LSL.
EPA is aware of some information
indicating that partial replacement of
LSLs may result in transitory increases
in levels of lead at the tap immediately
following replacement (see 56 FR 26505,
middle of second column, Jun. 7,1991).
The Agency believes'that the entire
length of the service line should be
replaced wherever such replacement is
possible. For this reason, the 1996
proposed revision to § 141.84(d) did not
include any changes to the requirement
that water systems offer to replace the
privately-owned portion of the LSL (at
the building owner's expense) and, if
requested by the resident(s), collect a
post-partial replacement sample and
report the results to the resident(s)
within 14 days of the partial LSL
replacement.
In light of commenter concerns about
the retention of partial LSL replacement
requirements in the April 1996
Proposal, EPA included a request for
comment in the April 1998 Notice on
additional changes to the LSL
requirements. Specifically, EPA
requested comment on the following: (1)
Clarifying that a system should make
the offer to replace the privately-owned
portion of the LSL to the owner, rather
than the user; (2) adding a requirement
that the system notify the resident(s) of
the building(s) served by the LSL at
least 45 days prior to partial LSL
replacement and provide guidance on
possible short-term lead level increases
and preventive measures consumers can
take to minimize exposure; (3) replacing
the 1991 LCR requirement for a
resident-requested follow-up sample
within 14 days of partial LSL
replacement with a requirement to
collect a sample within 24 hours of
partial LSL replacement, and to notify
the resident(s) within 3 days of the
system's receipt of the results; and (4)-
adding flexibility in the method of
resident notification.
b. Comments and analysis.
(i) Definition of "control." In the April
1996 Proposal, the Agency solicited
comments, specifically regarding the
degree to which systems may have the
authority to replace the privately-owned
portions of LSLs. In addition, EPA
solicited comments regarding the option
of only requiring replacement of the
portion of the line owned by the water
system, explaining that such an
approach would further simplify
implementation of the rule because the
division in ownership between the
system and the user would be clear to
all parties.
Three commenters supported the
definition of control that EPA proposed,
that is water systems must replace the
portion that they own as well as the
portion over which they have the
authority to replace. All other
commenters supported the more limited
definition that equates control with
ownership. Commenters felt that it is
appropriate to hold the water system
responsible only for the portion of the
service line the system owns. In
addition, the commenters felt that
defining control as ownership would
avoid confusion and ambiguities about
the scope of the water system's
authority to replace LSLs. These
commenters opposed the idea of also
requiring a water system to replace any
additional portion of the line that it
does not own but for which it has the
authority to replace. Their reasons for
opposing the proposed definition
included: lack of legal authority;
difficulty obtaining permission to
replace LSLs on private property;
concern about using public funds to do
work on private property; and potential
conflicts/lawsuits involving utilities,
homeowners and independent
contractors. Some commenters argued
that EPA does not have the statutory
authority to require LSL replacement by
the water supplier on private property.
After consideration of these
comments, the Agency agrees that the
broader definition of "control" (that is,
the water system would be required to
replace the portion of the LSL that it
owns plus any additional portion of the
line that it has the authority to replace)
could result in unintended delays and
other complications. For this reason,
EPA believes it is appropriate to equate
"control" with "ownership" in order to
eliminate potential legal confusion and
delays in implementing the Rule.
(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable
presumption. Most commenters did not
-------
1964 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
explicitly address EPA's proposal to
remove the rebuttable presumption that
the water system controls the entire
length of the LSL. Those who did
address the issue supported the
Agency's proposal. EPA is eliminating
the rebuttable presumption as proposed,
since it is no longer needed now that the
definition of "control" equals
ownership under today's rule.
(iii) Possible adverse health effects
associated with partial LSL
replacement. A number of commenters
to the April 1996 Proposal and the April
1998 Notice expressed concern about
the possible adverse health effects
associated with partial replacement of
LSLs. These concerns were similar to
those expressed by commenters to the
1988 proposed LCR. The commenters
felt that replacing only part of the
service line could actually increase the
lead levels at the tap because of galvanic
action, the disruption of the protective
coating on the inside of the pipe and the
entry of particulate lead to the supplied
water. Some of the commenters on the
April 1996 Proposal referred to the case
studies (Britton and Richards, 1981;
EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the
Agency in the preamble to the 1991
LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that
the Agency thought partial LSL
replacement could increase lead levels,
but that EPA believed increased levels,
if they occur, will be temporary and will
decrease over time. A number of
commenters argued that these studies
show increased lead levels from partial
LSL replacement and that the levels do
not necessarily decrease. EPA has
reanalyzed the three case studies to
better assess the lead level increases
resulting from partial LSL replacement
(EPA, 1998c). This reanalysis confirmed
that lead levels at the tap, will in some
instances, increase immediately after
partial replacement of the LSL. The
results of the same studies also revealed
that subsequently, over the long run,
lead levels will decrease below the pre-
replacement levels after partial LSL
replacement. The commenters on both
the 1996 and 1998 proposals also stated
that several water systems which began
voluntary programs to replace their
portion of the LSL observed increased
lead levels after replacement. However,
no new data were submitted to the
Agency for analysis. The Agency
believes that the temporary rise in lead
levels indicates not only the presence of
lead materials in the distribution system
(i.e., service lines, probably lead pipe),
but also poor corrosion control. It is
expected that potential for temporary
increases in lead levels will be minimal
for those systems where corrosion
control has been fully implemented and
optimized as required by the Rule.
Four case studies were examined to
assess the impact of partial LSL
replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of
the case studies have adequate data to
assess the impact on lead levels at the
tap, relative to time elapsed after
replacement. The first study was
conducted in Scotland. Lead levels were
observed at a residence after partial LSL
replacement over a four-month period
(Britton and Richards, 1981). The other
study was conducted by EPA at several
homes in Oakwood, Ohio and lead
levels were recorded for several weeks
after replacement (EPA, 1991b).
The study by Britton and Richards
showed a temporary rise in lead levels
at the tap. There were four monitoring
periods in this case study: before
replacement, one week after
replacement, two months after
replacement, and four months after
replacement. During each period, 10
first-draw and 10 random daytime
samples were collected daily over a two-
week period. First-draw samples were
taken in the morning before any other
water in the household had been run.
The random daytime samples were
taken later that day without running any
water to waste before sampling.
The elevated lead levels produced by
partial LSL replacement were a short-
term phenomenon. The average
concentrations for the first-draw and
random daytime samples taken "four
months after replacement" are lower
than the average concentrations of the
"before replacement" samples. In
addition, the first-draw and random
daytime samples were averaged for each
sampling period to better assess the
impact of partial LSL replacement on
lead levels at the site. The averages of
all samples taken "four months after
replacement" is 25 percent lower than
the averages of all samples taken "before
replacement." The percentage reduction
is even larger when the average of the
first-draw samples are compared. The
data on the range of concentrations and
the percentages of samples above 0.100
mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the
benefits of partial LSL replacement. The
highest concentration in the first-draw
samples taken "four months after
replacement" is less than half the
highest concentration taken in the first-
draw samples taken "before
replacement." In addition, the
percentages of samples with
concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and
0.050 mg/L are lower in the data taken
"four months after replacement." This
trend is observed in both the first-draw
and the random daytime samples. This
study supports EPA's contention that
although lead levels at the tap will in
some instances increase immediately
after partial replacement of the LSL,
over the long run, lead levels will
decrease below the before replacement
levels.
The EPA study was designed to
observe the effects of partial LSL
replacement. First-draw samples and
service line samples were taken before
and after replacement of LSLs at four
sites in Oakwood, Ohio. One limitation
of this study is that the lead levels
before replacement were below the
trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement
would not be required for these sites
under the LCR. Another limitation is the
duration of sampling. A complete set of
post-replacement samples was not taken
at every site making it difficult to fully
examine the impact of time on post-
replacement lead levels. The third
limitation is that the date of the partial
LSL replacement for each of the four
sites is not recorded in the summary.
The results from the first round of
post-replacement samples are very'
similar to the pre-replacement results.
The averages of the pre- and post-
replacement samples for three of the
sites were within 3 "u7L of one another,
and all were at or below 10 u/L. The
average service line lead level almost
doubled at one site and exceeded the
action level of 15 u/L after replacement.
However, the average for the three
service line samples taken at this site
the following week was dramatically
lower. The averages for the service line
samples taken at the other two sites
during this sampling period were also
lower than the averages for the first after
replacement sampling period. The
results from the second round of post-
replacement monitoring showed a
significant decrease in lead levels when
compared to the pre-replacement
averages. The post-replacement averages
from the second monitoring period
showed approximately a 50 percent
reduction from the pre-replacement
averages. The data from the third round
of post-replacement monitoring only
showed a slight additional decrease in
lead levels. The levels are below 5 u7L,
so further significant reductions would
be unlikely. These data do not support
the commenter's contentions that lead
levels are elevated after partial LSL
replacement and that lead levels do not
necessarily decrease. These data do
appear to indicate that requiring
replacement of lines where tap levels
are already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1)
might not result in dramatic
improvements in lead levels.
In practice, EPA believes that many
systems required to replace LSLs will
receive consent to remove any privately-
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1965
owned portions since it is in the
homeowners' interest to completely
remove this source of lead in their
drinking water. In those cases where the
PWS cannot obtain permission to
remove the entire line, EPA still
believes there are benefits to partial
replacement. Partial removal of a LSL
will reduce the likelihood of exposure
to lead from drinking water because
there will be a smaller volume of water
in contact with the LSL. Consumers are
more likely to consume water with
.elevated lead levels from longer lines
because a larger volume of water will
have elevated lead levels. As previously
explained in detail in the 1991 LCR,
data collected by Pocock (1980) from
over 2,000 homes in the United
Kingdom support the view that the
likelihood of elevated lead levels varies
in relation to the length of the LSL.
These findings are also consistent with
Kuch and Wagner's (1983) mass transfer
modeling, which predicted the
dependence of lead levels on the length
and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher
lead levels with longer lead pipe).
The Agency believes the water system
should replace the entire length of the
line wherever possible. Today's action
therefore retains a requirement for the
water supplier to offer to replace the
privately-owned portion of the line.
This requirement has been revised to
exclude those instances where doing so
is precluded by State, local or common
law. There is no requirement for the
system to bear the cost of replacing the
privately-owned portion of the line.
Thus, if the property owner does not
want to pay for removal of the privately-
owned portion of the line, the system is
only required to replace the portion it
owns. The Agency believes that the
requirement for systems to offer
assistance with replacement of
privately-controlled service lines is an
efficient and effective means of
maximizing the public health benefits
achieved by the rule.
(iv) Resident notification of partial
LSL replacement. In response to the
April 1998 Notice, no commenter
objected to requiring the system to
contact the "owner" rather than the
"user" when offering to replace the
privately-owned portion of the service
line. Several commenters expressed
concern that requiring notification to
residents 45 days in advance of the
partial replacement would present a
hardship in instances where the system
is replacing the line in conjunction with
making emergency repairs. A few
commenters objected to the requirement
that the water system be responsible for
providing notification to residents of
multi-family buildings and other non-
billing unit residents and suggested this
should be the responsibility of the
building owner. Finally, several
commenters expressed concern about
the requirement for a post-replacement
sample taken within 24 hours of the
replacement. The concerns included
timing problems associated with
weekends and holidays, the likelihood
that such a sample would not be
representative of the lead levels after
stabilization, and the added cost and
burden associated with the requirement.
To minimize the risk that residents
will incur increased exposure because
of partial line replacement, EPA is
including the requirement that water
systems provide a notice of the partial
replacement to the residents at least 45
days before commencing with the
partial LSL replacement, inform
residents that they may experience a
temporary increase of lead levels in
their drinking water, and provide
residents 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 LSL replacement, and to
plan and implement appropriate
measures to avoid exposure to lead. The
Agency agrees with commenters,
however, that a 45-day lead time is not
practicable in those instances when
replacement is being done in
conjunction with emergency repairs.
EPA has therefore included provisions'
giving States the discretion to allow for
notification of less than 45 days in such
instances. States will need to review
such requests on a case-by-case basis
unless they adopt appropriate State
regulations to allow notification of less
than 45 days in conjunction with
emergency repairs.
As an additional precautionary
measure, the water system is required to
collect a follow-up LSL sample, to
determine whether the partial LSL
replacement caused an increase of lead
levels in the drinking water, and to
provide the results to residents. The
1991 LCR required the water supplier to
inform residents served by partially-
replaced LSLs that they were entitled to
have a tap water sample drawn and
analyzed within 14 days of the
completion of the partial replacement.
Upon further consideration, the Agency
believes the requirement, as codified in
1991, could place an undue burden on
the water system in those instances
where a line serves a large multi-family
residence because the system could be
required to take a large number of
samples if every unit requested one. The
follow-up sampling that would be
required by the changes to § 141.84(d)
discussed in the April 1998 Notice is
intended to show the "worst-case"
effects of partial LSL replacement and is
not intended to be used in 90th
percentile calculations or for
determining compliance with optimal
corrosion control or source water
treatment requirements. Under the
revised requirement, the water system is
required to collect only one sample for
each partially-replaced LSL. EPA
therefore does not believe that a large
number of samples is required.
EPA is including the requirement that
the water system collect a tap water
sample representative of the water in
the service line for analysis of lead
content as prescribed in § 141.86(b)(3)
and provide the results to the residents
quickly. Prior to collecting the follow-
up sample, water must remain sitting in
the pipe for at least 6 hours following
partial LSL replacement. The Agency is
sensitive to commenter concerns that
.collecting such a sample within 24
hours of the partial replacement may
cause additional burden. In those cases
where the partial replacement is
completed on a Friday or just before a
holiday, staff may not be available
outside of normal working hours to
collect such a sample. For these reasons,
EPA agrees with commenters that
extending the time frame for collecting
the follow-up sample from 24 hours to
72 hours is reasonable and the Agency
has done so in the final rule language. '
In response to commenter suggestions,
the Agency also is clarifying in the rule
language that the water system is
expected to pay for this sampling. EPA
does not believe that the follow-up
sampling and notification constitute a
significant burden to the system
compared with the cost of the partial
LSL replacement.
The Agency believes 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 to lead. In addition,
unnecessary expenses and further
concerns on the part of consumers could
be alleviated in instances where the
analytical results indicate little or no
increase in lead levels, or an immediate
decrease in lead levels, resulting from
the partial removal of the LSL. EPA
therefore is retaining the requirement
that water systems provide the results of
this post-replacement sample to
consumers within three days of
receiving the results. The Agency has
-------
1966
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
clarified the rule language to reflect that
the three days are business days.
While EPA is sensitive to the
difficulties associated with providing
notification to residents of non-billing
units (for example, apartment buildings
and other rental units), the Agency
believes it is important that the water
system take pro-active measures to
notify these residents. The Agency
therefore is including the requirement
that the water system provide the pre-
partial LSL replacement information
and the post-replacement sample results
to these residents as well as to the
residents of billing units. In the case of
single family residences, this notice
must be made by mail unless another
mechanism is approved by the State. To
avoid problems arising from delivery
delays beyond the system's control,
notifications which are postmarked
within the required time will be
considered acceptable. In the case of
multi-family residences, the regulation
gives the water supplier the option to
post the information in a conspicuous
place.
(v) Reporting of post-replacement
sampling results to the State. Most
comm'enters supported the proposed
requirement that water systems provide
the State a copy of the results of samples
collected immediately following partial
LSL replacement within the first ten
days of the month following the month
in which the results are received from
the laboratory. Two commenters,
however, suggested that EPA provide
States flexibility in the manner, format,
and timing of reporting; three other
commenters opposed the requirement
altogether. After consideration of these
comments, EPA has retained the
reporting requirement but has given
States the flexibility to modify or
eliminate it. Even if the State does not
require these results to be reported,
water systems are required to maintain
records of the sampling results in
accordance with § 141.91.
(vi) Financial impacts of LSL
replacement. Some commenters were
concerned about the financial impacts
associated with LSL replacement. They
felt that compliance with the regulation
will be particularly burdensome for
some cities that have a high percentage
of LSLs. One commenter stated the
belief that EPA's 1991 LCR estimate of
the average removal cost per line was
extremely conservative when made and
is now outdated, and actual costs could
be significantly higher and submitted
supporting data. The cost of the original
LSL replacement requirements is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA did not propose any changes to the
basic LSL replacement requirements nor
did EPA ask for comment on those '
requirements or otherwise reopen that
issue.
(vii) Other LSL comments. Some
commenters raised issues with the basic
LSL replacement requirements of the
rule, such as the requirement to replace
or sample 7 percent of lines each year
and the basic reasonableness of
requiring systems to replace some
portion of the line when levels at the tap
are above 15 ppb. These comments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking
because EPA did not propose revisions
to, or otherwise reopen, the basic LSL
replacement requirements in this
proceeding. Rather, the only aspects of
the 1991 Rule addressed here are the
definition of "control" for purposes of
determining the portion of the service
line the system is required to replace,
and sampling and notification
requirements that relate to the potential
for partial LSL replacement.
c. Today's action. EPA has eliminated
the "control" terminology from the
Rule. Today's action revises § 141.84(d)
to require the water system to replace
only the portion of the LSL that it owns.
Water systems subject to LSL
replacement requirements continue to
be required to offer to replace the
privately-owned portion of the line,
however, § 141.84(d) has been revised to
clarify that the offer must be made to the
owner of the property, or the owner's
authorized agent, rather than the user.
Today's action also revises the
requirements in § 141.84(d) that a water
system must satisfy when replacing only
a portion of the LSL. The requirement
that a water system offer to take a post-
replacement sample within 14 days of
the partial replacement has been
replaced with the following
requirements.
• At least 45 days prior to the partial
replacement, the water system must
notify all residents of the building
served by the line that the partial
replacement will occur, alert them that
they may experience a temporary
increase of lead levels in their drinking
water, provide them with guidance on
measures they can take to minimize
their exposure to lead, and inform them
that the water system will collect a
follow-up sample within 72 hours of
completing the partial replacement, and
notify them of the results of that sample.
The State has the discretion to allow
less than a 45-day advance notice in
those instances where the partial
replacement is being performed in
conjunction with emergency repairs.
• Within 72 hours ofcompleting the
partial LSL replacement, the water
system shall collect a tap water sample
representative of the water in the service
line for analysis of lead content in
accordance with the procedures
specified in § 141.86(b)(3). The system
shall report the results of the analysis to
the owner and the resident(s) served by
the line within 3 business days of
receiving the results. Mailed notices
post-marked within 3 business days of
receiving the results shall be considered
"on time."
• For the purpose of satisfying the
notification requirements of § 141.84(d),
the water system shall provide the
information to the residents of
individual dwellings by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In
instances where multi-family dwellings
are served by the line, the water system
shall have the option to post the
information at a conspicuous location.
Today's action also makes three other
changes in § 141.84. Section 141.84(e)
has been deleted, since the rebuttable
presumption is no longer appropriate.
Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been
redesignated as §§ 141.84(e) through (g).
The Agency also has made a slight
modification to § 141.84(b) to explicitly
require the system to document, in
system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s)
owned by the system. The third
sentence of § 141.84(b) has been revised
to read as follows: "The system shall
identify the initial number of lead
service lines in its distribution system,
including an identification of the
portion(s) owned by the system, based
on a materials evaluation, including the
evaluation required under § 141.86(a)
and relevant legal authorities (e.g.,
contracts, local ordinances) regarding
the portion owned by the system." EPA
does not intend that systems provide
this information to the State; however,
the Agency thinks it is important for a
record to exist that documents the
baseline. These records should be
available for inspection at the system
upon request.
The reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(e)(4), to submit documentation
if the system believes it does not control
the entire length of the line, has been
replaced with a requirement that the
water system report the results of the
post-partial replacement sampling to the
State within the first ten days of the
month following the month in which
the system receives the laboratory
results, unless otherwise specified by
the State. States, at their discretion, may
eliminate this reporting requirement.
Systems shall also report additional
information as specified by the State,
and in a time and manner prescribed by
the State, to verify that all partial LSL
replacement activities have taken place.
Finally, these changes to § 141.84
necessitate conforming changes to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1967
§ 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has
revised the language of § 141.85(a)
slightly to remove references to LSL
control. The phrase "each lead service
line that we control" in § 141.85(a)(l)(i)
(as redesignated) has been revised to
read "the portion of each lead service
line that we own." The discussion of
LSL replacement in
§ 141.85(a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated)
has been revised to reflect the
notification and post-partial
replacement sampling requirements in
today's action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii),
requiring States to maintain records of
their determination that a water system
does not control the entire length of the
LSL, has been deleted; however, two
new State recordkeeping requirements
have been added. Section
142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to
maintain records of any system-specific
determinations regarding the
submission of information, including
post partial replacement test results, to
demonstrate compliance with partial
lead service line replacement
requirements. Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii)
has been added to include a
requirement that States maintain
records related to system compliance
with partial lead service line
replacement requirements. Section
142.16(d)(3) has been revised to
eliminate the requirement that States
describe in their primacy program
revision application how they plan to
make determinations that a water
system does not control the entire
length of the LSL. It has been replaced
with a requirement that States describe
in their primacy program revision how
they will verify that all partial LSL
replacement activities have been
completed properly.
4. Revisions to § 141.85
a. Changes affecting content of written
materials.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested comment on a revision that
would provide separate mandatory
public education language for use by
NTNCWSs and certain CWSs, such as
prisons and hospitals, which is more
appropriate for these systems. The
proposed NTNCWS language would
eliminate references to "homes in the
community" and some suggestions for
reducing lead exposure which may be
beyond the control of consumers served
by such water systems. As a part of this
provision, the Agency proposed that the
CWSs approved to use the NTNCWS
language also be permitted to deliver
their public education program as if
they were a NTNCWS. The Agency
proposed these changes to address
concerns of EPA Regions and States that
the mandatory language specified in the
1991 LCR may not be appropriate for
NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such
as prisons and hospitals) that primarily
serve confined populations. In order to
incorporate these changes into the LCR,
EPA proposed to renumber § 141.85(a)
as § 141.85(a)(l) and to incorporate the
NTNCWS language at § 141.85(a)(2).
EPA also proposed to add a paragraph
(c)(7) to § 141.85. This new paragraph •
would identify the types of CWSs who
might be eligible to use the NTNCWS
language. As proposed, CWSs would
need State approval to use the NTNCWS
language, however, EPA also solicited
public comment on the necessity of this
up-front approval.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While all
commenters supported the proposed
revisions, some offered additional
suggestions for consideration by EPA.
For example, suggestions were made to
allow CWSs to delete references to LSLs
where none exist, and to delete
references to building permit records
where the records are unavailable.
Another suggestion was to allow
NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems
to distribute the required public
education information electronically in
lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with
these suggestions, and has incorporated
language which gives States the
flexibility to approve these minor
changes to the public education
language.
Some commenters suggested that EPA
allow systems additional flexibility to
tailor public education language. The
public education language specified in
the regulations is a mandatory
minimum. The mandatory language
specified in the regulations was
developed to provide consistent,
beneficial information to consumers
regarding lead in their water supply.
Systems may request approval from
States to include additional language, to
provide consumers with information
specific to a particular system. EPA
believes the LCR, as revised by today's
action, provides sufficient flexibility to
address system-specific circumstances.
EPA received mixed comments on
whether up-front State approval for
CWSs to use the NTNCWS public
education language should be required
for CWSs that meet the specified criteria
in the proposed § 141.85(c)(7). After
considering these comments, EPA
believes that the issue of whether to
require up-front approval should be
decided by the States. The language at
§ 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to
allow States to decide whether systems
that qualify to use the alternative public
education language need to request
State approval.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has made the
following revisions to § 141.85 to reflect
the changes discussed above. The
Agency has redesignated paragraph (a),
except for the phrase, "Content of
written public education materials," as
paragraph (a)(l) and titled it as
"Community water systems." The
subordinate paragraphs have been
redesignated accordingly. The
introductory text of paragraph (a)(l) has
been expanded to allow CWSs, with
State approval, to delete information
pertaining to lead service lines if no
lead service lines exist anywhere in the
water system service area. As discussed
in section C.3.C. of this preamble, EPA
has replaced the phrase "each lead
service line that we control" in
paragraph (a)(l) with the phrase "the _
portion of each lead service line that we
own." Section 141.85(a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) also
has been revised to reflect that a water
system is only required to replace the
portion of the lead service line that it
owns and to reflect the notification and
post-partial-replacement sampling
requirements contained in § 141.84(d) of
today's action. Systems, however, may
continue to use pre-printed materials
with the old language, if they so choose.
The language of § 141.85(a)(l) also has
been expanded to allow systems to
modify, with State approval, the
language at (a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) and
[a)(l)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit
record availability and consumer access
to these records if such information is
not available.
EPA has added new paragraphs at
(a)(2) to specify alternative mandatory
language for use by NTNCWSs. These
systems have the discretion to use either
the language in § 141.85(a)(l) or the
language in § 141.85(a)(2). The
introductory text of § 141.85(c)(4) also
has been revised to update the
paragraph'references applicable to
repeat public education tasks.
EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to
§ 141*85(c). This paragraph specifies the
characteristics of CWSs that may be
eligible to use the NTNCWS language
and provides flexibility for eligible
CWSs to substitute posting and
distribution of informational pamphlets/
brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS
public education distribution
requirements. CWSs delivering public
education as if they were a NTNCWS
would be required to repeat public
education tasks only once per calendar
year in which the system exceeds the
lead action level. States have the
flexibility to waive the requirement for
prior State approval for these special-
-------
1968
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2.000/Rules and Regulations
case CWSs to deliver public education
as if they are NTNCWSs.
In addition, EPA has revised
§ 141.85(c)(4Xii) to permit a NTNCWS
to utilize electronic transmission in lieu
of or combined with printed materials
as long as it achieves at least the same
coverage.
Finally, EPA has added provisions in
a new § 142.14(d)(8)(x) that require
States to maintain records pertaining to
any system-specific decisions made
under § 141.85 regarding the content of
written public education materials and/
or the distribution of these materials.
b. Public education delivery
requirements.
(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer
people.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. The April 1996 Proposal
included a provision to allow CWSs
serving 500 or fewer people to forego
the newspaper and electronic media
notifications required as a part of public
education because these systems rarely
are served by general circulation
newspapers and radio/television
stations that have audiences limited to
the public water system's service area.
The Agency explained that it believes
such a revision is necessary to minimize
the unintended burden resulting from a
system needing to respond to numerous
inquiries from individuals it does not
serve. For the same reason, EPA also
proposed to allow systems serving 500
or fewer people to limit the distribution
of informational brochures to facilities
and organizations likely to be
frequented by pregnant women and
children. Finally, EPA requested public
comment on a burden reduction
suggestion to allow CWSs serving 501 to
3,300 people to forego the public service
announcement requirements contained
in § 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the major
radio/television stations usually
broadcast to a much broader area than
that served by the water system.
(B) Comments and analysis. Most of
the commenters supported the proposed
revision pertaining to the delivery of
public education by CWSs serving 500
or fewer people. Several commenters
noted discrepancies between the
preamble discussion and the rule
language, however, and expressed
concern that the rule language, as
proposed, would not accomplish the
intended objectives.
One of the discrepancies involves the
distribution of informational pamphlets
or brochures to facilities and
organizations visited frequently by
pregnant women and children. In the
preamble, EPA stated the Agency's
intent that these materials be distributed
to appropriate facilities served by the
system and "only those locations
outside the system's service area that are
regularly visited by the system's
consumers." This latter requirement, to
provide informational materials to
facilities and organizations not served
by the system, was not included in the
proposed rule language. Several
commenters expressed concern that
including such a requirement would
result in the same confusion and
unintended consequences as the
original requirements. EPA agrees that
limiting the distribution of materials to
facilities/organizations within the
service area is appropriate and the final
rule language has been revised
accordingly.
The second discrepancy between the
1996 preamble and proposed rule
language involves the question of what,
if anything, the water system would be
required to do in lieu of newspaper and
electronic notification. In the preamble,
EPA indicated that the Agency was
proposing to require CWSs, that serve
500 or fewer people and that desire to
omit tasks requiring submission of
information to newspapers and radio
and television stations, to mail or hand
deliver lead public education materials
to all other regular consumers (e.g.,
tenants of multi-family residences
whose water is included in their rent),
in addition to mailing these materials to
all billing units (60 FR16355, top of
third column). EPA inadvertently
omitted this requirement from the
proposed rule language. Even though
several commenters expressed concern
that such an alternative requirement
would be as burdensome as the original
requirements, the Agency believes that
such a requirement is appropriate when
newspaper notification and/or broad
distribution of pamphlets/brochures
does not occur. The purpose of these
activities is to ensure that as many
individuals served by the system as
possible receive timely public education
materials. For systems serving 500 and
fewer people, the Agency does not
believe that mailing or hand delivering
these materials to all households served
by the system, in lieu of these activities,
constitutes an undue burden. The
revised provisions allow these systems
the flexibility to select the least
burdensome among the allowable
delivery mechanisms. The Agency has
therefore incorporated this requirement
into the final rule language.
The comments received also
supported the burden reduction
suggestion to eliminate the public
service announcement requirement for
CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA
agrees and today's action revises the
rule language accordingly.
Several commenters recommended
that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501
to 3,300 people to forego newspaper
notification and broad distribution of
pamphlets and brochures to facilities
and organizations that are visited
frequently by pregnant women and
children. These commenters believe that
the problems associated with newspaper
notification and broad distribution of
informational pamphlets and brochures
affect most small systems. EPA concurs
that many systems serving between 501
and 3,300 people may be on the fringe
of an urban or suburban area and that
distribution of broad-based public
education for these systems may have
unintended consequences. The Agency
believes, however, that allowing these
systems to automatically limit
distribution of public education
materials is inappropriate. Such
systems, for example, are more likely to
be served by local newspapers in which
it may be appropriate to include
information about the system's lead
levels. EPA believes that States are in
the best position to determine the extent
to which CWSs serving 501 to 3,300
people should limit distribution of
public education materials. The final
rule therefore gives States the authority,
either through State regulations or by
case-by-case written approval, to allow
CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to
omit the newspaper notification
requirements and to limit the
distribution of materials to appropriate
facilities and organizations served by
the system.
Finally, one commenter suggested
that the alternate delivery allowed for
NTNCWSs and some small CWSs
(institutions) should be extended to
mobile home parks, housing projects,
subdivisions and apartments. The
commenter believes such systems serve
a more or less confined population that
is readily accessible through a central
mail area and/or laundry area that
makes hand delivery much easier and
more effective. EPA believes that the
revisions discussed below provide
sufficient flexibility for the delivery of
public education by CWSs. EPA
therefore has no plans at this time to
make further changes to the public
education language requirements
beyond those contained in today's
action.
(C) Today's action. EPA has revised
the rule to add a new paragraph at
§ 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving
less than or equal to 3,300 people to
omit the public service announcement
requirements of § 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such
systems are not required to obtain prior
State approval to omit these
announcements, nor are they required to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
19B9
substitute any other tasks, in lieu of
public service announcements, as part
of meeting the public education
requirements.
In addition to omitting the public
service announcement task for small
CWSs, the new § 141.85(c)(8) provides
some flexibility for small CWSs to omit
the newspaper notification required by
§ 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the
distribution of informational pamphlets
under § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate
facilities and organizations served by
the water system. In addition to mailing
lead public education materials to
billing units, systems electing to limit/
omit these activities must also mail or
hand deliver the required public
education materials to all other regular
customers of the system (i.e.,
households that are not billing units).
CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people must
receive prior written approval from the
State. State apprpval is not required for
CWSs serving 500 or fewer people,
however, §141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives
States the authority to require such a
system to distribute to facilities and
organizations not served by the system
in those instances where the State
believes that a broader distribution is
appropriate. As discussed above, today's
action also adds the corresponding State
recordkeeping requirements at a new
§ 142.14(d)(8)(x).
Finally, § 141.85 (c)(8)(ii) clarifies that
small CWSs that omit the public service
announcement tasks are required to
repeat public education tasks only once
during each calendar year until such
time as the results of lead and copper
tap water monitoring indicate that they
no longer exceed the lead action level.
(ii) Timing and method of
distribution.
(A) Proposed revision and
background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA sought comment on proposed
changes pertaining to the mailing and
timing of public education materials by
CWSs that exceed the lead action level.
Specifically, the Agency proposed two
modifications to § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a)
Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that
does not include a billing within 60
days of exceeding the lead action level
to mail the materials on the same
schedule as the system's billing cycle as
long as the mailing occurs within six
months after the exceedance; and (b)
allow a CWS that cannot insert
information in the water utility bill,
without making major changes to its
billing system, to use a separate mailing
to deliver the public education materials
as long as the information is delivered
within the required time frame. EPA
also proposed to require CWSs utilizing
a separate mailing to include an alert
with the materials to minimize the risk
that they would be discarded as.;"junk
mail." The Agency proposed these
changes to minimize the unintended
additional burden associated with
making changes in a water system's
billing cycle and/or process to
accommodate the rule's public .
education requirements.
(B) Comments and analysis.
Commenters generally were supportive
of these proposed changes, except for
one State which disagreed with
allowing systems up to six months to
deliver the public education materials
because of the potential health risks,
especially for pregnant women, if
customers are not informed in a timely
manner. After further consideration of
the public health issues, EPA has
decided to retain the current
requirement that all systems exceeding
the lead action level distribute public
education materials within 60 days of
the exceedance. The decision to retain
the 60-day requirement is based on
these considerations: (1) Extending the
time period to distribute public
education materials could lessen public
health protection. Pregnant women, in
particular, might not receive timely
notice if the system were allowed up to
six months after becoming aware of an
exceedance to provide the public
education materials. (2) Allowing
different time requirements based on
non-risk-related factors such as billing
cycles could provide unequal health
protection. (3) State administrative costs
would increase since the State would
need to be aware of a system's billing
cycle in order to determine compliance
with this requirement.
EPA agrees with commenters,
however, that the mailing of public
education materials separately from the
water bill is appropriate in many
instances and is revising the public
education requirements accordingly.
The Agency believes that this change
will provide sufficient flexibility for
systems to meet the public education
requirements without incurring the
added burden of making substantial
changes to their billing processes.
One commenter seems to have
misunderstood the requirements
pertaining to the timing of public
education if a CWS is required to repeat
public education tasks pursuant to
§ 141.85(c)(3). It is not EPA's intention
that such a system provide public
education materials within 60 days of
any subsequent exceedance as well as
repeat mailing of these materials every
12 months based on the initial
exceedance. Rather, the Agency intends
that public education materials be
mailed every 12 months for as long as
the system continues to exceed the lead
action level. There is nothing in the
regulation, however, that precludes
such a system from mailing the
materials sooner than 12 months after
the initial mailing, in order to
synchronize the repeat mailing with its
billing cycle.
(C) Today's action. EPA is revising
§ 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a CWS the
option of using a separate mailing when
the system's billing cycle does not
include a mailing within 60 days of
exceeding the action level or where the
system cannot insert information with
the water utility bill without making
major changes in its billing system. The
separate mailing must occur within 60
days of exceeding the lead action level
and the system must include an alert in
the package or on the outside of the
envelope containing the following
message, 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.
EPA also is revising the introductory
text of §§ 141.85(c)(2) and 141.85(c)(4)
to clarify that the requirement to deliver
public education within 60 days of a
lead action level exceedance applies
only in the following instances:
• The first time the water system
exceeds the lead action level; or
• The first time the water system
again exceeds the lead action level after
one (or more) round(s) of tap water
monitoring for lead and copper where
. the system did'not exceed the lead
action level.
c. Schedule for Reporting Completion
of Public Education Tasks.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal included a
change in the deadline for a PWS to
report completion of public education
tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule,
the deadline for reporting was December
31 of each year in which the system was
subject to the Rule's public education
requirements. EPA proposed to replace
the December 31 deadline with a
requirement for the water system to
report completion of public education
tasks to the State within 10 days after
the date by which the system is required
to perform any such tasks. EPA
proposed this revision because the
Agency believes that the schedule for
water systems to report, completion of
public education tasks by December 31
of each year (in which the system is
required to conduct any public
education task) fails to provide the
States and EPA with information in a
-------
1970
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
manner timely enough to oversee
systems" compliance with the public
education program requirements.
(ii) Comments and analysis. '
Commenters were mixed in their
support for this revision. Those
opposing it believe this will
unnecessarily increase burden. Of those
supporting the revision, some support it
as written and some support it with
changes. Two of those supporting it
with changes wanted the reporting time
to increase from 10 days to 30 days, and
one supporting it with changes
expressed concern about submitting a
full packet of information each reporting
period.
Several commenters who opposed
this revision wanted to retain the annual
reporting requirement. EPA recognizes
that this revision.will require those
CWSs 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 initially
required. However, EPA believes 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
in a more timely manner.
EPA also believes it is appropriate to
require reporting within 10 days after a
public education task is scheduled to be
completed. The 10 days allows systems
time to assemble records and notify the
State. Such a requirement is consistent
with the time frame allowed in other
reporting requirements, which allow 10
days for reporting to the State after an
action or the end of a reporting period.
Very few systems should be required to
conduct public education tasks more
than once per year, since today's action
also eliminates public service
announcements for small CWSs. In
addition, since it is expected that not
many systems will continue to exceed
the lead action level after installation of
OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that
this new requirement will not increase
burden for most systems.
As stated previously, one commenter
suggested that, for ongoing public
education, it should not be necessary for
a water system to submit the full packet
of information to the State for each
subsequent public education task to
verify that all appropriate actions have
been taken, as long as the State receives
a letter indicating that the information
has been sent out and the letter includes
any changes to the original information.
The 1991 Rule requires that systems
provide sufficient documentation for
States to determine whether all
appropriate actions have been taken.
Today's action does not alter the
requirement that the demonstration be
supported with appropriate
documentation. The Agency agrees that
it may relieve some reporting burden for
systems if they are not required to
submit the same information more than
once. On the other hand, EPA
recognizes that eliminating the
requirement to submit the supporting
materials each time may increase the
State burden to determine compliance
since all of the information may not be
readily available at the time compliance
is assessed. For this reason, the Agency
believes it is most appropriate to leave
the decision to the State about the need
for repetitious submission of the same
information. If the State elects to
eliminate these repetitious submissions,
however, EPA believes it is appropriate
to require the water system to certify
that there have been no changes in the
supporting documentation. Regardless
of the State's decision on this matter,
§ 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to
maintain records of system submittals
which should contain the initial and
any subsequent public education
information sent to the State. This
requirement is not affected by today's
action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is revising
§ 141.90(f) to require any water system,
subject to the public education
requirements of § 141.85, to report its
completion of all required public
education tasks to the State within 10
days after the date by which the system
is required to complete semi-annual/
annual public education tasks. The
Agency also is adding language to
§ 141.90(f) that eliminates the need for
systems to submit supporting
documentation that has been submitted
previously unless there is a change in
the information or the State requires
that the documentation be included
with each submission. Systems that do
not submit supporting documentation
must certify that there have been no
changes to the information. A new
§ 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to
maintain records of any system-specific
decisions made under § 141.90(f)
regarding the resubmission of detailed
documentation to demonstrate
completion of public education tasks.
5. Revisions to § 141.86
a. Systems with an insufficient
number of tier 1,2, and 3 sample sites.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal included new
language at § 141.86(a)(5) and
§ 141.86(a)(7) which instructs CWSs and
NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete
their sampling pools with representative
sites throughout the distribution system
if they are unable to locate a sufficient
number of sample sites that meet the
tiering criteria specified in § 141.86(a).
EPA proposed this revision to clarify
that all systems are required to collect
samples from a minimum number of
sites in accordance with § 141.86(c),
even if a sufficient number of high-risk
sites are not available.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters agreed with the proposed
new language. However, one commenter
suggested that EPA provide a clear
definition or understanding of what
constitutes a "representative site". The
Agency believes that a "representative
site," in this context, is a site in which
the plumbing materials used at that site
would be commonly found at pther sites
served by the water system. This
definition for "representative site" is
specific to these two paragraphs and has
been added to the regulatory language at
§ 141.86(a)(5) and § 141.86(a)(7).
One commenter suggested that, rather
than requiring a water system to identify
representative sites to complete its
sampling pool if it cannot identify a
sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites
(if it is a CWS) or a sufficient number
of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS),
a CWS should be allowed to collect
samples from only those sites meeting
the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a
NTNCWS should be allowed to collect
samples from only those sites meeting
the tier 1 or 2 criteria, if they provide
written justification, even if it means
collecting fewer than the minimum
number of required samples.
EPA believes that if a water system
collects fewer than the required number
of samples, the water system will not be
able to accurately characterize a lead or
copper problem, if it exists. The number
of samples specified for initial
monitoring, follow-up monitoring and
reduced monitoring was established to
sufficiently account for variability of
lead and copper at taps while at the
same time being reasonable for a system
to implement. Since there can be
variability in lead and copper levels at
different taps within the same building
and even at the same tap at different
points in time, EPA believes that
systems that do not have the requisite
number of sites must sample at multiple
taps used to provide drinking water for
human consumption within available
buildings. Systems with too few taps
must collect multiple samples from
available taps used to provide drinking
water on different days during the
monitoring period to meet the
monitoring requirements. The Agency
therefore is not revising the minimum
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1971
site requirement to allow fewer samples
to be collected.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
the language of § 141.86(a)(5) to require
that a CWS complete its sampling pool
with representative sites throughout the
distribution system if it does not have
a sufficient number of tier 1,2, and 3
sampling sites available. Likewise, the
Agency has revised the language of
§ 141.86 (a) (7) to require that a NTNCWS
complete its sampling pool with
representative sites throughout the
' distribution system if it does not have
a sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2
sites available. The revised language of
both provisions includes the definition
of a "representative site," discussed
above, that applies to these provisions.
While today's action provides systems
the flexibility to use any representative
site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that
are unable to locate a sufficient number
of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and
NTNCWSs that are unable to locate a
sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample
sites to add to their sampling pool those
sites with copper plumbing installed
subsequent to local implementation of
the lead ban (typically 1988 or 1989),
provided these sites can be considered
"representative". Sample sites meeting
the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria have a greater
likelihood of experiencing high lead
levels than sample sites not meeting the
tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites
typically contain the newest lead
plumbing materials in a community or
a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead
leaching potential than older lead.)
These same sample sites, however, may
actually have a lesser likelihood of
experiencing high copper levels than
sample sites not meeting these criteria
because these sites may not contain the
newest copper plumbing materials in a
community or a facility. Including sites
in the sample pool that have copper
plumbing installed more recently than
1988 or 1989 may allow a water system
to identify copper corrosion problems
not apparent by sampling sites meeting
the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria.
b. Elimination of justification letters
for use of non-tier 1 sample sites and
insufficient lead service line sample
sites.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
One of the burden reduction measures
that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to
eliminate the requirement at
§§ 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)-(3) that
a system unable to locate a sufficient
number of tier 1 sites send a letter to the
State justifying the selection of non-tier
1 sites. EPA also proposed to eliminate
the requirement at §§ 141.86(a)(9) and
141.90(a)(4) that a system with LSLs,
that cannot identify a sufficient number
of sampling sites served by a LSL for its
sampling pool, send a letter to the State
demonstrating why it is unable to do so.
EPA explained that the original intent of
these requirements was to help ensure
that systems collect samples from high-
risk sites. The Agency expected these
justification letters to be completed
prior to the start of initial monitoring.
Water systems are having to adjust their
sampling pools much more frequently
than EPA anticipated because of the
difficulty they are experiencing in
obtaining continued access to the same
sites. The requirement of constantly
justifying the adjustments to the
sampling pool is adding an unintended
extra burden on systems, however, and
the Agency believes that other
appropriate tools available to States,
such as periodic on-site inspections and
file reviews, can be used to ensure that
systems are routinely sampling at
appropriate sites.
fii) Comments and analysis.
Commenters were supportive of these
proposed changes. One commenter,
however, objected to the basic
requirement in § 141.86(a)(9)
(redesignated by today's action as
§ 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a
system with LSLs collect 50 percent of
the samples each monitoring period
from taps served by LSLs. EPA did not
propose to revise this requirement. The
commenter noted that requiring the
collection of samples at all sites
identified in the sampling plan is
unrealistic, as not all homeowners
identified in the sampling plan are
willing to participate. EPA recognizes
that there may be times when the
system may be denied access to targeted
sites. In those instances, where there is
an insufficient number of tier 1 sample
sites or an insufficient number of
willing participants served by lead
service lines to constitute 50 percent of
the sampling pool, the system is
expected to collect samples from all
such sites that it can. The system must
then choose other sample sites from
which to collect the remaining number
of samples. Sites where the homeowner
refuses access are no longer available for
inclusion in the sampling pool and the
water system should document the
reason the site was not sampled in its
files. EPA believes this issue is best
clarified through guidance rather than a
change in rule language.
(iii) Today's action. After considering
the comments received, EPA is revising
the provisions of §§ 141.86(a)(8)-(9) and
141.90(a)(2)-(4) as proposed in April
1996. Specifically, §§ 141.86(a)(8) and
141.90(a)(2)-(3), requiring the system to
send a letter to the State justifying the
use of non-tier 1 sites, have been
deleted. Section 141.86(a)(9) has been
redesignated as § 141.86(a)(8) and
revised to eliminate reference to the
reporting requirement that a water
system with LSLs that does not have
sufficient sites served by LSLs available
to comprise 50 percent of the sampling
pool send a letter to the State justifying
why it cannot do so. Section
141.90(a)(4), which contained the
corresponding reporting requirement,
has been replaced with a new reporting
requirement pertaining to small system
waivers (see section C.5.1. of this
preamble). Although the regulatory
requirement to send these sample site
justifications to the State has been
eliminated, the Agency encourages
systems to provide this information to
the State as a courtesy.
c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to
provide first-draw samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
One of the provisions that EPA
proposed in April 1996 would 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. These
systems would be required to collect
first-draw samples from as many taps
having at least a six-hour standing time
as possible. For the remaining samples,
systems would be required to identify
and report to the State, sampling times
and locations that would likely result in
the longest standing time. Systems
would then be required to sample at
times and locations approved by the
State. EPA also requested comment on
an alternative that would give the States
flexibility to eliminate the requirement
for up-front State approval of the
sampling plan. Under this scenario,
NTNCWSs would still be required to
sample from taps with the longest
standing times possible, however, States
would not need to approve these sites
prior to monitoring. In the preamble to
the April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that
States would retain discretion to verify,
at any time, that the proper sampling
was done.
EPA proposed this provision to
address the problem many NTNCWSs
that provide drinking water 24 hours a
day (e.g., a factory operating on a 3-shift
basis) face in complying with the LCR's
requirements. Such systems may not
have periods of normal operation during
which the water will have stood
motionless in the plumbing for at least
six hours prior to collecting tap water
lead and copper samples. The Agency
believes that it is unnecessary to require
such systems to shut down operations
in order to achieve a standing time that
-------
1972
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
does normally exist. The proposed
provision would allow these systems to
sample at times and locations that are
most likely to be representative of these
systems' worst case scenarios.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported allowing these
NTNCWSs to substitute non-first-draw
samples for first-draw samples if they
do not have enough taps that can
achieve the required six-hour standing
time. A few of these commenters,
however, suggested that it is not always
practical to try to determine which
tap(s) have the longest standing times.
Others suggested that repeat sampling,
on separate days, at the tap(s) that meet
the six-hour standing time requirement
be permitted, rather than substituting
samples that do not meet the six-hour
standing time requirement.
EPA believes that if a system cannot
locate the requisite number of taps that
satisfy the six-hour standing time
requirement, it must make the effort to
identify the taps having the longest
standing times and collect substitute
samples from these sites. Sampling at
sites that have the longest standing time
will assist the system in determining the
maximum potential level of lead and
copper exposure from drinking water.
EPA also believes that it is more
important to collect samples from the
required number of sites (as long as
these are sites that are typically used to
provide drinking water) than it is to
collect samples that have stood in the
tap for six hours if a six-hour standing
time is not typical at that NTNCWS
because it is operating 24 hours per day.
The minimum number of samples for
initial, follow-up, and reduced
monitoring has been established to
sufficiently account for the variability of
lead and copper at different taps while
at the same time being reasonable for a
system to implement. Collecting the
required number of samples, but from
fewer sample sites, does not address the
variability issue as well, especially if the
system has other taps that are typically
used and that can be sampled. For these
reasons, today's action retains the
requirement to collect at least the
minimum number of samples specified
in § 141.86(c).
Many of the commenters supporting
the substitution of non-first-draw
samples did not address the issue of up-
front State approval. Commenters who
did address this issue were mixed in
their support. While most commenters
who supported up-front approval did
not explain why they did so, one
commenter suggested that up-front
notification and approval may be easier
for States to implement and control.
Another commenter supported up-front
approval but suggested that the system
should be free to proceed without
specific written concurrence from the
State if the State did not respond within
a reasonable period. Several
commenters supported substitution of
samples without prior State approval;
however, some supported such
flexibility only if States were allowed to
conduct verification inspections.
In consideration of these comments,
today's action gives States discretion to
decide whether or not to require prior
State approval of sampling plans.
Systems in States not requiring prior
State approval must submit
documentation of their sampling plan to
the State, when they submit their
sampling results. This documentation
must include identification of the
substitute sample sites and the length of
standing time for each substitute
sample.
Some commenters also used this
opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs
that have fewer than five sample taps
where five samples are required, or
fewer than ten sample taps where ten
samples are required, be permitted to
collect only as many samples as there
are sample taps. EPA believes that it is
inappropriate to reduce the minimum
number of samples required. The LCR
requires all water systems to collect a
minimum number of samples
(dependent on size of population served
by the system) as per § 141.86(c). As
stated previously, the number of
samples specified for initial, follow-up,
and reduced monitoring has been
established to sufficiently account for
variability of lead and copper at taps
while at the same time being reasonable
for a system to implement. There is also
some variability in concentrations
across multiple samples from the same
tap collected at different points in time.
EPA believes that absent a sufficient
number of appropriate taps, the
variability in lead levels from samples
collected from the same tap at different
times warrants retaining the
requirement for the minimum number
of samples to be collected. Water
systems with fewer sample taps than
required should thus contact the State to
discuss an appropriate sampling plan
that would include collecting the
required number of samples at the
available sample taps.
Finally, one commenter noted that
there also are some CWSs (e.g., prisons,
nursing homes) that have similar
characteristics to NTNCWSs. EPA
agrees. Today's action therefore also
allows special-case CWSs, such as
prisons and hospitals, that do not have
a sufficient number of taps to provide
first-draw samples to sample from taps
where the water will have stood for less
than six hours.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has added
provisions at § 141.86(b)(5) that require
a NTNCWS which does not have
enough taps that can supply first-draw
samples to collect as many first-draw
samples from appropriate sample taps
as possible and to complete the
sampling pool with locations that would
likely result in the longest standing time
for the remaining samples. These
provisions also apply to special-case
CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those
specified in §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)
where the system is a facility, such as
a prison or 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 where the system
provides water as part of the cost of
services provided and does not
separately charge for water
consumption.
States have discretion to decide
whether or not prior State approval is
required before a system can substitute
non-first-draw samples. EPA has added
provisions at § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States
to maintain records of any system-
specific decisions made regarding use of
non-first draw samples. Where prior
State approval is not required, systems
must submit documentation with the
sampling results that identify each site
that does not meet the six-hour
minimum standing time and the length
of standing time for the sample(s)
collected from that site. Nothing in the •
rule language precludes verification
inspections by the State. A State
conducting a water system inspection
for any purpose can also use that
opportunity to review the sampling plan
that should be available on-site. (Water
systems are required to retain all records
for at least 12 years, as per § 141.91.)
States opting to allow systems to
proceed with sampling without
requesting prior approval from the State
should inform the systems, before the
start of the monitoring period, that up-
front approval is not required.
Today's action also modifies the
language at § 141.90(a)(2)5 to add the
corresponding reporting requirement. If
the State requires prior State approval,
the system must provide written
documentation to the State identifying
sampling times and locations of the
non-first-draw samples which the
system proposes to use to complete its
sampling pool prior to sampling. If the
5As noted in section C.S.b. of this preamble, the
requirement previously codified at §141.90(a)(2) for
a CWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sampling sites
has been eliminated.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1973
State does not require prior State
approval, the modified language at
§ 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to
identify each site that did not meet the
6-hour minimum standing time and the
length of standing time for that
particular sample, and submit this
information at the same time that it
submits its lead and copper tap sample
results.
Finally, today's action makes a
conforming revision to the language at
§ 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw
samples collected pursuant to
§ 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume
and to be collected at an interior tap
from which water is typically drawn for
consumption. This changed language
provides coverage for those NTNCWSs
and special-case CWSs that must
complete their sampling pool with non-
first-draw samples and is consistent
with the requirement that first-draw
samples be one liter in volume and be
drawn from taps that are routinely used
to provide drinking water.
d. Minimum holding time for acidified
lead and copper samples prior to
analysis.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA sought
comment on a revision to § 141.86(b)(2)
to make the minimum length of time
that a lead and copper sample must
stand in the original container after
acidification consistent with the
analytical methods for other metals.
Rather than explicitly specifying the
holding time in subpart I, the proposed
revision would require these samples to
stand in the original container "for the
time specified in the approved EPA
method," eliminating the need to revise
the LCR in the future to reflect methods
changes. The Rule, as promulgated in
1991, requires that a sample stand in the
original container for at least 28 hours
after acidification before sample
analysis can occur. The analytical
method requiring this minimum holding
time was revised in 1994 to allow
laboratories to analyze samples for
metals other than lead and copper 16
hours after acidification, instead of
having to wait 28 hours before this
analysis can occur (59 FR 62456,
December 5,1994). EPA believes the
revision to § 141.86(b)(2) relieves
laboratories of the burden to have
separate acidification holding times for
lead and copper and increases the
number of samples that can be analyzed
in a day.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Two
commenters had concerns about the
proposed change. One requested
clarification as to why the change was
needed. As explained above, EPA
believes this revision is appropriate to
maintain consistency with the analytical
methods for other metals. Another
commenter opposed the proposed
revision on the basis that it would
decrease the amount of time available
for sample analysis, thereby increasing
the potential for laboratory error
resulting in the need to collect
additional samples. This commenter
apparently interpreted the acidification
holding time as the maximum time that
can elapse between acidification and
analysis. In fact, the acidification
holding time is the minimum time that
must elapse after acidification before the
sample is analyzed. By reducing this
time, EPA believes that, if anything, the
potential for laboratory error will
decrease, as the amount of time
available for sample analysis will
increase.
One commenter who supported the
revision noted that EPA also needs to
revise the laboratory licensure
requirements in the CFR to reflect this
change. Laboratory certification
requirements are defined in the
"Manual for the Certification of
Drinking Water Laboratories", not in the
CFR. EPA has revised this manual to
conform with the revised holding times
specified at § 141.86(b) (2).
(iii) Today's action. Today's action
revises the next to last sentence of
§ 141.86(b)(2), as proposed, to read:
"After acidification to resohibilize the
metals, the sample must stand in the
original container for the time specified
in the approved EPA method before the
sample can be analyzed."
e. Selection of sample sites under
reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The LCR specifies the number, location,
and timing of samples to be collected for
standard monitoring of lead and copper
at the tap. At a minimum, systems must
conduct standard monitoring initially
and as a follow-up to installing CCT.
The Rule also allows a reduced number
and frequency of samples for certain
water systems once corrosion control
has been optimized. However, the rule
language promulgated in 1991 failed to
specify which of the previously tested
sampling sites should be included in the
reduced sampling pool. To correct this
omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to
require reduced monitoring sites to be
representative of the sites required for
standard monitoring. EPA also proposed
to allow States the discretion to specify
which sites a system subject to reduced
monitoring should use if, in the
judgment of the State, such an action is
warranted.
EPA proposed this language because
of the concern that some water systems,
if allowed to select sample sites under
reduced monitoring without any
restrictions, might be tempted to select
only those sites that had the lowest
analytical results during the initial
monitoring, thereby skewing the 90th
percentile calculations downward.
(ii) Comments and analysis. In their
comments, some water systems raised
concern that States might require them
to select only those sites with the
highest analytical results during the
initial monitoring, which would skew
the 90th percentile calculation upward.
EPA does not want either of these
extremes to be used in the selection of
sites under reduced monitoring and is
therefore revising § 141.86(c) to require
that the sample sites selected under
reduced monitoring be representative of
those selected initially.
Of the 18 comments received, only 1
commenter directly disagreed with the
proposal. That commenter felt the
proposal displayed a lack of trust in
water systems and increased the burden
on the States. EPA believes that the
revised wording in today's action
should not be construed as indicating a
lack of trust in all water system
decisions. The intent of the revised
wording is to allow most water systems
to make their own decisions, but to also
allow a State the option of specifying"
the sampling sites under reduced
monitoring, if it believes that a system
needs assistance in identifying which of
the sample sites in the system's
sampling pool are truly representative of
the sampling pool. EPA expects that
States will allow most water systems to
specify reduced monitoring sample site
locations without State involvement.
However, if the State feels the need to
intervene, the Rule now clearly gives
them the authority to do so.
Three commenters questioned the
requirement to draw 50 percent of the
tap samples from sites served by a LSL
during reduced monitoring. These
commenters believe that water systems
should be permitted to sample from any
of the original tap sites during reduced
monitoring. Two of these commenters
also believe that for a water system with
only a few LSLs, the requirement to
collect samples from all of the sites with
LSLs will provide a misleading
characterization of the sampling pool
and the distribution system in general.
The sampling scheme promulgated in
1991 was not established to characterize
lead and copper levels throughout the
entire water system. Rather, it was
established to ensure that systems
collect samples from residences most
likely to experience elevated levels of
lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e.,
high-risk sites). EPA believes that these
high-risk locations should be accounted
-------
1974
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
for in a monitoring plan to better ensure
that high levels of lead are detected and
that the system institutes treatment that
provides uniform and adequate levels of
• public health protection throughout the
entire distribution system. EPA feels
that the reasoning that led to the
requirement that 50 percent of the tap
samples be drawn from sites served by
a LSL during initial monitoring is just
as valid for reduced monitoring and has
thus not revised this requirement. In
addition, just as for initial monitoring,
systems with LSLs, which do not have
enough sample sites with LSLs to
comprise 50 percent of their sampling
pool, must collect samples during
reduced monitoring at as many homes
with LSLs as they have access to.
" One commenter thought that EPA's
language in § 141.86(c) could be
interpreted to mean that a water system
is required to collect only one sample in
a round of monitoring (although that
sample would have to represent the
required number of sites, possibly by
being a composite sample or possibly by
being taken randomly from one of the
sites) and suggested a revision to the
wording that would require at least one
sample be collected from each of the
number of sites specified. EPA believes
that the vast majority of water systems
have been interpreting EPA's intent
correctly and are collecting one sample
per site during reduced monitoring. In
addition, the Agency believes that the
commenter's suggested wording change,
that systems conducting reduced
monitoring collect at least one sample
from "each of the number of sites
specified," might confuse those
NTNCWSs that have fewer sites (i.e.,
faucets) available than the number of
samples they are required to collect in
a monitoring period. Those systems
must collect multiple samples from
some sites in order to collect the
required number of samples. The
commenter's wording could be
interpreted to mean that the system
need only collect as many samples as
there are sample sites. Since this is not
EPA's intent, the wording has not been
revised as suggested by the commenter.
(iii) Today's action. For the reasons
discussed above, EPA has revised the
wording of §141.86(c), as proposed, to
clarify that the reduced monitoring sites
must be representative of the sites
required for standard monitoring and to
give States discretionary authority to
specify the reduced monitoring sites. A
corresponding State recordkeeping
requirement, to maintain records
pertaining to any State designations of
reduced monitoring sites, has been
added as § 142.14(d)(8)(xii).
f. State determination of eligibility for
reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
Under the 1991 Rule, systems subject to
water quality parameter monitoring after
the installation of corrosion control
treatment must explicitly request State
approval to begin reduced monitoring
for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996,
EPA proposed to eliminate the
requirement for these systems to request
State approval. However, such systems
would still be required to receive
written approval from the State before
reducing the frequency of monitoring.
EPA proposed this provision as a
burden reduction measure. Since most
States routinely review eligibility for
reduced monitoring at the time they
review monitoring results and notify
those systems that have become eligible
to reduce monitoring, the requirement
that systems explicitly request the State
to determine eligibility is an
unnecessary administrative burden.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters agreed with EPA's
proposed. Some, however, expressed
concern that systems may become
confused as to what their monitoring
requirements are; others expressed
concern that States might not routinely
provide timely notification unless
prompted by a request from the system.
These commenters suggested that EPA
at least provide States flexibility to
retain the current requirement. The
Agency does not believe that such
flexibility needs to be written into the
rule language. Nothing in the Federal
regulations precludes systems from
continuing to request State approval if
they believe that such a request will
ensure timely State notification.
Some commenters also raised the
question of whether the proposed
change effectively reduces burden or
merely shifts it from the system to the
State. The Agency believes that this
provision will reduce burden. EPA
estimates that the current requirement
imposes both a system burden
(requesting approval for reduced
monitoring) and a State burden
(reviewing the request and relevant
monitoring and treatment data and
providing written notification to the
system). The Agency estimates that the
system burden will be eliminated with
the revised provision and that no
increase in State burden will occur
because the State will determine a
system's eligibility for reduced
monitoring as part of its routine
determination of compliance with the
LCR monitoring requirements.
(iii) Today's action. Sections
141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii) have been
revised to allow any water system that
maintains the range of values for the
WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the
State under § 141.82(f) to reduce the
frequency of monitoring to once per
year or once every three years,
respectively, if the system meets the
other conditions specified in
§§141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii),
respectively, and receives written
notification from the State that it can
reduce the frequency of monitoring. The
system reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request
approval for reduced monitoring has
been eliminated.
g. Timing of sample collection under
reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The 1991 Rule language required water
systems subject to reduced monitoring
to conduct that monitoring during the
months of June, July, August, and/or
September. EPA imposed this
requirement because the Agency
believed that the highest levels of lead
at the tap were most likely to occur
during warm weather months. This
requirement, however, has had the
unintended consequence of forcing
seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate
during the summer months to collect
samples during periods that are not
representative of normal operations. To
correct this problem, in 1996, EPA
proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS
that does not operate during the months
of June, July, August, or September, to
collect samples, under reduced
monitoring, during the system's
warmest month(s) of operation.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported this proposed
revision. A few commenters expressed
concern, however, that it would be
difficult to determine alternate
"warmest month(s) of operation" or that
the revised requirement would create a
hardship for laboratories by forcing all
monitoring into a single month. These
commenters suggested that EPA give
States the authority to designate the
alternative month(s) of sampling or
retain the current requirements. Two
commenters stated their belief that there
is no justification for requiring any
system to limit reduced monitoring to
warm weather months and suggested
EPA remove this requirement across the
board.
EPA has reviewed recently published
data and analyses pertaining to the
effect of temperature on lead and copper
leaching. The Agency provided notice of
the availability of these data and
requested public comment in the April
1998 Notice on a regulatory option that
would allow systems conducting
reduced tap water monitoring for lead
and copper to collect samples during
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1975
months of normal operation when lead
levels are likely to be the highest, or as
otherwise designated by the State.
Although there is no definitive data,
there are several factors which might
explain why metal levels could
frequently be higher in cold weather
months, various combinations of which
may be simultaneously present in a
given water system. These factors
include:
• The intrinsic net solubility of many
minerals, especially carbonates,
increases as the temperature decreases.
• Corrosion inhibitors, especially
orthophosphate, may react more slowly
at lower temperatures, so passivating
film formation is less effective in colder
water.
• Corrosion inhibitors and other
treatment chemicals may be more
viscous at lower'temperatures.
Therefore, the chemical feed rates may
be lower when cold.
• Many pipes are near heating
systems, and in the winter the operation
of the heating systems causes the pipes
to be hotter. Plus, the change in
temperature could also disrupt the
existing protective films in the pipes
.built up over the earlier months of more
stable temperatures.
• Dissolved oxygen levels are often
higher in colder waters, resulting in
increased concentrations of oxidants
(e.g., oxygen, free chlorine, chloramines)
in the water. This causes more rapid
increases in metal levels through
enhanced oxidation during short
standing times (less than 16 hours).
Only one commenter opposed such a
revision, on the basis that such a change
might be disruptive to utilities and
laboratories. EPA disagrees. Since the
revised language allows States to retain
the requirement to conduct reduced
monitoring during the months of June
through September, the Agency believes
the regulatory language provides
sufficient flexibility to accommodate the
scheduling issues raised by the
commenter.
Based on a review of the current
science and comments received in
response to the April 1996 Proposal and
the April 1998 Notice, EPA believes that
the requirement to limit reduced
monitoring to warm weather months is
no longer justified. Today's action
therefore revises § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to
provide States some flexibility to
specify an alternative time for the
collection of samples under reduced
monitoring.
In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also
requested public comment on the need
for the rule language to explicitly allow
a transition period for those water
systems, already on a reduced
monitoring schedule, that want to take
advantage of the greater flexibility in the
revised regulation. Most of the
commenters who addressed this
question strongly supported including
provisions for a transition period in the
rule language. EPA agrees that it is
appropriate to define a transition
period. It is not the Agency's intent that
systems already on reduced monitoring
be locked into the months of June
through September for sample
collection. Nor is it the Agency's intent
that such systems be penalized by being
forced into scheduling a subsequent
round of monitoring significantly earlier
than otherwise would be necessary just
to change the allowable months for
sample collection. EPA has therefore
included provisions for a transition
period in today's action!
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
the language of § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to
require that systems subject to reduced
monitoring collect samples during the
months of June, July, August, or
September unless the State has
approved a different sampling period.
The alternate sampling period must be
no longer than four consecutive months
and represent a time of normal
operation where the highest levels of
lead are most likely to occur. EPA
recognizes that in many cases it will be
difficult to predict when the highest
lead values might occur given a system's
water chemistry coupled with other
influencing physical factors. There may
be instances, however, where
monitoring data from similar systems or
prior monitoring or survey experience at
a particular system is available to the
States that would suggest when the most
appropriate monitoring time(s) will
occur. If the State is unable to identify
an alternate monitoring period for a
system where the highest levels of lead
are most likely to occur, then the system
must continue monitoring during the
months of June, July, August, or
September. However, if the system is a
NTNCWS that does not operate during
the months of June through September,
the final rule allows these systems to
monitor during a period designated by
the State that represents a time of
normal operation for the system.
For systems already on reduced
monitoring that have been collecting
samples during the June through
September time frame, the revision to
§ 141.86(d){4)(iv) specifies the deadline
for completing the first round of
monitoring using the alternate period.
Systems on an annual monitoring
schedule must collect their first round
of samples during the alternate months
during a time period that ends no later
than 21 months after the previous round
of sampling. Systems on a triennial
schedule must collect their first round
of samples during the alternate months
during a time period that ends no later
than 45 months after the previous round
of sampling. Thereafter, these systems
must revert to an annual or triennial
schedule based on the alternate months
of sampling.
This transition period allows systems
conducting annual or triennial
monitoring an extra nine months in
which to make the transition without
sampling significantly early or incurring
a monitoring and reporting violation.
For systems transitioning to an alternate
sampling period that includes the
period of March, April, or May, EPA
believes it is not unreasonable that the
first round of samples under the
alternate months be collected slightly
earlier than would otherwise be
required. For similar reasons, the
Agency does not believe it is necessary
to specify a transition period for small
water systems with monitoring waivers
granted under § 141.86(g). The revised
§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that
the first round of monitoring using the
alternate months be completed within 9
years of the previous round of
monitoring for systems with waivers.
Finally, today's action makes two
conforming changes to Part 142. EPA
has added a State recordkeeping
requirement at § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii).
States must maintain records pertaining
to any system-specific determinations to
alternative sample collection periods for
systems subject to reduced monitoring.
EPA also has added a special primacy
condition at § 141.16(d)(4) for States to
describe how they plan to determine the
months when the lead levels are likely
to be the highest at community water
systems subject to reduced monitoring
where tap water lead and copper
samples will be collected in months
other than June, July, August and/or
September.
h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the: tap.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
Under the provisions of
§ 141i86(d](4)(iii), a small or medium-
size water system may reduce the
frequency of lead and copper tap water
monitoring to once every three years if
it does not exceed either action level
during three consecutive years of annual
monitoring. The regulations also allow
any water system that maintains the
range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting OCCT
specified by the State during three
consecutive years of monitoring to
reduce the frequency of lead and copper
tap water monitoring to once every three
years, if approved by the State. In the
-------
1976
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help
water systems avoid significant
unnecessary monitoring costs and
minimize the inconvenience to
homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA
proposed that systems with very low
levels of lead and copper at the tap
during two consecutive six-month
rounds of monitoring be allowed to
immediately reduce the frequency of
lead and copper tap water monitoring to
once every three calendar years without
having to conduct the required rounds
of annual monitoring first. In the
proposal, the thresholds for "very low
levels of lead and copper at the tap"
were defined as "less than or equal to
the PQL for lead specified in
§141.89(a)(l)(ii)," which is 0.005 mg/L,
and "less than or equal to one-half the
copper action level specified in
§ 141.80(cH2)," which is 0.65 mg/L.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While
one commenter specifically disagreed
with the proposal, the vast majority of
commenters either agreed fully or
agreed while raising one or more of the
issues which EPA is addressing below.
(A) Using the PQL as the lead
threshold. A number of commenters
suggested that it is inconsistent to use
the PQL as the threshold for lead while
using one-half the action level as the
threshold for copper. Some commenters
suggested that using the PQL for lead is
too restrictive and that one-half the lead
action level should be used instead. In
the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA indicated that accelerated reduced
monitoring would apply only to those
systems whose 90th percentile lead and
copper levels fall significantly below the
lead and copper action levels during
two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods. The Agency's intent was to
allow for a burden reduction but still
provide adequate public health
protection. 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 may have elevated levels of lead or
copper at the tap during subsequent •
monitoring periods to be eligible for
accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA
believes that the criteria that minimize
risk are the PQL for lead and one-half
the action level for copper.
EPA disagrees with those commenters
who believe there is an inconsistency
between using the PQL for lead and one-
half the action level for copper when
consideration is given to the
relationship between the action level
and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies
in the fact that the minimized risk levels
(i.e., the threshold levels for allowing
accelerated reduced monitoring) are
those levels most protective of public
health. This is explained as follows. The
MCLG is the level at which no known
or anticipated adverse effect on the
health of persons would occur and
which allows an adequate margin of
safety. EPA must regulate contaminants
in drinking water to a level as close to
the MCLG as is feasible. The action level
for copper is set at the MCLG of 1.3 mg/
L, thus there is no health concern at
copper levels equal to the action level
or, subsequently, at one-half the action
level (0.65 mg/L). In addition, EPA
believes that it is highly unlikely that a
water system having a 90th percentile
copper level equal to one-half the action
level might exceed the copper action
level during subsequent monitoring. In
contrast to copper, the action level for
lead is set at 0.015 mg/L, which is
higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it
is unreasonable to expect that most
systems can achieve a 90th percentile
lead level of zero, EPA established a
lead action level which the Agency
believes is achievable and sufficiently
protective of public health. However,
because there are health concerns for
any lead level above zero, EPA believes
that setting the threshold level for lead
for accelerated reduced monitoring at
the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more protective
of public health than setting the level at
one-half the lead action level (0.0075
mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it
is less likely that a system whose 90th
percentile lead level is equal to or less
than the PQL would exceed the lead
action level during a subsequent round
of monitoring than it is for a system
whose 90th percentile lead level is one-,
half the action level.
A few commenters expressed concern
that the PQL is hard to measure
accurately and therefore should not be
used as a threshold. EPA disagrees.
Performance evaluation (PE) studies
have confirmed that at least 75 percent
of EPA, State, and commercial
laboratories can analyze lead at 0.005
mg/L within ±30%. EPA believes that
specifying the PQL for lead as the
threshold for identifying very low levels
is appropriate on the basis of laboratory
capability.
(B) Usefulness of proposed provision.
Several commenters, including the
commenter who specifically disagreed
with the proposal, mentioned that it is
too late for this provision to have any
effect for existing systems. EPA agrees
that this provision will be of no benefit
to those systems that are already
conducting monitoring on a triennial
basis. This provision may benefit new
systems, however, in addition to those
water systems that are in the process of
installing CCT and whose 90th
percentile lead and copper levels meet
the criteria for accelerated reduced
monitoring after conducting the
required two rounds of follow-up
sampling subsequent to the installation
of OCCT. It will also be available for
systems that are triggered into a new set
of two six-month rounds of full tap
sampling due to changes in treatment or
source water. For these reasons, the
Agency still believes it is appropriate to
add provisions for accelerated reduced
monitoring to the LCR.
(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring
for only one contaminant. Two
commenters suggested that States be
given the option to authorize
accelerated reduced monitoring for
either lead or copper if a system is only
able to meet the 90th percentile
threshold for one of the contaminants
but not the other. While EPA wishes to
reduce monitoring burdens where
possible, EPA meant for this provision
to be applicable only to those systems
where there is little likelihood of
discovering elevated levels of either
lead or copper at the tap during
subsequent monitoring periods. EPA
believes that there is less of a risk that
there may be an undetected problem if
both lead and copper levels are below
the threshold levels than if only one of
the contaminant levels is less than the
threshold level and that there is more
uncertainty in the case where one of the
contaminant levels is higher than the
threshold level. To avoid this potential
risk, the Agency has decided to not
allow accelerated reduced monitoring
for one contaminant when the other
contaminant has a 90th percentile level
above the specified threshold level.
(D) Monitoring less frequently than
triennially. Another commenter
suggested changing the frequency of
reduced monitoring to once every nine
years (provided that there is no change
in treatment or new source introduced)
and suggested that this would be
consistent with the "reliably and'
consistently" waivers allowed under the
Phase II and Phase V rules. The age
range for the population at risk for lead
is prenatal up to about six years of age.
For systems that contain lead and
copper materials, a nine-year
monitoring cycle would allow large
groups of the sensitive subpopulations
to be exposed to water that was never
tested during their highest risk years.
EPA believes it is inappropriate to
reduce the monitoring to a frequency
where some children would not receive
the benefit of such monitoring. The
Agency considers a 9-year monitoring
cycle appropriate only for systems that
have no lead or copper materials present
and that meet the criteria for a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
monitoring waiver pursuant to
§ 141.86(g).
(E) Prior State approval. One
commenter suggested that written
approval by the State should be required
before a system is permitted to
accelerate reduced monitoring.
Elsewhere in § 141.86(d), written
authorization by the State to reduce lead
and copper tap monitoring is required
only when the basis for the reduction is
compliance with optimal water quality
control parameters for two consecutive
6-month monitoring periods or three
consecutive years. Those cases are more
complex and require greater State
oversight. The basis for a system being
able to accelerate reduced monitoring is
straightforward and EPA does not
believe it is necessary to mandate prior
State approval in this case. Nothing in
the rule language, however, prevents a
State from requiring such approval.
(iii) Today's action. After careful
consideration of all comments
pertaining to this issue, EPA has
decided to promulgate the provisions
for accelerated reduced monitoring as
proposed in April 1996. EPA is adding
these provisions to § 141.86(d)(4) by
redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as
'(d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph
(d)(4)(v). This new paragraph allows any
water system that demonstrates for two
consecutive six-month monitoring
Eeriods that the 90th percentile lead
svel is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/
L and the 90th percentile copper level
is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to
reduce the frequency of sampling to
once every three calendar years.
i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead
and copper tap water monitoring. As
discussed in section C.2.b. of this
preamble, today's action contains a
conforming change to the requirements
of the newly designated
§ 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system
subject to reduced monitoring that also
is subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements of § 141.87(d) or (e) loses
its eligibility for reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the tap (until such
time when it may again qualify) if it
fails to meet the compliance
requirements of § 141.82(g). Today's
action also corrects an error in this
paragraph. The first sentence has been
corrected to read: "A small or medium-
size water system * * * shall resume
sampling in accordance with paragraph
(d)(3) of this section and collect the
number of samples specified for
standard monitoring under paragraph
(c) of this section." The paragraph
previously read: " * * * collect the
number of samples specified for
standard monitoring under paragraph
(d) of this section."
j. Requirements for systems subject to
reduced monitoring that change.,
treatment or source water.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested comment on a provision that
would require water systems operating
under reduced monitoring to report any
changes in treatment or changes in
source water to the State within 60 days.
If the State believes the change merits
additional monitoring, the State may
require the system to resume standard
monitoring, increase WQP monitoring,
or re-evaluate its corrosion control and/
or source water treatment given the
potentially different water quality
considerations. EPA proposed this
requirement to help ensure that timely
and appropriate action is taken to
maintain optimal corrosion control
when events occur that could
significantly affect water quality.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported the proposed
change. Several commenters thought the
proposed rule was too general and
should include more information
describing a reportable treatment
change. These commenters provided
language to limit reportable treatment
changes to those that affect the WQPs or
interfere with the efficacy of the
corrosion control strategy. EPA
disagrees with these-commenters. EPA
does not believe that all systems
understand the potential impacts of
other treatments on corrosivity and,
thus, is requiring that systems report all
treatment changes to the State to avoid
situations where systems could
potentially overlook factors that
influence corrosivity. The State will
then review the treatment change and
determine if additional monitoring or
other action is necessary. EPA does
agree, however, that it should not be
necessary for the system to notify the
State every time the system makes
changes among approved sources of
water. For this reason, today's action
limits the reportable source water
changes to those involving the addition
of a new source of water.
The only other major concern relayed
by commenters is that some believe that
water systems may be required to
conduct unnecessary monitoring every
time treatment is changed. EPA has
addressed this issue in section C.l.c. of
today's preamble as a part of the
discussion pertaining to water systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control in accordance with
§ 141.81(b)(3).
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
the LGR by adding a provision at
§ 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water
system subject to reduced tap
monitoring that either adds a new
source of water or changes any water '
treatment to inform the State in writing
no later than 60 days after making the
change or addition, unless the State
requires earlier notification. The State
has the authority to require the system
to take appropriate steps to ensure that
optimal treatment is maintained. The
corresponding system reporting
requirements have been added as a new
§ 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State
recordkeeping requirements have been
included as a part of the
§ 142.14(d)(8Kix) provisions.
k. Sample invalidation.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal included
provisions which defined four,
conditions under which States could
invalidate tap water lead and copper
samples:
• If the laboratory establishes that
improper sample analysis caused
erroneous results;
• If the State determines that the
sample was taken from a site that does
not meet the site selection criteria of
§141.86;
• If the sample container is damaged
in transit; or
• if the State has substantial reason to
believe that the sample was subject to
tampering.
The proposed provisions also
specified documentation requirements
and provided a window for replacement
samples to be taken, if needed, to avoid
a monitoring and reporting violation.
EPA believes sample invalidation under
any of the above-mentioned conditions
is appropriate to avoid the use of sample
results that may not represent the tap
water levels of lead and copper taken
from the water system's high risk sites.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Several
States, PWSs, and water utility trade
associations commented on the
proposed sample invalidation
provisions. None of the commenters
objected to the four conditions
proposed; however, several advocated
providing States even more flexibility
than proposed. A few commenters, for
example, recommended that EPA allow
States to invalidate any samples they
believe are inappropriate. Other
commenters suggested adding a fifth
condition, such as allowing for sample
invalidation when improper sample
collection procedures are used or when
the water has been standing in the pipes
for longer than the six-hour standing
time required by the Rule. EPA believes
6 As noted in section C.S.b. of this preamble, the
requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(3),
for a NTNCWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sites,
has been eliminated.
-------
1978
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
that the conditions proposed in April
1996 will allow sufficient flexibility to
ensure that samples can be invalidated
where appropriate. Sample invalidation
provisions are not intended to replace
the need for proper guidance in the
collection of samples. The Agency
believes that proper education is a more
appropriate method to address incorrect
sample collection procedures.
Although the 1996 Proposal did not
address the provision that prohibits a
system from challenging the results of
samples collected by residents, several
commenters objected to its retention.
Those comments are outside the scope
of this ralemaking because EPA did not
reopen that provision in the 1991 Rule
or otherwise solicit comment on that
provision.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify the rule language to specify that
only one of the four conditions needs to
be met for a sample to be invalidated.
EPA agrees that clarification would be
useful and has made this correction in
today's action. Another commenter
recommended that systems be allowed
to proceed with follow-up samples and
then submit all results including follow-
up results with detailed documentation
to the request for sample invalidation.
The Agency believes States have
sufficient flexibility to decide whether
to allow this without expressly adding
this provision to the Rule. EPA also
encourages water systems to collect
more than the minimum number of
required samples to minimize the need
to collect replacement samples in the
first place.
The preamble to the April 1996
Proposal stated the Agency's intent that
States be prohibited from invalidating a
sample solely on the grounds that the
lead or copper concentration found in a
follow-up sample is higher or lower
than the lead or copper concentration
found in the original sample. EPA
inadvertently omitted this prohibition
in the proposed rule language for
§ 141.86(f)(3). Although a few
commenters objected to this prohibition,
the Agency believes it is appropriate. A
number of factors may cause the levels
of lead and copper at the tap to vary at
times and the existence of an elevated
result may be an indicator that
additional treatment is warranted. The
mere fact that the level in the follow-up
sample has changed would not alone be
an indicator that the sample is invalid,
especially because lead levels can be so
variable at the tap. EPA has therefore
inserted this language in the final rule.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is
promulgating sample invalidation
provisions, as proposed, in a new
§ 141.86(f). Section 141.86(0(1) defines
four circumstances, described above,
under which the State may invalidate a
sample. A water system requesting
sample invalidation must submit
appropriate documentation to the State
along with the results of all samples
collected, pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2). The
requirement for States to document all
decisions in writing and provide the
rationale for the decision is contained in
§ 141.86(f)(3). This paragraph also
prohibits States from invalidating a
sample solely because a follow-up
sample has a higher or lower
concentration than the original sample.
Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any
replacement samples for samples
invalidated pursuant to § 141.86(f) be
taken as soon as possible, either within
20 days of the date the State invalidates
the sample or by the end of the
applicable monitoring period,
whichever is later. Replacement
samples are necessary only in those
instances where there otherwise would
be too few samples, due to the
invalidation of one or more of the
original samples, to meet minimum
sampling requirements. Replacement
samples taken after the end of the
applicable monitoring period may not
also be used to meet the monitoring
requirements of a subsequent
monitoring period. This paragraph also
requires that any replacement sample be
taken at the same location as the
invalidated sample or, if that is not
possible, then at a location other than
one already used for sampling during
the monitoring period.
Today's action also includes a
revision to the system reporting
requirements in § 141.90. As proposed,
EPA is adding the requirement for a
system requesting sample invalidation
to submit the appropriate
documentation to the State at
§ 141.90(a)(l)(ii). Corresponding State
recordkeeping requirements have been
added at § 142.14(d)(10)(iii).
1. Monitoring waivers for small
systems.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal included a new
provision at § 141.86(g) that would
allow States to grant monitoring waivers
to small systems that satisfy specific
90th percentile lead and copper levels
and meet certain materials
requirements. The intent of the
proposed provision was to provide
monitoring relief to small systems that
provide substantive documentation or
equivalent evidence that they are free of
sources of lead and copper
contamination. EPA believes that
monitoring relief is appropriate for these
systems because there is no value in
requiring States and water systems to
invest limited resources on frequent
monitoring where sources of lead and
copper contamination appear to be non-
existent.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While all
commenters supported this monitoring
waiver concept, many commenters took
issue with how § 141.86(g) and the
preamble were worded. Section '
141.86(g) has been reworded in today's
action to address these comments.
These changes should remove the
ambiguity of the proposed rule and
clarify requirements that were unclear
in the proposal. The major comments
received are discussed below.
(A) Materials specification.
Commenters raised several concerns
with the language that addressed the
materials requirements. Several of these
commenters objected to the use of the
terminology "all plastic system." These
commenters felt that EPA's use of such
terminology would send a message that
EPA considers other plumbing materials
unacceptable. They pointed out that
there are other plumbing materials that
pose no concern from the standpoint of
lead and copper contamination and
identified the many benefits of metallic
plumbing, including copper pipes. One
commenter noted that copper from
copper pipes contributes to meeting the
essential nutrient requirements for
humans. Commenters also noted that
many manufacturers of brass and bronze
fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint
devices) are attempting to meet the
standard established by National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
International for lead leaching for
faucets and other drinking water
plumbing components that contain low
levels of lead or are completely free of
lead-containing materials.
EPA, in utilizing the terminology "all
plastic system," did not intend to
advocate the use of one particular type
of plumbing over any other. The
proposed rule used_the phrase "all
plastic system" as short-hand for
systems that are free of lead-containing
and copper-containing materials that
have the potential to adversely affect
levels of lead and copper at the tap. The
Agency recognizes the benefits of many
different types of plumbing materials.
EPA recognizes the confusion that the
"all plastic system" terminology has
caused and agrees that the wording in
the proposal could be interpreted to
preclude the granting of a waiver to a
water system even if none of the
buildings connected to the system have
any "lead-containing" or "copper-
containing" materials. EPA has dropped
the use of the "all plastic system"
terminology in today's action.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, -2000/Rules and Regulations
1979
The language in today's action is
specific as to what materials are
considered lead-containing and copper-
containing. Lead-containing materials
include: Plastic pipes and service lines
which contain lead plasticizers; lead
service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered
pipe joints; and leaded brass or bronze
alloy fittings and fixtures that do not
meet the specifications of any lead-
leaching standard established pursuant
to section 1417(e) of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-
6(e)). While the proposed rule did not
specify the exclusion of plastic pipes
and service lines which contain lead
plasticizers, this exclusion can be
inferred from the proposed regulatory
language since this kind of plastic pipe
is a "lead-containing material."7 The
language pertairiing to plastic pipes and
service lines which contain lead
plasticizers has been added to the final
rule for the purpose of clarification.
Copper-containing materials include
copper pipes and copper service lines.
EPA agrees that copper in drinking
water can contribute to meeting dietary
requirements. However, humans have
limited tolerance to copper. Although
low levels of exposure (below the
MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels,
especially when present in water or
beverages, can cause nausea, vomiting
and/or diarrhea. The MCLG for copper
in potable water was established to
protect humans from these adverse
effects. Thus, because changing
circumstances at systems with copper-
containing materials could result in
copper levels above the MCLG, EPA
believes it would be inappropriate to
allow such systems to monitor for
copper less frequently than once every
three years.
Today's action does not preclude
small water systems with leaded brass
or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that
meet the "lead free" criteria defined
under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the
SDWA from qualifying for a monitoring
waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA
published a Federal Register Notice
recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9,
as meeting the requirements for a
voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR
44686). This standard, developed with
the assistance of EPA, the plumbing
industry, numerous State and local
regulatory officials, water utilities,
independent health consultants, and the
academic community covers endpoint
devices including kitchen and bar
faucets, lavatory faucets, water
'Information regarding the suitability of different
plastic materials may be obtained by investigating
compliance with third-party standards such as NSF
Standard 61.
dispensers, drinking fountains, water
coolers, glass fillers, residential
refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and
endpoint control valves. Today's action
does not incorporate specific reference
to the NSF standard, however, in case
other standards that meet the
requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d)
and (e) are established in the future.
Notification of additional third-party
standards that meet these specifications
will be published in future Federal
Registers as appropriate.
The rule language remains silent on
the materials composition of in-line
devices, such as valves and meters. EPA
has no data that suggest that in-line
devices will contribute lead or copper at
levels that will leach these materials in
excess of the action levels. Thus, water
systems with in-line devices containing
lead or copper components may apply
for a waiver, if they meet the other
eligibility requirements.
Some commenters pointed out that
the language in the proposed rule could
preclude the issuance of any monitoring
waivers because it would have required
that all "buildings" (rather than
"plumbing") connected to the system be
free of materials containing lead and
copper. Commenters interpreted this to
mean that water systems with buildings
containing materials such as copper
wiring, brass screws, or any copper-
containing or lead-containing materials
in building wastewater systems, would
be ineligible to receive a waiver.
Today's action clarifies that the
materials requirement applies only to
the drinking water distribution or
service lines and the drinking water
supply plumbing (including plumbing
conveying drinking water within all
residences and buildings connected to
the system).
Other commenters suggested that only
a limited number of CWSs would be
able to qualify for a waiver, either
because it would be difficult for most
water systems to identify all the
plumbing materials used in all buildings
or because few water systems, when
examining all the buildings connected
to the water system, would actually be
able to meet the materials requirement.
EPA recognizes that it may be quite
difficult for CWSs to identify all the
plumbing materials used in all buildings
connected to the system and that it is
possible that very few systems may be
able to meet the materials requirement.
The Agency believes that some systems
will qualify, however, and is including
the waiver provisions in today's action
to benefit those systems.
(B) Monitoring issues. Under the
provisions proposed in 1996, a system
meeting the materials criteria could
apply for a waiver once it had
completed one six-month round of
standard tap monitoring for lead and
copper subsequent to becoming free of
materials containing lead and copper.
To qualify for the waiver, the system's
90th percentile lead and copper levels
could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or
0.65 mg/L for copper. Systems with
waivers would be required to complete
at least one round of monitoring, at the
reduced number of sites specified in
§ 141.86(c) at least once every nine
years.
One commenter requested that the
language be modified to require "at
least" one six-month round of standard
tap water monitoring to provide States
some flexibility and authority to require
additional testing if the State believes
these additional data are needed to
make the waiver decision. EPA agrees
that this is appropriate and has
incorporated this modification into
today's action.
A few commenters questioned the
rationale for establishing the lead PQL
(0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for
waiver eligibility and suggested that the
threshold be set at one-half the action
level, as proposed for copper. EPA does
not believe that setting the lead
threshold for waivers at one-half the
lead action level is as protective of
public health as setting it at the PQL.8
In addition, since systems receiving a
monitoring waiver will be required to
monitor lead and copper levels only
once every 9 years, the Agency believes
it is essential to minimize the risk that
these systems will have elevated levels
of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower
90th percentile lead level for allowing
waivers will help to minimize this risk.
Today's action, therefore, retains using
the lead PQL, for determining if a
system may qualify for a waiver.
Another commenter disagreed with
setting the lead level for States to
consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because,
under this requirement, source water
with lead levels at or slightly above this
level could exclude a system from
qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes
that if a system's 90th percentile lead
level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter
what the reason, tap water lead levels
should not go unchecked for as long as
nine years.
One commenter suggested that EPA
rethink and expand the waiver option
included in the April 1996 Proposal to
allow any system that "reliably and
consistently" meets the action levels for
8 Section C.S.h. of this preamble provides EPA's
rationale for utilizing the PQL for lead instead of
one-half the action level when establishing a
threshold lead level for implementing accelerated
reduced monitoring.
-------
1980
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
lead and copper to reduce its
monitoring to once every nine years.
The commenter also pointed out that
this concept would tie in to most of the
existing State waiver programs. The
Agency believes that a "reliably and
consistently" waiver is appropriate for
many inorganic and organic
contaminants regulated under the Phase
II and Phase V rules because source
water levels of these contaminants are
not highly variable. Lead and copper
levels, which are measured at the tap,
can be highly variable. Tap water lead
and copper levels can vary from day to
day and even hour to hour at the same
sample site. Because of this high
variability, EPA does not believe a
waiver program based solely on lead
and copper analytical values is
sufficiently protective of public health
because there is a risk that such an
approach would allow a system with an
undetected lead or copper problem to
reduce monitoring to a point where the
population most at risk (children)
would not receive the benefit of such
monitoring if it occurred only once
every nine years. The Agency has
therefore coupled very low tap water
lead and copper levels with the
materials criteria to further reduce this
risk.
A few other commenters proposed
that a system not be required to monitor
at all once it meets the materials
requirements and demonstrates that its
90th percentile lead level is less than or
equal to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th
percentile copper level is less than or
equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not
incorporated this suggestion into the
final rule. The Agency believes that the
risks from ingesting copper and lead are
too much of a health hazard to totally
ignore. Tap water monitoring (even if
conducted only once every nine years)
could point out use of lead-containing
plumbing fixtures or copper pipes that
nave been installed unbeknownst to the
system owner/operator in the years
following receipt of a waiver.
One commenter stated that if new
systems are properly installed under
State specification and approval, if
approved plumbing materials are used,
and if there is no lead in the source
water, there is little reason for
conducting lead and copper monitoring.
The commenter also stated that the
standard number of sites to be sampled
is excessive for these systems even if
some confirmatory monitoring is
performed.
EPA believes that monitoring for lead
and copper is still necessary in these
circumstances. Even if a system is
"properly installed," the water may be
corrosive to copper pipes and lead-
containing faucets used within the
homes and buildings served by this new
public water supply. Many faucets
purchased in the last ten years, although
labeled "lead free," may contain up to
8 percent lead, which had been allowed
under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments, and thus may leach high
levels of lead. Prior to August 6,1998,
States may have approved the use of the
aforementioned "lead-free" faucets
(although they may have required
warning labels on these faucets).
In addition, all States allow the use of
copper pipes in distribution systems
and/or interior building plumbing. New
copper pipes frequently leach high
levels of copper until the pipes stabilize.
Additionally, copper in source water
can still be a concern in systems with
no lead in the source water. While the
1996 SDWA Amendments require all
faucets introduced into commerce after
August 6,1998, to meet the
specifications of an approved lead-
leaching standard which will lessen the
amount of lead that can leach from a
tap, there is still the potential for some
lead to leach from some taps. With this
continued potential for lead leaching,
copper leaching, and copper in source
water, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's contention that there is
little reason for conducting lead and
copper monitoring if new systems are
properly installed under State
specification and approval, if approved
plumbing materials are used, and if
there is no lead in the source water.
EPA also disagrees with the
commenter's statement that the standard
number of sample sites is excessive for
new systems. Such systems have yet to
confirm that their water supply is
minimally corrosive. The number of
samples required for initial monitoring
was established to sufficiently account
for variability of lead and copper at taps
while at the same time being reasonable
for a system to implement. Assuming
these systems do not otherwise qualify
for a monitoring waiver, if testing does
confirm that these new systems are very
low in lead and copper (i.e., the
system's 90th percentile lead level is
less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the
system's 90th percentile copper level is
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during
two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods, today's action allows these
systems to reduce sampling to once
every three years and allows systems
that collected 10 samples or more
during initial monitoring to reduce the
number of sample sites by half.9
9See section C.S.h. in this preamble for
discussion pertaining to "accelerated reduced
monitoring."
(C) Changes potentially affecting
monitoring waivers. The April 1996
proposed rule language included a
requirement for a water system subject
to a monitoring waiver to notify the
State within 60 days of the addition of
a new source of water or any change in
water treatment. EPA proposed to give
the State discretion to require additional
monitoring or other appropriate action,
if the State believes such action is
warranted in these cases, to ensure that
low levels of tap water lead and copper
are maintained. The proposed language
also required a water system to revert to
monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) if,
as a result of new construction or
repairs, the system could no longer
certify it was free of lead-containing and
copper-containing materials. Finally,
the proposed language would have
given States the discretion to require a
system to revert to more frequent
monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(3) or
(4) and/or to take other appropriate
action if the system's 90th percentile
lead levels exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or
the 90th percentile copper levels
exceeded 0.65 mg/L during a
subsequent round of monitoring. No
commenters addressed these provisions
specifically; however, upon further
consideration, the Agency believes a
few modifications to these provisions
are appropriate.
The requirement for a water system
subject to a monitoring waiver to notify
the State if the system adds a new
source of water or makes a change in
water treatment has been revised
slightly to keep it consistent with the
comparable requirement for (b)(3)
systems and other systems subject to
reduced monitoring. Today's action
clarifies that the notification must occur
no later than 60 days after the change is
made, unless the State requires earlier
notification. The LCR does not require
prior State approval of these changes;
however, it may be required by other
drinking water regulations or by the
State. In those cases where prior State
approval is not required, EPA
nevertheless encourages water systems
to notify the State before making the
change to minimize the risk that the
change will result in unanticipated
adverse effects on tap water lead and
copper levels. Today's action does not
prescribe that additional tap water
monitoring for lead and copper occur as
a part of these changes; however, States
have the authority to require additional
round(s) of monitoring and/or other
appropriate action, if the State thinks
such action(s) are warranted to ensure
that the water system continues to meet
waiver eligibility criteria.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1981
Today's action also clarifies that a
water system that becomes aware that it
can no longer certify that it is free of
lead-containing or copper-containing
materials must notify the State within
60 days of becoming aware of this
situation. Such systems no longer are
eligible for a monitoring waiver.
Likewise, a system loses its waiver
eligibility if it has a 90th percentile. lead
level greater than 0.005 mg/L or a 90th
percentile copper level greater than 0.65
mg/L subsequent to receiving the
waiver. Assuming a system that loses its
waiver eligibility has not exceeded
either action level, it must revert to a
triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such
systems may be able to take action to
identify and remove source(s) of lead
and/or copper before they are due to
collect samples again and may reapply
for a waiver. Systems exceeding an
action level, however, must begin
implementation of CCT in accordance
with the deadlines in § 141.81(e). EPA
believes these rule language
modifications are consistent with the
intent of the monitoring waiver program
which only allows a system to monitor
once every nine years if it can provide
an acceptable materials certification and
demonstrate acceptable 90th percentile
lead and copper levels.
'(D) Waiver renewals. The proposed
rule language neglected to specifically
address what happens with a waiver if
the system continues to satisfy the
waiver requirements. Some commenters
suggested that systems be required to re-
certify periodically that they remain free
of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials. EPA agrees that
periodic re-certification is appropriate
and has therefore included a
requirement in today's action for the
water system to submit the re-
certification every nine years, along
with its lead and copper tap water
results and 90th percentile calculations.
States may require re-certification
sooner, for example, if the system adds
a new source of water, modifies water
treatment, or undergoes new
construction. Any system that loses
eligibility for a monitoring waiver must
revert to more frequent monitoring and/
or implement CCT as discussed above.
(Ej Partial waivers. A few commenters
suggested that a copper waiver should
be available to those systems that are
unable to meet the rule's lead waiver
criteria because of lead-containing
components within the system, if the
10 EPA does not believe it is necessary that these
systems monitor more frequently than once every
three years since they would have been on a
triennial schedule already if the waiver had not
'been issued and they had reduced monitoring in
accordance with the schedule in § 141.86(d)(4).
system could meet the copper-related
waiver criteria. Similarly, a lead,waiver
should be available to those systems
that meet the waiver criteria with
respect to lead but not with respect to
copper. These commenters suggested
that this would allow additional
reductions in monitoring and reporting
for such systems and would allow the
States to focus more of their limited
resources elsewhere. EPA has
considered these suggestions. While the
Agency questions whether such
provisions will significantly reduce
burden, today's action gives States the
discretion to grant a waiver for either
lead or copper, if the system meets all
the criteria relevant to that contaminant.
The Agency is adding this provision
because some water systems, if granted
a waiver for either lead or copper,
although still required to collect tap
water samples every three years (or
more often) for the non-waived
contaminant, may be able to benefit
from reduced analytical costs due to the
fact that the tap water samples will only
have to be analyzed for one of the
contaminants in two of the three
monitoring periods (assuming the non-
waived contaminant is on a triennial
schedule) that constitute the nine-year
waiver period.
On the other hand, the Agency also
recognizes that the issuance of partial
waivers may add administrative burden
to States who would now be required to
track additional monitoring schedules.
For this reason, EPA is leaving the
decision whether, or not, to issue partial
waivers up to the State.
(F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware
that several States already may have
issued monitoring waiversfof small
systems based on guidance provided to
the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a).
In some cases, the State's
implementation of waiver provisions is
very similar to those contained in
today's rule. That is, in addition to
requiring that the system demonstrate it
is free of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials, the State required
that the system demonstrate, through at
least one round of standard tap water
monitoring, that the 90th percentile lead
level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and
the 90th percentile copper level does
not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that
monitoring waivers issued prior to April
11, 2000 should remain in effect as long
as the water system meets the ongoing
waiver monitoring requirements and
continues to meet the waiver eligibility
requirements. The next round of
monitoring for such systems should
occur no later than nine years after the
date of the most recent lead and copper
tap water monitoring conducted by the
system. EPA has incorporated these
provisions into today's action.
In some cases, however, States may
have issued waivers without requiring
any prior tap water lead and copper
monitoring. Although such waivers
were not precluded by the 1995
guidance memo, they are inconsistent
with the provisions of today's action
that make clear the requirement that all
community and non-transient non-
community water systems conduct some
monitoring to verify that they do not
have undetected lead or copper
problems. Today's action, therefore,
requires water systems with waivers
issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have
hot conducted at least one round of tap
water monitoring consistent with the
requirements of § 141.86(g)(2) to
complete a round of monitoring
pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) no later than
September 30, 2000. Assuming such a
system continues to meet the waiver
eligibility criteria, the next round of
monitoring under the waiver would be
due no later than nine years later.
(iii) Today's action. After considering
the comments received and other factors
as discussed above, today's action
includes new provisions at § 141.86(g)
that allow States to grant monitoring
waivers to small water systems if
specified conditions are met. In order to
qualify for a full waiver, a small water
system must meet all of the materials
criteria specified in § 141.86(g)(l) and
tke monitoring criteria specified in
§ 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the system
must certify, with appropriate
supporting documentation, that the
distribution system and service lines
and all drinking water supply plumbing,
including plumbing conveying drinking
water within all residences and
buildings connected to the system, are
free of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials. A system is
considered to be free of lead-containing
materials if. it contains no plastic pipes
with lead plasticizers or plastic service
lines with lead plasticizers and if it is
free of lead service lines, lead pipes,
lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded
brass or bronze fittings and fixtures,
unless such fittings and fixtures meet
the specifications of any lead-leaching
standard established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 300g-6(e) (SDWA section
1417(e)). Systems are considered free of
copper-containing materials if they
contain no copper pipes or copper
service lines. Systems also must have
completed at least one 6-month round of
standard tap water monitoring for lead
and copper, subsequent to becoming
free of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials, at sites approved
by the State and from the number of
-------
1982
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
sites required for standard monitoring
under § 141.86(c) that demonstrates that
the 90th percentile levels of lead and
copper at the tap do not exceed 0.005
mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper.
If permitted by State regulation,
§ 141.86(g) also permits a small system
that meets the lead-related criteria of
§§ 141.86(g)(l) and (2), but not the
copper-related criteria, to apply for a
partial waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead
waiver). Likewise, a small system that
meets the copper-related criteria of
§§141.86(g)(l) and (2), but not the lead-
related criteria, may apply for a partial
waiver for copper only (i.e., a copper
waiver).
Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State
to notify the system, in writing, of its
waiver determination, setting forth the
basis for the decision and any
conditions of the waiver. States have the
authority to impose conditions such as
requiring limited monitoring in addition
to the once every nine year monitoring
required by § 141.86(g)(4) and/or
requiring the system to provide periodic
outreach to consumers to remind them
to avoid installation of materials that
might void the waiver. A system cannot
reduce to a nine-year tap water
monitoring frequency before it receives
the written waiver approval from the
State.
Routine tap water monitoring
requirements and requirements for
reporting certain system changes
between tap water monitoring events are
specified in § 141.86(g)(4). Systems with
waivers must conduct a round of
monitoring for the waived
contaminant(s) at least once every nine
years at the reduced number of sites
specified in § 141.86(c) and provide
appropriate materials re-certification to
the State along with the monitoring
results. Systems with partial waivers
must continue to monitor for the non-
waived contaminant in accordance with
the provisions of § 141.86(d)(l), (d)(3),
or (d)(4), as appropriate. Systems with
waivers must notify the State no later
than 60 days after the addition of a new
source of water or any changes in water
treatment. As discussed above, systems
may be required by other Federal
drinking water regulations or State
regulations to receive prior State
approval before making any of these
changes. Where prior State approval is
not required, EPA encourages systems to
notify the State before making the
change to minimize the risk it will
result in an unanticipated adverse effect
on tap water lead and copper levels.
States have the authority to impose
additional waiver conditions (e.g.,
requiring a materials re-certification
and/or requiring additional rounds (s) of
monitoring), if it deems such additional
conditions are necessary to assess and/
or address treatment or source water
changes at the system. A system with a
full or partial waiver also must notify
the State within 60 days of becoming
aware that it is no longer free of lead-
containing and/or copper-containing
materials.
As long as the water system is in
compliance with the requirements of
§ 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the
appropriate eligibility materials criteria
of § 141.86(g)(l), and maintains 90th
percentile lead levels that do not exceed
0.005 mg/L (unless the system has a
copper waiver) and 90th percentile
copper levels that do not exceed 0.65
mg/L (unless the system has a lead
waiver), § 141.86(g)(5) specifies that the
waiver will be renewed automatically
unless the State notifies the system
otherwise, in writing, setting forth the
basis of its decision. Systems with
waivers that have been revoked may re-
apply for a full or partial waiver, as
appropriate, at such time as it again
meets the eligibility criteria of
§§141.86(g)(l)and(g)(2).
Systems whose waivers have been
revoked must complete appropriate CCT
and/or lead and copper tap water
monitoring requirements. This
provision is specified in § 141.86(g)(6).
In other words, if the system's waiver is
revoked because the system has
exceeded the lead or copper action
level, the system must implement CCT
in accordance with the deadlines
specified in § 141.81(e). If the system's
waiver is revoked for other reasons, and
the system meets both action levels, the
system must monitor for lead and
copper at the tap no less frequently than
once every three years using the
reduced number of sample sites
specified in § 141.86(c).
Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if
anything, a system with a full waiver''
granted prior to April 11, 2000 must do
for the waiver to remain in effect. Pre-
existing waivers issued to a small
system that have previously met the
eligibility requirements of both
§§ 141.86(g)(l) and (g)(2) remain in
effect so long as the system continues to
meet the waiver eligibility criteria of
§ 141.86{g)(5). The first round of tap
water monitoring conducted pursuant to
§ 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no
later than nine years after the last time
1' Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would
have reflected guidance provided in a policy memo
issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). That memo
addressed systems that were free of both lead-
containing and copper-containing materials. EPA
therefore does not believe that there should be any
systems with partial waivers issued prior to the
effective date of the LCRMR.
the system has monitored for lead and
copper at the tap. If, on the other hand,
the pre-existing waiver was issued to a
small system that met the materials
criteria in § 141.86(g)(l) but was not
required to conduct any tap water
monitoring and/or to meet the lead and
copper threshold levels specified in
§ 141.86(g)(2), the waiver will remain in
effect only if the system continues to
meet the eligibility requirements of
§ 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of
standard monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap by September 30, 2000 in
which the 90th percentile lead and
copper levels do not exceed 0.005 mg/
L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet
the eligibility criteria of § 141.86(g)(2)).
After completing this round of
monitoring, the system must continue
monitoring at a frequency of once every
nine years.
Today's action also makes two
changes to the provisions of § 141.90(a)
to reflect system reporting requirements
associated with small system waivers.
As discussed previously,12 § 141.90(a)(3)
now specifies the reporting requirement
for a water system monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap less frequently
than every six months to report, in
writing, the addition of a new source or
a change in water treatment to the State
no later than 60 days after the change
has occurred, unless the State requires
earlier notification. Section 141.90(a)(4)
contains the reporting requirements
associated with applying for a waiver
and submitting appropriate
documentation demonstrating whether
or not the system continues to meet the
continuing waiver eligibility criteria.
Finally, two new changes in State
recordkeeping requirements have been
made to § 142.14. A new
§ 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the
requirement for States to maintain
records pertaining to monitoring waiver
determinations, waiver recertifications,
and waiver revocations. As previously
discussed, § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains
the State recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to systems monitoring less
frequently than every six months that
change treatment or add a new source
of water.
6. Revisions to § 141.87
a. Monitoring for optimal water
quality parameters. As discussed in
section C.2.b. of this preamble, today's
action revises the way in which
compliance with OWQPs is determined
under § 141.82(g). Corresponding
changes have been made to §§ 141.87(d)
and (e)(4). The language of § 141.87(d)
has been streamlined to refer to, but not
12 see section C.S.j. of this preamble.
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 8/ Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1983
repeat, the compliance requirements of
§ 141.82(g). The language of
§ 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify
that a system subject to the reduced
frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the
tap must revert to standard WQP
monitoring if it fails to comply with the
requirements of § 141.82(g).
b. Use of representative sites for entry
point water quality parameter
monitoring at ground water systems.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal included a
provision that would allow ground
water systems to limit entry point WQP
monitoring to those locations that are
representative of the water quality
conditions throughout the system. As
explained in the 1996 preamble, some
.ground water systems, especially in the
western States, can have dozens or even
more than a hundred wells and it can
be difficult and expensive to conduct
biweekly monitoring at each entry
point. The Agency believes that
monitoring at each entry point for large
ground water systems may not be
necessary in all cases. Ground water
systems can limit entry point sampling
to those entry points that are
representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system. If water from untreated ground
water sources mixes with water from
treated ground water sources, the
system must monitor for WQPs both at
representative entry points receiving
treatment and representative entry-
points receiving no treatment. For
example, a ground water system with
seven entry points may draw water from
a distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where
water from the zone does not mix with
water from any other zone). If the
system can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the State that all seven
entry points drawing water from the
same distinct hydraulic zone have
similar water quality characteristics,
taking seasonal variability into account,
the State can allow the system to
conduct biweekly entry point
monitoring at one or two of the entry
points instead of all seven. However, if
CCT is applied at one of the-seven entry
points and not at the other six entry
points, then a representative sample or
samples would need to be taken for the
six entry points and a sample would
also need to be taken at the entry point
where the CCT is applied.
(ii) Comments and analysis.
Commenters generally supported this
proposed revision. Two commenters
expressed concern that the proposed
changes still would require extensive
monitoring for large water systems
relying on ground water sources, even
when no CCT is required. EPA believes
that entry point monitoring for WQPs at
least once every two weeks is
appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water
systems after the installation of CCT and
for those small and medium-size
systems that continue to exceed an
action level after the installation of CCT.
The regulations, as revised by today's
action, provide sufficient flexibility for
systems to meet this requirement
without imposing an unreasonable
monitoring burden where it is not
warranted.
(iii) Today's action. The Agency
therefore is making the following
regulatory changes. First, EPA is
revising the wording of §§ 141.87(a)(2)
and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the
§ 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to
entry point monitoring "except as
provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section" (which contains the provisions
pertaining to ground water systems).
EPA also has revised § 141.87(c)(2) to
clarify that once every two weeks
(biweekly) is the minimum sampling
frequency for routine entry point WQP
monitoring. The Agency has replaced
the phrase, "one sample every two
weeks (biweekly)," with the phrase, "at
least one sample no less frequently than
every two weeks (biweekly)." Since
many systems are monitoring WQPs
more frequently than biweekly, EPA
believes this change is appropriate to
clarify that entry point monitoring is to
be conducted no less frequently than
every two weeks.
EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3)
to.§ 141.8.7 to allow ground water
systems subject to WQP monitoring
requirements after the installation of
CCT to limit their entry point
monitoring to those locations that are
representative of water quality
conditions throughout the system. At a
minimum, these systems must monitor
for WQPs both at some points receiving
treatment and at some points receiving
no CCT if the water from those points
mixes with other source water in the
system that is treated. Systems taking
advantage of this provision are required
to provide sufficient documentation to
the State to demonstrate that the
locations monitored are, in fact,
representative of water quality
throughout the system. The specific
documentation to be provided may vary
depending on the system's
characteristics and State reporting
requirements. For locations that are not
treated, for example, such
documentation might include complete
water analyses from the different wells
over time, or taken for the purpose of
determining equivalence. For wells
receiving treatment, documentation
might include records of chemical
identity, well flow rates and total
volumes per day into the distribution
system, observed chemical dosages per
unit of flow and usage rates that are
demonstrated to be the same as those at
the "equivalent" entry point(s). The
documentation supporting the selection
of these representative sites must be
submitted to the State prior to the start
of any routine WQP monitoring
pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). EPA is
adding the corresponding system
reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding
§142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to
maintain records of any determinations
made pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3).
c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
water quality parameters at the tap.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The April 1996 Proposal also included
new language at § 141.87(e)(2) that
would allow water systems meeting the
criteria for accelerated reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap to also accelerate reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap to once
every three years, more rapidly than
previously allowed. This revision
applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3),
systems but could apply to any system
subject to the monitoring requirements
of § 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained
in the preamble to the April 1996
Proposal, this revision would not affect
the requirement that systems subject to
WQP monitoring after the installation of
CCT collect WQP samples at entry
points no less frequently than once
every two weeks, as specified in
§ 141.87(c)(2).
(ii) Comments and analysis. In
general, commenters supported the
proposed accelerated reduced
monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only
two commenters opposed the provisions
allowing accelerated reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of
these, one advocated retaining the
current monitoring frequency; the other
suggested EPA require daily monitoring.
These commenters may have
misunderstood the intent of the
proposed revision and thought that EPA
was proposing to also reduce the
frequency of entry point WQP
monitoring. As explained in section E.I.
of this preamble, EPA is retaining the
requirement that water systems subject
to water quality parameter monitoring
requirements after the installation of
CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry
points no less frequently than once
every two weeks. The Agency agrees
13 The reporting requirement associated with
systems requesting approval for reduced
monitoring, previously codified at § 141.90(a)(5),
has been eliminated. See section C.S.f. of this
preamble.
-------
1984
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
that this monitoring is essential for good
process control and encourages water
systems to conduct such monitoring
even more frequently than once every
two weeks. The LCR already permits
systems to reduce the frequency of
water quality parameter monitoring
within the distribution system to
triennial. The proposed revision would
allow this to occur more rapidly. EPA
also encourages systems to perform this
monitoring more frequently but has not
made it a regulatory requirement
because of the potential burden
involved.
Two commenters who supported the
idea of accelerated reduced WQP
monitoring at the tap suggested
alternative eligibility criteria. One
recommended the copper threshold be
set at one-half the copper PQL instead
of one-half the copper action level.
EPA's rationale for setting the copper
threshold at one half the copper action
level is discussed in section C.S.h. of
this preamble.
Another commenter pointed out a
discrepancy between the April 1996
preamble and the proposed revised rule
language. The proposed rule language
would have required lead and copper
levels to be " less than" the lead PQL
and one-half the copper action level,
respectively; the preamble stated that
systems with lead and copper levels
"less than or equal to" the lead PQL and
one-half the copper action level,
respectively, would be eligible for
reduced monitoring. The preamble
language reflected EPA's intent and the
Agency has corrected this error in
today's action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is
promulgating the following revisions to
§ 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph
§ 141.87(e)(2) has been redesignated as
§ 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph,
§ 141.87(e)(2)(ii] has been added to
allow a water system to reduce the
frequency with which it collects tap
samples for applicable WQPs specified
in § 141.87(e)(l) to every three years if
the system demonstrates during two
consecutive monitoring periods that its
tap water lead level at the 90th
percentile is less than or equal to the
PQL for lead specified in
§ 141.89(a)(l)(ii), that its tap water
copper level at the 90th percentile is
less than or equal to one-half the action
level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in
§ 141.8p(c)(2), and that it also has
maintained the range of values for the
WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the
State under § 141.82(f).
d. Summary of water quality
monitoring requirements. The table
shown below summarizes the WQP
monitoring requirements, and reflects
the clarification that entry point
monitoring after the installation of CCT
must occur no less frequently than every
two weeks.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1
Monitoring period
Parameters2
Location
Frequency
Initial Monitoring
After Installation of Corrosion Con-
trol.
After State Specifies Parameter
Values for Optimal Corrosion
Control.
Reduced Monitoring
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium, conductivity,
temperature.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and
concentration (if alkalinity ad-
justed as part of corrosion con-
trol), inhibitor dosage rate and
inhibitor residuals.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and
concentration (if alkalinity ad-
justed as part of corrosion con-
trol), inhibitor dosage rate and
inhibitor residuals.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and
concentration (if alkalinity ad-
justed as part of corrosion con-
trol), inhibitor dosage rate and
inhibitor residual5.
Taps and at entry point(s) to dis-
tribution system.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Every 6 months.
Every 6 months.
No less frequently than every two
weeks.
Every 6 months.
No less frequently than every two
weeks.
Every 6 months, annually7 or
every 3 years8; reduced num-
ber of sites.
No less frequently than every two
weeks.
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 WQPs 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 used as part of corrosion control.
8 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used.
8 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
7WaJer systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range
of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
8Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have main-
tained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may
accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th
percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing opti-
mal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations
1985
7. Revisions to §141.88
a. Resampling triggers for composite
source water samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
EPA proposed to revise § 141.88(a) to
delete the reference to § 141.23, which
pertains to inorganic chemical sampling
requirements, and to spell out the
specific requirements for lead and
copper source water monitoring in
§ 141.88(a). The Agency explained that
it believed it would be less confusing to
specify the requirements regarding lead
and copper in Subpart I, where all other
lead and copper sampling is addressed.
In addition, the Agency proposed to
retain the resampling trigger for
composite source water samples for lead
at the detection limit of 0.001 mg/L and
to change the resampling trigger for
composite source water samples for
copper from the detection limits of
0.001 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L to 0.160 mg/
L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule
language to clarify that compositing of
samples must be done by certified
laboratory personnel and to allow
systems to use duplicates or, original
samples, where possible, instead of
resampling. The remaining
requirements in § 141.88(a), pertaining
to sample location and number of
samples, were retained from § 141.23.
(iij Comments and analysis. While
most commenters supported the
proposed revisions to § 141.88(a), a few
commenters raised issues. One
commenter asked how the 90th
percentile would be calculated when
samples are composited. EPA would
like to clarify that compositing applies
to source water samples only. Tap
samples cannot be composited.
Therefore, compositing does not affect
the way in which the 90th percentile is
to be calculated.
Another commenter discussed the
potential impact of rounding the
reported value for the composite
sample. The commenter was concerned
that if water systems with a source
water lead level just above 0.001 mg/L
rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the
proposed rule, resampling of the
composite sample would not need to
occur. EPA has addressed this potential
problem by revising the language in
today's action to change the resampling
triggers from lead levels greater than
14 Since up to five samples may be composited for
analysis, in 1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers
that are one-fifth of the levels above which EPA
recommends source water treatment. (EPA's
guidance document Lead and Copper Rule
Guidance Manual Volume II: Corrosion Control
recommends source water treatment when the
concentration of lead in the source water is greater
than 0.005 mg/L or the concentration of copper in
source water is greater than 0.800 mg/L.)
0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater
than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater
than or equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper
levels greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/
L.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested public comment on whether
compositing should be allowed in light
of the fact that the resampling trigger for
composited lead source water samples
is the detection limit and therefore, half
the samples whose true value is at the
MDL could be reported as false
negatives. While no commenters
suggested eliminating compositing due
to the above-mentioned concern, several
commenters wanted compositing to be
eliminated because of a concern about
the ability of laboratories to successfully
analyze samples near the detection
limit. The Agency does not believe that
it is appropriate to eliminate flexibility
and potential cost savings for some
utilities because some laboratories may
not be able to meet the criteria to
perform compositing. Therefore,
compositing is being retained in today's
action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has made the
following changes to § 14i.88(a)(l). The
requirements for source water sample -
location, number of source water
samples, and collection methods have
been incorporated directly into
§ 141.88(a)(l) and the reference to
§ 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems
may composite up to five source water
samples. The compositing must be done
by certified laboratory personnel. If the
lead concentration in the composite
sample is greater than or equal to 0.001
mg/L or the copper concentration in the
composite sample is greater than or
equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the system
must take and analyze a follow-up
sample at each sampling site used in the
composite within 14 days; however, 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.
b. Reduced source water monitoring
for systems without State-designated
maximum permissible source water
levels.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
In 1996, EPA proposed to add
provisions to the source water
monitoring requirements that would
allow the same reduction in the
frequency of source water monitoring
for systems that exceed an action level
if the source water lead and copper
levels are low and the State has
determined that source water treatment
is not required. This change would
allow such systems to reduce the
frequency of source water monitoring on
the same schedule as systems that are
treating their source water and
complying with the State-specified
maximum permissible source water
levels. EPA proposed that the systems
exceeding an action level after the State
has determined that source water
treatment is not required be allowed to
reduce the frequency of source water
monitoring if the source water lead
concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/
L and the source water copper
concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L.
EPA proposed these levels since Agency'
guidance suggests these are the levels
above which source water treatment
may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c).
(ii) Comments and analysis. Several
commenters suggested refinements to
the rule language to make it more
consistent with other parts of the rule.
One of these commenters suggested that
reduced source water monitoring be
allowed if source water levels are "less
than or equal to" (instead of "less than")
0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8 mg/L copper.
EPA agrees that the lead and copper
concentrations should be "less than or
equal to" the source water threshold
levels and has made this change in
today's action.
A second commenter suggested that
EPA set the same lead and copper
concentrations for reduced source water
monitoring as for accelerated reduced
lead and copper monitoring at the tap.
The Agency agrees that it is less
confusing to use the same lead and
copper thresholds for both accelerated
reduced tap water monitoring and
reduced source water monitoring •where
the State has determined that source
water treatment is not required. Today's
action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as
the copper threshold for reduced source
water monitoring where the State has
determined that no source water
treatment is required. The Agency
estimates that less than one percent of
water systems have source water copper
levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/
L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus believes that
very few, if any, systems will be
precluded from reducing source water
monitoring as a consequence of
establishing this slightly more stringent
threshold than the Agency proposed in
1996.
Another commenter criticized the
Agency for not proposing to revise the
reduced source water monitoring
frequency consistent with a 5/10/15
year monitoring framework for chemical
contaminants regulated by the Phase II/
V rules that the Agency was
considering. In 1997, EPA published an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that requested comment on
possible Chemical Monitoring Reform
-------
1986
Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
and Permanent Monitoring Relief
provisions for the chemicals regulated
under the Phase II/V rales (62 FR 36100,
Jul. 3,1997). EPA has since decided not
to move forward with Chemical
Monitoring Reform. However, the
Agency has published Alternative
Monitoring Guidance (formerly known
as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that
permit States meeting specified
conditions to issue five-year monitoring
waivers for contaminants to which the
State has determined the system is not
vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a
waiver has been issued, the system must
continue to monitor for the Phase n/V
chemicals within the 3/6/9 year
framework.
The Agency agrees that a consistent
framework for chemical contaminants is
desirable to the extent that it does not
jeopardize public health protection or
the environment. EPA does not believe
it would be appropriate to revise the
monitoring frequency for lead and
copper in source water along the lines
being considered for the Chemical
Monitoring Reform/Permanent
Monitoring Relief, however. Other
regulated chemical contaminants
address chemicals where existing
contamination and vulnerability to
future contamination can be identified
relatively easily and where the public
health concern is overall lifetime
exposure. The issues pertaining to the
control of lead and copper are
significantly different. The health effect
of primary concern is exposure to lead
for children. Since systems triggered
into source water monitoring exceed
one or both action levels, EPA does not
believe it appropriate to reduce the
monitoring frequency for source water
lead and copper beyond the schedule in
today's action. While the Agency is
sensitive to the implementation
complications arising from different
frequencies, it does not believe that
adequate public health protection
should be sacrificed merely for the sake
of consistency.
One commenter pointed out a
discrepancy in the proposed language at
§ 141.88(e) regarding whether systems
are required to monitor for both lead
and copper. The language in
§ 141.88(e)(l) has been revised to clarify
that systems subject to source water
monitoring requirements must sample
for both lead and copper.
Finally, one commenter stated that in
making these revisions, EPA was setting
source water treatment levels by default.
EPA does not intend to set specific
levels requiring source water treatment.
EPA's intent is to specify the levels of
lead and copper in source water which
will determine whether a system can
reduce source water monitoring.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore
finalized the revision as proposed,
incorporating the clarification discussed
above. Sections 141.88(e)(l) and (2)
have been revised to allow water
systems that exceed the action level, but
for which the State has determined that
source water treatment is not needed, to
reduce the frequency of source water
monitoring if the system maintains
source water lead levels at or below
0.005 mg/L and source water copper
levels at or below 0.65 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.
8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification
Requirements in § 141.89
a. Proposed revision and background.
EPA noted in the April 1996 Proposal
that the proposed changes to the
composite source water resampling
triggers for lead and copper at
§ 141.88(a)(l)(iii) necessitate revisions
to the laboratory certification
procedures pertaining to composite
source water samples at
§ 141.89(a)(l)(iii). EPA therefore
proposed to delete the requirement for
a laboratory to achieve the MDL for
copper. It is no longer necessary to
specify that laboratories be capable of
achieving the copper MDL in order to
accept composite source water samples.
With the copper resampling trigger set
at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be
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. Comments and analysis. EPA did
not receive any comments objecting to
•this revision.
c. Today's action. The Agency has
revised § 141.89(a)(l)(iii) to delete the
requirement for laboratories to achieve
the copper MDL in order to accept
composite samples. Sections
141.89(a)(l)(iii)(A) and (B) have been
eliminated since they no longer are
necessary.
9. Revisions to System Reporting
Requirements in §141.90
EPA is promulgating a number of
changes to water system reporting
requirements at § 141.90. The following
chart summarizes these changes.
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Paragraph
141.90(a)(1), introductory
text.
141.90(aK1MH)
141.90{aH1)(iH)
141.90(aH1)(iv)
141.90(aK1)(viil)
141.90(a)(2)
141.90{a)(3)
Revision
Remove reference to §141.88 and revise examples of "applicable monitoring periods" to in-
clude a 9-year monitoring period.
Remove requirement for certification of first-draw samples collected by the system
Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation re-
quests.
Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first-draw samples collected by residents
and reserve paragraph.
Modify to address reporting requirement for those systems for which the State will be calcu-
lating the system's 90th percentile lead and copper levels.
Add requirement for reporting WQP monitoring results collected under §§141 87(c)— (f)
Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient num-
ber of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.
Replace with a new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first-draw sampling
sites to identify non-first-draw sample times and locations.
Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient
number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.
Preamble
discussion
C.9.a.
C 9 b
C.5.k.
C9b
C9c
C2b
C5b
C.5.C.
C5b
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations 1S97
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Paragraph
Revision;
Preamble
discussion
141.90(a)(4)
141.90(a)(5)
141.90(e)(2)
141.90(e)(4)
141.90(f) .
141.90(h)
Replace with a new requirement for systems monitoring at the tap less frequently than once
every 6 months to notify the State within 60 days if there are any changes in treatment or
addition of a new 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 requirement for small systems requesting a monitoring waiver ...
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.
Revise all references to "§141.84(f)" to read "§141.84(e)"
Remove reporting requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of entire
length of LSL.
Add new requirement for systems collecting LSL samples after partial lead service line re-
placement to report results to the State.
Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks
Add new requirement for reporting lead and copper concentrations where the State cal-
culates a system's 90th percentile levels.
C.5.J. & C.5.I.
C.5.b.
C.5.I.
C.5.f.
C.6.b.
C.S.b.
C.S.b.
C.S.b.
C-4.C.
C.9.C.
Most of these changes are described in
more detail in other sections of the
preamble, as indicated in the table
above. The remaining changes to system
reporting requirements are described
below.
a. Timing of reporting of tap water
monitoring for lead and copper and
water quality parameter monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
The introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l) of
the 1991 LCR requires a water system to
report monitoring data to the State for
all tap water samples within the first 10
days following the end of each
applicable monitoring period specified
in §§ 141.86,141.87, and 141.88. The
applicable monitoring periods listed in
the original rule were "every six-
months", "annually", and "every 3
years." Because the proposed revisions
included a provision that would allow
certain small water systems to conduct
tap water monitoring once every nine
years (see § 141.86(g)), EPA also
proposed a revision to the introductory
text of § 141.90(a)(l) to include "every
9 years" as one of the applicable
monitoring periods. In the August 1998
Notice, the Agency proposed to add
"quarterly" to this list to reflect the
proposed requirement that water
systems subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements of §§ 141.87(d) and (e)
report these results quarterly. Because
EPA was also proposing to give States
explicit discretion to require more
frequent reporting of WQP results, the
Agency also proposed to add a qualifier
to the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l)
to make clear that the specific WQP
reporting requirements took precedence
over the general reporting requirements
wherever the two appeared to be in
conflict.
(ii) Comments and analysis. One
commenter pointed out that EPA had
apparently omitted the phrase, "below
for," in the first sentence of the
proposed rewording in the April 1996
Proposal. EPA agrees that the phrase
was inadvertently omitted from the
April 1996 Proposal and has corrected
the error in today's action. No
commenter took issue with the
proposed changes to the introductory
text of § 141.90(a)(l) in response to
either the April 1996 Proposal or the
August 1998 Notice.
(iii) Today's action. The introductory
text of § 141.90(a)(l) has been revised to
reflect "every 9 years" as one of the
applicable reporting frequencies.
Today's action also revises the
introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l) to
include the qualifying phrase, "except
as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(viii) of
this section." Since today's action
retains the requirement for a six-month
monitoring period for WQPs after the
State designates OWQPs under
§ 141.82(f), instead of revising this to a
quarterly period, EPA has omitted
"quarterly" from the list of applicable
monitoring periods referenced in the
introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l). The
Agency believes that the language of
§ 141.90(a)(lKviii), added by today's
language, makes clear that systems must
report these WQP monitoring results to
the State no less frequently than every
six months.
Today's action also makes one
technical correction to the introductory
text of § 141.90(a)(l). This language, as
promulgated in 1991, referenced tap
water samples collected in accordance
with § 141.86, WQP samples collected
in accordance with §'141.87, and source
water samples collected in accordance
with § 141.88. Because the reporting
requirements for source water
monitoring are specified in § 141.90(b)
and not in § 141.90(a)(l), the reference
to § 141.88 has been deleted from the
introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l).
b. Elimination of certification
requirements pertaining to first-draw
samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
Section 141.90(a)(l)(ii) of the LCR, as
promulgated in 1991, required water
systems to certify that each sample
collected by the system pursuant to
§ 141.86(d) was one-liter in volume and,
to the best of the system's knowledge,
had stood motionless in the service line
or in the interior plumbing of a
sampling site for at least six hours.
Section 141.90(a)(lXiii) required water
systems to certify that each tap sample
collected by residents was taken after
the water system informed the residents
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 and have experience in
collecting first-draw samples. Because
the Agency believes that continuing to
require systems to provide these
certifications every monitoring period
imposes a burden that can no longer be
justified, EPA proposed eliminating
these two certification requirements in
the April 1996 Proposal.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported the proposal to
eliminate the requirement for written
certification of first-draw sample
collection. However, concern was
expressed that improper sample
collection might occur due to: new
-------
1988
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
homeowners who are not aware of
collection requirements; staff turnover,
particularly at NTNCWSs; and
customers who forget proper sample
collection procedures over time.
EPA acknowledges that requiring
written certification provides an extra
level of assurance that samples have
been collected correctly. However, EPA
also believes that the reduced burden
resulting from the elimination of these
requirements outweighs the benefits of
maintaining the certification
requirements, especially since
§ 141.86(b)(2) still requires water
systems to instruct residents regarding
first-draw sample procedures. EPA also
believes it is prudent to provide
technical assistance, when necessary, to
new water system staff, water system
customers sampling for the first time,
and customers who have previously
sampled, to ensure proper sample
collection. EPA has therefore eliminated
these certification requirements.
One commenter favored elimination
of the certification requirement but
suggested that public water systems
should require a certification from the
homeowner. In addition, the commenter
also suggested adding a requirement
that a chain of custody be maintained
until the laboratory has finished
analyzing the sample. The LCR will
continue to require (at § 141.86(b)(2))
that water systems provide sampling
instructions to residents who will be
collecting first-draw samples. However,
because EPA can only regulate water
systems, the Rule cannot incorporate
language that would require
homeowners to provide a certification
that they sampled correctly. Water
systems are responsible for ensuring
that reported results accurately reflect
the samples collected. The absence of a
Federal requirement for chain of
custody does not preclude the State or
the system from establishing these
controls. EPA encourages States and
systems to establish the necessary
controls; however, the Agency has no
plans to add a chain of custody
requirement to the lead and copper
regulations.
(Hi) Today's action. The certification
requirements pertaining to first-draw
lead and copper tap water samples,
previously codified at §§ 141.90(a)(l)(ii)
and (iii), have been deleted. New
requirements have been added at
§ 141.90(a)(l)(ii) associated with
requesting sample invalidation (see
section C.S.k. of this preamble).
c. State calculation/reporting of 90th
percentile levels.
(i) Proposed revision and background.
Although no specific regulatory
language changes were proposed, the
preamble to the April 1996 Proposal
requested comment on a burden
reduction measure that would give
States the flexibility to eliminate the
requirement that systems calculate and
report 90th percentile lead and copper
values, provided that the State performs
the calculation. A number of water
systems, especially small water systems,
find it difficult to calculate these 90th
percentile values. Some States have
found that the 90th percentile lead and
copper values submitted by such
systems are incorrect. Consequently, a
number of these States routinely
recalculate the 90th percentile values
based on the individual tap sample data
that systems are required to submit.
Granting States the option to calculate
the 90th percentile values in lieu of the
water system would result in a burden
reduction for those water systems who
are finding it difficult and time
consuming to do the calculation on their
own and would not increase the burden
for those States who have already opted
to recalculate the systems' 90th
percentile values.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Many
commenters supported this measure. A
few commenters, however, did not
support such a change. One commenter
suggested that rather than eliminating
the requirement for systems to calculate
and report 90th percentile values, the
Rule should stipulate that it is up to the
State to determine whether systems
should report the results of all tap
samples, the 90th percentile values, or
both. The commenter maintained that
this change would be appropriate in
their State since the certified
laboratories are already required to
calculate and report the 90"th'percentile
values based on the results of the lead
and copper tap samples that they have
just analyzed.
Because it is difficult to ensure that a
certified lab will report results to the
State within the reporting time frame
required of public water systems,
today's action does not include language
that allows States the flexibility to rely
on information reported to the State by
certified laboratories in lieu of system
reporting of the lead and copper tap
water results and 90th percentile
calculations. EPA cannot impose
reporting requirements on certified labs
through the LCR and EPA does not have
authority to take enforcement action
against certified labs that do not report
data within the reporting time frame
required of public water systems.
A few commenters suggested that the
90th percentile reporting requirements
be eliminated for small systems only;
another commenter opposed the
proposed measure due to the belief that
requiring States to perform these
calculations would increase the data
manipulation load on already
overburdened State regulatory staff.
Some commenters suggested that
eliminating the requirement for systems
to calculate the 90th percentile lead and
copper values would result in systems
not having time to take appropriate
follow-up actions (such as collecting
WQP samples) within the required time
frame if the State reported the 90th
percentile values back to the system •
later in the monitoring period, or after
it had ended. Finally, several
commenters opposed allowing the
States to calculate systems'. 90th
percentile levels because they felt that
water system owner/operators need to
take responsibility for what is occurring
in their systems.
EPA shares the concerns raised by
these commenters. Nevertheless, the
Agency believes that there may be
instances where it is least burdensome
overall for the State to perform the
calculations, as long as systems are
notified of the results sufficiently early
in the monitoring period to take any
required follow-up action. EPA
therefore has included provisions
providing States some flexibility to
eliminate the 90th percentile reporting
requirements for all systems, no
systems, or some subset (e.g., small
systems). Water systems for which the
State will calculate the 90th percentile
lead and copper levels must submit the
results of all lead and copper tap
samples to the State by a date
designated by the State. The State will
then calculate the system's 90th
percentile lead and copper
concentrations and will provide the
results of the calculations, in writing, to
the system prior to the end of the
applicable monitoring period.
EPA agrees that if the State calculates
the 90th percentile lead and copper
levels, it is, possible that a water system
would not have sufficient time to collect
water quality parameter samples during
the same monitoring period that an
action level is exceeded. To avoid this
situation, EPA strongly encourages
States to provide the results of the 90th
percentile calculations to each system
well in advance of the end of the
monitoring period. States will need to
advise systems when they must submit
lead and copper tap water sample
results to the State so that the State can
do these calculations in a timely
manner. While determining when the
systems must submit their lead and
copper tap results, the State should: (1)
Consider the length of time it will need
to review the lead and copper tap
results provided by all affected water
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations 1989
systems; and (2) consider the length of
time needed by water systems exceeding
the lead and/or copper action level(s) to
collect water quality parameter samples.
If lead and copper tap results are not
provided by the date required by the
State, it becomes the system's
responsibility to calculate their 90th
percentile values.
The Agency agrees that all systems
should take responsibility for the
quality of water delivered to their
customers. However, it appears that
some systems still find it difficult to
calculate 90th percentile lead and
copper levels correctly. Today's action
allows States that are concerned with
the accuracy of the systems' calculations
to perform the calculations and then
provide the results to the system before
the end of the monitoring period so that
the system can take appropriate action.
EPA strongly encourages all water
systems to calculate their 90th
percentile lead and copper levels on
their own using the "instructions"
found in § 141.80(c)(3) even if the State
has committed to performing these
calculations and providing the results of
the calculations to the water system.
Systems that determine that they have
exceeded an action level may proceed
with the appropriate follow-up
requirements, such as WQP monitoring
or lead public education. If, based on
the same lead and copper tap results
submitted by the system, the State
determines that the system's 90th
percentile lead and copper levels
actually do not exceed either the lead or
copper action levels, the system may
discontinue with any follow-up actions
it has begun.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore
revised the requirement at
§ 141.90(a)(l)(iv), requiring system
reporting of the 90th percentile lead and
copper level calculations, to omit the
requirement in those instances where
the State will be performing the
calculations in accordance with the
provisions specified in a new
§ 141.90(h). Section 141.90(h) contains
the following requirements.
• The State must have previously
notified the system that the State will
calculate the 90th percentile lead and
copper levels and have provided the
system with a date, earlier than the end
of the monitoring period, by which the
system must provide the results of all
lead and copper tap water samples
collected during the monitoring period.
• The system must provide the
following information to the State by the
date specified: The results of all lead
and copper tap water samples,
including the location of each site and
the criteria under which the site was
selected for the sampling pool, and'an
identification of sampling sites utilized
during the current monitoring period
that were not sampled during previous
monitoring periods along with an
explanation why sampling sites have
changed.
• The State must provide the results
of the 90th percentile lead and copper
calculations, in writing, to the water
system before the end of the monitoring
period.
EPA is also revising § 142.14rdJ(9)"to
make clear that States must maintain
records pertaining to any State- .
calculated 90th percentile levels along
with records of data submitted pursuant
to §141.90.
W. Revisions to § 141.43
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 141.43
contain a one-time requirement for
public water systems to identify and
notify persons that may be affected by
lead contamination of their drinking
water. This requirement is obsolete.
Notification pursuant to § 141.43 was to
have occurred no later than June 1988.
Moreover, the requirement for a water
system to conduct public education
pursuant to § 141.85 as long as the water
system exceeds the lead action level is
much more comprehensive and
accomplishes the same goal of
informing the public about the
possibility of lead contamination. EPA
has therefore deleted and reserved
§§ 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes
this revision is appropriate to avoid
confusion and redundancy.
EPA also is revising § 141.43 to
amend the definition of "lead free" to
reflect the provisions of Sections
1417(d) and (e) of the 1996 SDWA
Amendments. Section 1417(a)(l) of the
SDWA states that "no person may use
any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting
or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the
installation or repair of any public water
system or any plumbing in a residential
or nonresidential facility providing
water for human consumption that is
not lead free." Under section 1417(d),
"lead free" means that solders and flux
may not contain more than 0.2 percent
lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well
pumps may not contain more than 8.0
percent lead; and plumbing fittings and
fixtures must meet standards
established under section 1417(e) (42
U.S.C. 300g-6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the
SDWA states that "lead free" with
regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures
intended to dispense water for human
consumption means those fittings and
fixtures that are in compliance with a
standard established under that section.
Today's action adds a paragraph (d)(3)
to § 141.43 to incorporate into the
definition of "lead free" the following:
"When used with respect to plumbing
fittings and fixtures intended by the
manufacturer to dispense water for
human ingestion refers to fittings and
fixtures that are in compliance with
voluntary standards and testing
protocols for the leaching of lead in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e)."
As discussed previously (see section
C.5.1.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA has
recognized NSF International's Standard
61, Section 9, as meeting the
requirements for a voluntary lead-
leaching standard under Section 1417(e)
(62 FR 44686, Aug. 22,1997). If other
standards that meet the requirements of
SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are
established in the future, EPA will
publish appropriate notification in the
Federal Register.
D. Revisions to Requirements for States
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
primacy States must adopt and submit
to EPA for approval a primacy program
revision to incorporate the provisions of
today's rule into their approved primacy
program. In addition to the revised
system requirements in Part 141, today's
rule amends the State recordkeeping
requirements of § 142.14, the LCR-
specific State reporting requirements in
§ 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy
requirements unique to specific
regulations in § 142.16. These revisions
are discussed below.
1. Records kept by States. As
discussed in C. of this preamble, today's
action contains several conforming
changes to the State recordkeeping
requirements associated with the LCR.
These requirements are codified at
§ 142.14(d)(8). The following
summarizes these revisions.
• Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been
eliminated.
• Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi)
has been redesignated as
§§ 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii),
respectively.
• A new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any system-specific
requirements for (b)(l) and (b)(3)
systems that have corrosion control
treatment installed.
• The newly designated
§ 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been revised to
eliminate the word "and" at the end of
the paragraph.
• The newly designated
§ 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been revised to
correct the punctuation at the end of the
paragraph.
• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been
revised to change the reference to
"Section 141.84(f) to read "Section
141.84(e)."
-------
1990
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
• Section 142.14(d)C8)(ix) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any determinations of
monitoring or other requirements for
systems monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap less frequently than every six
months that change treatment or add a
new source of water.
• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of system-specific decisions
regarding the content of written public
education materials and/or distribution
of these materials.
• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any system-specific
determinations regarding use of non-
first-draw samples under § 141.86(b)(5).
• Section §142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any system-specific or case-
by-case designations of sampling
locations for systems subject to reduced
monitoring.
• Section § 142.l4(d)(8)(xiii) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of system-specific
determinations pertaining to alternative
sample collection periods for systems
subject to reduced monitoring.
• Section § 142.l4(d)(8)(xiv) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any determinations,
including waiver renewals and
revocations.
• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any determinations made
regarding representative entry point
monitoring locations at ground water
systems.
• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been
added to require States to maintain
records of any system-specific
determinations made regarding the
submission of information to
demonstrate compliance with partial
lead service line replacement
requirements.
• Section §142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has
been added to require States to maintain
records of any system-specific decisions
regarding the resubmission of detailed
documentation demonstrating
completion of public education
requirements.
• Section § 142.14(d)(9) has been
revised to include any State-calculated
90th percentile values among records
States must maintain relative to data
submitted pursuant to § 141.90.
• Section §142.14(d)(10) has been
revised to include records of State
activities, and the results thereof, to
determine compliance with the
requirements related to partial lead
service line replacement and to include
records of sample invalidation
determinations.
• Section § 142.14(d)(ll) has been
revised to change the reference to
"§§ 142.14(d)(8Xi) through (d)(8)(viii)"
to read "§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through
(d)(8Kxvii)."
2. Reporting requirements for States.
a. Proposed revision and background.
Under the 1991 Rule, States were
required to report up to eleven LCR
implementation milestones for each
water system. These milestones were:
• Lead action level exceedance and
date of the exceedance;
• Copper action level exceedance and
date of the exceedance;
• Corrosion control study required;
• Corrosion control study completed
and date State received the results of the
study;
• State designation of CCT and date
of the determination;
• State designation of source water
treatment and date of the determination;
• CCT installed;
• Source water treatment installed;
• State designation of optimal water
quality control parameters and date of
the determination;
• State designation of maximum
permissible source water levels; and
• Lead service line replacement
required, accelerated replacement
schedule (if any), and annual
compliance with the replacement
schedule.
Through implementation guidance,
EPA had also requested that States
report 90th percentile lead and copper
values in conjunction with lead action
level exceedance and copper action
level exceedance milestones,
respectively, and requested States to
provide all 90th percentile lead levels
for large systems and for any medium-
size and small size system once they
had exceeded the lead action level
(EPA, 1992b).
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested comment on several revisions
to these milestones. These changes
included a requirement to report all
90th percentile lead values for large and
medium-size systems, elimination of the
two corrosion control study milestones,
the CCT installed milestone, and the
State designation of maximum
permissible source water levels
milestone. The proposed revisions also
would have added a date to the source
water treatment installed milestone and
streamlined the lead service line
replacement required milestone. In
addition, the Agency requested public
comment on whether it should require
the reporting of the optimal water
quality control parameter limits
designated by the State under
§ 141.82(f), require the reporting of the
maximum permissible source water
levels designated by the State under
§ 141.83(b)(4), and retain the
requirement for States to report any
accelerated lead service line
replacement schedule established
pursuant to § 141.84(f).
In light of the public comments
received and other, concurrent internal
Agency discussions, EPA requested
public comment in the April 1998
Notice on another regulatory option
pertaining to State reporting
requirements. Under the April 1998
option, EPA would require the
following:
• All lead 90th percentile values for
large and medium-size systems;
• 90th percentile values that exceed
the lead action level for small systems;
• 90th percentile copper values that
exceed the copper action level for all
systems;
• A new "deemed" milestone,
indicating the system has optimized
corrosion control and the basis for that
determination, and the date of the
determination;
• The streamlined lead service line
replacement required milestone
proposed in 1996; and
• A new "done" milestone, indicating
the system had optimized corrosion
control and completed any required
source water treatment steps and lead
service line replacement requirements,
and the date of the determination.
The "deemed" and "done" milestones
would be reported for all systems. The
lead service line replacement required
milestone would continue to be
reported only for those systems
triggered into the requirement.
b. Comments and analysis.
EPA received mixed comments in
response to the April 1996 Proposal.
While some commenters agreed with
the proposed revisions, others took
issue with some, or all, of the
milestones that EPA proposed to retain.
In particular, several commenters took
issue with the need to report many of
the interim milestones, arguing that it is
inconsistent with the concept of
performance partnerships for EPA to
track LCR implementation at the level
suggested by the milestones. Two
commenters objected to reporting all
90th percentile lead values for large and
medium-size systems. One of these
commenters thought the information
would be confusing to the public; the
other commenter raised concern about
the burden implications. A third
commenter recommended that EPA
require the reporting of all 90th
percentile values for all systems. None
of the commenters supported reporting
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations 1991
of the additional items (i.e., State-
specified optimal water quality control
parameters, State-specified maximum
permissible source water levels, and
accelerated lead service line
replacement schedules) on which EPA
requested comment. The reasons for
opposing such requirements were
similar to those expressed, in general,
about State reporting requirements—
lack of clear justification on the part of
EPA, burden implications, and
inconsistency with the concept of
performance partnerships.
In light of these comments, the
Agency thoroughly re-examined its need
for, and planned use of, system-specific
LCR implementation data. EPA
concluded that the Agency needs more
information for this Rule than is
generally true for other NPDWRs. The
Agency's rationale is explained in the
April 1998 Notice and is based on the
fact that lead is a priority contaminant
as well as the nature of the rule that
provides States broad discretion in
specifying precisely what constitutes
compliance for each water system. The
Agency also concluded, however, that
the use of exception-based reportingIS
for this Rule has resulted in
unanticipated data anomalies that make
the use of the reported milestones
problematic. EPA therefore requested
public comment on a revised option that
would eliminate all but one of the
original treatment milestones and
replace the others with two newly
defined milestones that would need to
be reported for all systems.
Commenters were more supportive of
the April 1998 option than they were of
the 1996 option. Several commenters
continued to have concerns, however. A
few commenters believe EPA still has
not provided adequate justification for
this reporting. In particular, several
commenters opposed the requirement to
report the "done" milestone for every
system and suggested that it be required
only for those systems that continue to
exceed an action level after optimizing
CCT. One commenter questioned
whether a system would ever really be
done, since new requirements and/or
other changes at the system could
necessitate adjustments in CCT or
trigger a system [back] into lead service
line replacement requirements at some
15 Under the 1991 requirements, States only
report a milestone if it is appropriate to a water
system. Thus, for example, there is no requirement
to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/
medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized
after demonstrating for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods that it does not exceed either
the lead or the copper action level.
time in the future.16 While the Agency
believes that most systems not triggered
into lead service line replacement
requirements should be "done" at the
time they are considered to have
optimized corrosion control, the
potential exists that this may not be
true, especially since there is no way to
discontinue source water treatment
requirements once a State has
determined that source water treatment
is required. The Agency has eliminated
all milestones that might otherwise
indicate that a water system has been
triggered into source water treatment.
EPA therefore believes it is important
for States to explicitly indicate that a
system is "done," rather than for EPA to
infer this based on the "deemed"
milestone and the available 90th
percentile level information. The
Agency believes the additional burden
of reporting this milestone will be
minimal in those cases when the
"deemed" and the "done" milestones
occur at the same time. EPA
acknowledges that future events may
necessitate some "done" systems to
revisit specific LCR treatment technique
requirements. The Agency will address
how these situations are to be reported
in implementation guidance.
A few commenters objected to
reporting 90th percentile lead levels
other than those reflecting action level
exceedances. EPA would, like to receive
all 90th percentile values and
encourages States to provide them. In
light of the reporting burden involved,
however, the Agency is not requiring
the reporting of either non-exceedance
lead values for small systems or non-
exceedance copper values for any size
system. EPA plans to use the 90th
percentile lead values to show how
levels of lead at the tap have changed
over time for large and medium-size
systems and, by extrapolation, for small
systems. In terms of routine reporting,
this is the only measure that the Agency
has for showing the Rule's effectiveness.
The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels
at the tap to as close to zero as possible.
Without any 90th percentile lead data
below the action level, EPA would have
no way to measure progress toward the
goal.
Several commenters who supported
the revisions to the reporting
requirements noted that States would
need a long lead time to implement the
changes. One commenter, for example,
mentioned that his State was in the
i« Systems may cease lead service line
replacement before they have replaced all the lead
service lines they own if the 90th percentile lead
levels from routine tap water monitoring do not
exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring
periods.
process of developing an automated
information system and that it would
not be possible to incorporate the
proposed revisions until some time after
the new system was online. Other
commenters questioned whether
requisite resources would be available
to make necessary changes to State
information systems. EPA recognizes
that a relatively long lead time is needed
to give States time to make changes to
automated data systems. EPA also needs
time to make the necessary revisions to
the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWISJ. Beginning May 15,
2000, States may report in accordance
with the new requirements; however,
States have until January 14, 2002 to
complete the transition to the new
reporting requirements. States will not
be required to report in accordance with
the revised requirements until January
14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and
January 14, 2002, States have the option
to report compliance with either the
1991 reporting requirements or the
revised requirements in today's action.
Because of this compliance schedule,
EPA has separately codified the new
requirements at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The
requirements, codified in the 1991 Rule
at §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have
been redesignated as
§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),
respectively, and introductory text
added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the
period during which they are to be
reported.
Finally, the Agency received a few
comments in response to EPA's request
for comment on the need for the rule
language to explicitly state that the
Administrator of EPA would specify the
format of reporting. No commenter
objected to this revision, however, two
commenters suggested that EPA adopt a
consistent format for reporting drinking
water data and adhere to it to minimize
State burden. EPA agrees that the
reporting format for the LCR should be
consistent with other drinking water
data reporting and will publish specific
formatting instructions as a part of
implementation guidance.
c. Today's action. After considering
the public comments received, EPA has
revised § 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of
the regulatory option discussed in the
April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the
Agency has made the following
revisions.
• EPA has made two substantive
changes to the introductory text of
§ 142.15(c)(4). (1) EPA has changed the
schedule of reporting from "May 15,
August 15, November 15, and February
15 of each year" to "quarterly."
Although the Agency has no plans to
change the actual due dates at the
-------
1992
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
current time, this revision provides
flexibility to make such a change
through guidance, rather than requiring
another rulemaking, should it be
appropriate to alter the schedule in the
future. (2) The Rule now states that the
Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe
the format of reporting. As discussed
above, this will be done through
implementation guidance.
• Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii)
have been redesignated as
§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),
respectively. Introductory text has been
added at § 142.15(c)(4](i) to indicate that
the requirements in that paragraph are
effective through May 14, 2000.
• A new paragraph had been added at
§ 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to indicate that States
have the option to report in accordance
with the requirements in either
§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)
during the time period of May 15, 2000
through January 14,2002.
• A new set of reporting
requirements, described below, has been
added at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must
begin complying with these
requirements on January 14, 2002.
Under these revised reporting
requirements, States no longer are
required to submit the system name, as
well as the system identification
number. EPA deleted the requirement
for the system name as a part of LCR
reporting since this information already
is contained in EPA's information
system through inventory data
submitted under § 142.15(b).
The other revised State reporting
requirements are as follows.
• The requirement to report lead and
copper action level exceedances
(§142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of
the 1991 Rule) has been eliminated. In
its place, today's action requires the
reporting of 90th percentile values and
the first and last date of the monitoring
period for which the 90th percentile
value was calculated as follows:
—All 90th percentile lead values,
regardless of whether the lead action
level is exceeded, for all large and
medium-size systems, pursuant to
§142.15(c)(4)(m)(A);
—90th percentile lead values for each
small system for each monitoring
period in which the system exceeds
the lead action level, pursuant to
§142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and
—90th percentile copper values for each
system for each monitoring period in
which the system exceeds the copper
action level, pursuant to
§142.15(c)C4)(iii)(C).
• The reporting of interim treatment
milestones (§§142.15(cK4)(i)(B) through
(G), as redesignated, of the 1991 Rule)
has been eliminated. In their place,
today's action requires the reporting of
the following three milestones.
—A "deemed" milestone to be reported
for each public water system for
which the State has designated
optimal water quality control
parameters under § 141.82(f), or
which the State has deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under
§ 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3), and the date
and basis of the determination. This
milestone is to be reported for all
systems, pursuant to
§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will
provide instructions on how to report
different scenarios (e.g., the system
adjusted existing treatment rather
than installing new CCT) in the
implementation guidance.
—Each public water system required to
begin replacing lead service lines as
specified in § 141.84 and the date the
system is to begin replacement,
pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E).
—A "done" milestone to be reported for
each public water system that has
completed all of the following
requirements, as appropriate:
Optimization of corrosion control; any
applicable source water treatment
requirements under § 141.83; and any
applicable lead service line
replacement requirements under
§ 141.84. States also are required to
report the date of the State's
determination that these requirements
have been completed. This milestone
is to be reported for all systems,
pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F).
3. Special primacy considerations. As
discussed in C of this preamble, today's
action contains several changes to the
language of § 142.16(d). These changes
are summarized below:
• EPA has added provisions at
§ 142.16(d)(l) for States to use an
alternative method of aggregating
multiple measurements taken during a
single day for a water quality parameter
at a sample location. States need not
submit anything under this paragraph if
they elect to use the formula for
aggregating these results specified in
§ 141.82(g).
• Section I42.16(d)(3) has been
revised to eliminate the requirement for
States to specify in their primacy
applications how they plan to verify
PWS demonstrations of limited control
over lead service lines.
• A new § 142.16(d)(4) has been
added to require States to specify in
their primacy applications how they
plan to determine periods when lead
levels are likely to be the highest for
community water systems subject to
reduced monitoring that collect tap
water lead and copper samples in
months other than June, July, August,
and/or September.
E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not
Adopted
In the preamble to the April 1996
Proposal, EPA requested public
comment on seven burden reduction
suggestions that the Agency had
received in the Summer of 1995 but
which EPA had not evaluated
thoroughly. EPA did not propose
specific provisions in the April 1996
Proposal, but indicated that the
comments might be considered for
further rulemaking after they had been
fully evaluated. The Agency invited
comments to provide suggestions as to
how these suggestions might be
implemented.
After considering the comments
received and other factors, EPA has
decided to adopt two of the
suggestions—flexibility for States to
eliminate system reporting/calculation
of 90th percentile levels and elimination
of the public service announcement task
under public education for small
systems. These revisions are included in
today's action and discussed in sections
C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of this
preamble. The Agency has no plans to
implement the other five suggestions. A
summary of the comments received on
these suggestions and EPA's rationale
for not adopting them follows.
1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality
Parameter Monitoring at Entry Points for
Systems Subject to Water Quality
Parameter Monitoring Requirements
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. The regulations require all
large water systems (except (b)(3)
systems), and many small and medium-
size water systems that install OCCT to
collect one sample at each entry point
to the distribution system, at least every
two weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if
alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is
adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of
the dosage rate of the chemical used to
adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used,
and the alkalinity concentration or
concentration of orthophosphate or
silica (whichever is applicable). In the
April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for
comment on whether the frequency of
this monitoring should be reduced from
biweekly to monthly.
b. Comments ana analysis. EPA
received a number of comments on this
issue. Over half the commenters favored
revising the rule to allow less frequent
monitoring, at least for ground water
systems not under the influence of
surface water. These commenters
expressed the opinion that monthly, or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1993
even quarterly, entry point WQP
monitoring should provide sufficient
information for systems and States to
ensure maintenance of optimal
corrosion control. Several commenters
noted that biweekly monitoring
represents a major burden for many
ground water systems, especially those
which tend to have relatively stable
water chemistry and many entry points.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should give States the discretion to
determine monitoring frequency on a
case-by-case basis.
The remaining commenters urged the
Agency to retain the current
requirement for biweekly monitoring; a
few suggested that systems be required
to collect samples daily to ensure proper
operational control. Several of the
commenters who opposed reducing the
frequency of monitoring thought that it
would be appropriate to reduce the
frequency of reporting the monitoring
results to the State, however, and
suggested that the reporting frequency
be reduced to monthly or quarterly.
EPA disagrees with those commenters
who believe that monthly, or quarterly,
WQP monitoring at entry points will
provide sufficient information to ensure
the maintenance of optimal corrosion
control at most systems. The Agency
believes there are a number of variables,
such as pH and inhibitor concentration
that may affect levels of lead and copper
at the tap within a matter of days.
Frequent monitoring is required so that
appropriate measures can be taken to
adjust for these variables in a timely
manner. EPA therefore is retaining the
requirement for biweekly monitoring for
WQPs at entry points to the distribution
system and encourages water systems to
conduct even more frequent monitoring
for process control purposes. EPA has
revised the language at § 141.87(c)(2)
regarding the frequency of WQP
monitoring at the entry points to allow
States the flexibility to require more
frequent entry point monitoring. The
new language states that systems must
conduct entry point monitoring for
WQPs "no less frequently than every
two weeks (biweekly)."
EPA is sensitive to the burden
biweekly entry point monitoring may
pose for some systems and is making a
change to help alleviate this burden. As
discussed in section C.G.b., EPA is
revising the LCR, as proposed, to allow
some ground water systems to collect
WQP samples at representative points
instead of requiring samples to be
collected at every entry point.
As discussed in section C.2.b., today's
action also revises the definition of what
constitutes compliance with State-
designated OWQPs. For entry point
WQP monitoring, the system will be
deemed to be in compliance with the
OWQPs so long as it has excursions
from the State-specified values/limits on
no more than 9 days in a six-month
period.
A few commenters raised related
issues. One commenter, for example,
suggested that the frequency of WQP
monitoring be reduced to quarterly both
at entry points and within the
distribution system. This commenter
also noted that it was important that
States be able to adjust monitoring
frequencies to address seasonal
variability. EPA does not believe that
further rule changes are required to
address these concerns. The Agency
notes that nothing in the regulations
precludes a water system from
collecting routine distribution system
WQP samples on a quarterly basis.
Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a
State from setting seasonal ranges, if
appropriate, to reflect seasonal
differences that might affect water
quality.
2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at
NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion Control
Treatment
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. EPA requested comments
on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use
flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of
installing CCT to ease the burden of
installing and operating CCT at these
systems.
b. Comments and analysis. In general,
commenters supported the use of
flushing and/or bottled water, with
some commenters suggesting certain
restrictions. A few commenters
suggested allowing flushing and/or
bottled water for small CWSs as well.
Commenters expressed many reasons
for supporting the use of flushing and/
or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The
main reasons for favoring flushing and/
or bottled water were the cost of
installing CCT, the lack of trained
personnel to operate and maintain the
treatment system, and lack of facilities
to house treatment apparatus. Some
commenters believe that flushing and/or
bottled water is a more affordable,
practical solution, and may be more
protective of public health since it
eliminates the addition of chemicals
into the water supply by untrained
personnel. Commenters suggested that
automatic flushing devices are readily
available and inexpensive, and one
commenter suggested that public
education could be part of regular
mandatory safety meetings.
Other commenters favored the use of
flushing and/or bottled water for
operational reasons. One commenter
explained that almost all of the water
used at their facility is for industrial
processes, but is conveyed in the same
piping as water used for non-potable
purposes. Bottled water is used for
drinking, but the piped water is still
used for hand-washing and the flushing
of toilets. The commenter notes that it
is not ingested and should therefore
pose no health risk from lead or copper.
Another system commented that bottled
water is already provided to employees
for aesthetic purposes. The commenters
felt that in these cases, the entire
volumes of water would need to be
treated at considerable cost, with no
additional health protection, and the
systems would still be paying for bottled
water.
After considering all comments
received, EPA has concluded that, in
general, for the purposes of this
nationally-applicable rulemaking, the
use of flushing and/or bottled water for
NTNCWSs may not be as protective of
human health, may not provide any
significant relief to systems, and could
be a burden increase on States.
EPA believes that in order for a
flushing and/or bottled water program
to be effective, and as protective of
human health as the installation of CCT,
the following criteria would have to be
met, at a minimum. A water system
using bottled water would need to
ensure that the bottled water meets the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
lead and copper standards (either via a
State-approved monitoring program or
via certification from the bottled water
purveyor on an annual basis) and that
only the bottled water will be used for
human consumption at all times. A
system relying on flushing would need
to utilize an automatic flushing device
that flushes all faucets used for
consumptive purposes at a State-
approved frequency identified through a
State-approved monitoring program.
The flushing and/or bottled water
program would need to include '
additional monitoring and reporting,
well beyond what is presently included
in the LCR, and would also require more
State oversight. States would be
required to review and approve system
proposals, and review periodic
submittals by the system to determine
compliance with the flushing and/or
bottled water program. Systems would
have to prepare and submit proposals to
the States, perform plumbing
inspections and in most cases, install
automatic flushing devices or make
other plumbing modifications, which
could be costly. In addition, the State
would need to include provisions for
inspection of the automatic flushing
devices to ensure proper operation.
-------
1994
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Additional tap monitoring would need
to be conducted by the systems before
and after flushing, to determine how
quickly lead and/or copper levels rise
after flushing, and to determine an
appropriate flushing frequency. Systems
utilizing flushing could waste a
significant amount of water on a daily
basis which adds to cost and may be
counter to conservation measures
needed during periods when the water
supply is low. These additional
monitoring, reporting and program
activities could increase the cost and
burden on States and systems, which is
the opposite of what States and systems
desire and EPA intended.
EPA recognizes that there are some
systems that may already be providing
bottled water for aesthetic or other
reasons, and the only piped water in use
is utilized for washing hands and
flushing toilets. These systems feel that
the installation of CCT provides no
added health protection from lead and
copper. EPA also recognizes that there
are systems which have unique
circumstances which make compliance
with some requirements seem
unnecessary or very difficult. This is
especially the case for small systems. In
the SDWA Amendments of 1996, EPA
was directed to develop alternative
compliance technologies to help
systems comply with the drinking water
regulations. EPA has published a list of
compliance technologies for certain
system sizes that allows the use of
point-of-use devices for compliance
with the LCR (63 FR 42032, August 6,
1998). EPA feels that these changes will
offer systems a wider range of
compliance options, and should
eliminate the problems that systems
have expressed regarding the
installation of CCT. EPA also notes that
there are numerous burden reduction
features already incorporated in this
rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has
decided not to incorporate the use of
flushing and/or bottled water as an
option for NTNCWSs under the LCR.
3. Requirement for Water Systems to
Justify Corrosion Control Methods Not
Recommended
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. The LCR requires the State
to designate OCCT for each system that
reaches the applicable step as outlined
in §§ 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this
designation, most large systems must
perform corrosion control studies, and
small and medium systems exceeding
the lead or copper action level must
perform corrosion control studies if the
State specifically requires them to do so.
The studies must fulfill the
requirements in § 141.82(c). The
reporting requirements imposed on
these water systems by § 141.90(c)(3) are
that the systems must report the
information required by § 141.82(c).
This means that a water system must
report on its evaluation of each of the
three treatment categories specified and
then make a recommendation to the
State regarding which treatment it
thinks will provide optimal corrosion
control for that system. In the April
1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment
on a burden reduction suggestion to
eliminate the requirement that the
system report on those treatment
technologies which it does not identify
as providing OCCT. The effect of such
a change would mean that a system
would only need to provide the
justification for its recommended
treatment to the State.
b. Comments and analysis. EPA
received comments on both sides of this
issue. States overwhelmingly opposed
the suggestion, pointing out that it
would greatly increase the burden on
them in designating OCCT and in
dealing with problems that might arise
later with some systems' corrosion
control. EPA agrees and believes that
those supporting the suggestion
generally overlooked the requirement
that CCT be optimal treatment, not just
any treatment that might reduce
corrosion in the distribution system.
The State is responsible for
designating OCCT for the system. In
order to determine what is optimal for
a given water system, the State needs
the complete picture in the form of all
the information developed by the water
system in the course of its evaluation of
the three treatment categories. The
suggestion, if implemented,'would not
relieve the water system of the effort to
evaluate the alternative treatments. It
would only have relieved the system of
the need to provide the results of that
evaluation to the State. The burden on
water systems to report the results of
their evaluations to the State is more
than offset by the States' need to make
informed decisions regarding OCCT for
those systems. Having all the
information from a water system up
front allows the State to make the right
decision the first time (which is actually
a form of burden reduction) and ensures
better public health protection.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to
implement the suggestion.
4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to
Assess Corrosion Control Effectiveness
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA requested comment on a burden
reduction suggestion to allow
alternatives to tap water testing for lead
and copper to assess the effectiveness of
corrosion control. The Agency noted
that it did not have data to develop
alternative sampling methods that
would provide information with as
much certainty as direct sampling at
taps. EPA invited the public 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, CCT requirements.
b. Comments and analysis. Many
States, water utilities, municipalities,
and water industry associations
provided comments on this issue in
1996; several of these reiterated their
comments on the need for an alternative
to tap lead/copper monitoring in
response to the April 1998 Notice. Most
commenters favor an alternative to
residential sampling. Commenters cited
major problems with the current
monitoring requirements such as lack of
control over sample collection,
accessibility problems, insufficient sites,
and disagreement with the
appropriateness of triggering CCT
requirements based on residential
monitoring. Although EPA agrees that
many of the problems cited are valid
issues for some systems, the Agency has
not been able to identify an acceptable
•alternative to tap water monitoring.
While many commenters suggested
conceptual alternative approaches to
assess the effectiveness of corrosion
control in lieu of residential lead and
copper tap water monitoring, none
provided specific technical data that
would assist the Agency to develop
acceptable alternative(s) to residential
sampling. Some commenters, for
example, felt that when pipe rigs, pipe
loops, or corrosion test coupons were
used, many of these "surrogate" systems
could be set up and operated in
locations where there would be easy
and controllable access to utility
personnel. Other commenters suggested
that pipe loops placed in easily-
accessible and controllable public
buildings or other structures could be
directly substituted for the residential
sampling sites. None of these
commenters provided any new data or
proposals on exactly how the
alternatives would be employed, and
how the standards for performance of
such systems would be developed and
implemented to determine OCCT.
EPA's basic rationale for tap
monitoring is simply that no surrogate
technique has been identified that can
allow extrapolation to tap results with
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations 1995
either accuracy, precision, or both. The
Agency agrees that pipe loops, corrosion
coupons, electrochemical rate
measurements, and other kinds of test
systems may be useful for many utilities
to screen CCT strategies. In some studies
for individual water systems, tap water
concentrations were also predicted
reasonably well, especially for copper.
Establishing a regulatory standard based
on corrosion rate or loop testing,
however, would introduce additional
complexity to the regulations. The
concentrations or values obtained from
these surrogate systems cannot be
precisely and accurately related to the
lead and copper levels at the tap since
tap water levels also may be affected
significantly by building-specific
• factors.
After carefully evaluating information
from many sources, EPA believes that
the published research data at this point
indicate that predicting tap water 90th
percentile levels using surrogate
systems (as described above) would be
inherently imprecise on a national basis,
and implementation of such an
approach would be an expensive and
impractical regulatory burden imposed
on States, who would have to oversee
the establishment and justification of
surrogate systems on virtually a utility-
by-utility basis. Additionally, EPA
believes that the frequency and extent of
sampling and analyses required to use
the surrogate systems would not
substantively reduce monitoring burden
but would introduce greater uncertainty
about the extent to which systems were
reducing the lead and copper levels at
consumers' taps.
Several commenters, including some
of the trade organizations and States,
suggested a different approach which
EPA considers to be more promising
because it should be easier to
implement and should still provide
sufficient public health protection.
Although expressed slightly differently
in each comment, the common theme is
that once the physical and chemical
nature of a distribution system is well-
characterized through the current
monitoring requirements, reliance could
be placed on the continued maintenance
of the optimized CCT.
EPA believes that this might represent
a scientifically-valid and feasible
approach. However, to make this a
viable regulatory option, additional
research and several rule changes would
be needed. For example, such an
approach would require additional
WQP monitoring both at the treatment
plant and within the distribution
system. It might also be necessary to
make changes in the site targeting for
copper and in the analytical methods
used. In addition, EPA believes such an
approach could result in an overall
burden increase, especially for those
small and medium-size systems that
currently are not required to perform
this type of process control monitoring
and for the States who would need to
designate OWQPs and determine
compliance for these systems.
Such changes are outside the scope of
the current rulemaking. While EPA has
no immediate plans to pursue this
alternative, the Agency may choose to
evaluate it at some point in the future
if new data become available that
suggest that a reliable and cost-effective
approach could be developed and
implemented effectively through a
national regulation.
5. Reduced Frequency for State
Reporting of 90th Percentile and
Milestone Data
a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. In addition to reporting
violations and follow-up enforcement
actions to EPA quarterly, States are
required to report exceedances of lead
and copper action levels and other LCR
implementation milestones quarterly.
Through guidance, the Agency also has
requested that 90th percentile values for
lead be reported for all large and
medium-size systems. In the April 1996
Proposal, EPA requested comment on a
burden reduction suggestion to reduce
the frequency of reporting 90th
percentile data (including action level
exceedances where appropriate) and
LCR implementation milestone data to .
once or twice a year.
b.^Comments and analysis. The
Agency received mixed comments on
this suggestion. While some
commenters supported it, a number of
States noted that it does not matter what
the frequency of reporting is—quarterly
or less frequent—as long as they could
continue to submit their data to EPA
quarterly. Finally, one State wanted to
retain the current requirement.
After considering the comments
received and the changes to the State
reporting requirements discussed in
section D.2. of this preamble, EPA has
decided to retain the requirement to
report 90th percentile and milestone
data quarterly. In the Drinking Water
Program, EPA reviews violations
quarterly to ensure that timely and
appropriate follow-up action is
occurring. The Agency considers a
water system's most recently reported
90th percentile lead value in assessing
the severity of many LCR violations.
Moreover, as discussed in section D.2.,
EPA has eliminated the reporting
requirements for all but three
implementation milestones. As
explained in the April 1998 Notice, the
Agency needs to have available in the
national data base sufficient up-to-date
information to provide a degree of
oversight and to answer some basic
questions. The Agency therefore
believes it is appropriate for States to
report quarterly information for those
water systems that have achieved one or
more of the three milestones.
F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments
1. Request for comments and
background. The April 1998 Notice
referenced comments that had been
received on the Notice of Data
Availability pertaining to the proposed
rule for Disinfection/Disinfection By-
Products (DDBP) (62 FR 59388,
November 3,1997). Commenters to the
DDBP Notice had suggested that
compliance with the proposed
enhanced coagulation requirements
could have an adverse effect on a water
system's ability to maintain compliance
with State-designated optimal water
quality parameters under the LCR. In
light of these concerns, in the April
1998 Notice, EPA requested further
public comment on the following issues:
• How lowering 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.
• Whether decreasing the pH and
alkalinity during enhanced coagulation
and then increasing them prior to
distribution system entry may increase
exceedances of lead and copper action
levels.
• What issues should be addressed in
guidance that EPA is developing to
mitigate concerns about simultaneous
compliance with enhanced coagulation
and LCR requirements.
• Whether additional regulatory
provisions are necessary to address the
simultaneous compliance issues
pertaining to enhanced coagulation and
LCR requirements, or whether guidance
would be sufficient to mitigate potential
compliance problems.
2. Comments and analysis. Although
a few commenters indicated that they
did not anticipate simultaneous
compliance problems, several others
expressed concern about the ability of
water systems to simultaneously comply
with the enhanced coagulation
requirements of the DDBP rule and the
LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to
whether the issue of simultaneous
compliance could be addressed
adequately in guidance or whether
additional regulatory language was
needed.
-------
1996
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Several commenters recommended
that EPA establish a hierarchy of
regulatory concerns. EPA does not
believe that a hierarchy of regulatory
concerns needs to be developed to deal
with simultaneous compliance issues.
EPA believes that the LCR is flexible
enough that systems can comply with
other rules that have conflicting
treatment objectives without violating
the LCR.
EPA also received comments about
providing flexibility to deal with
regulatory conflicts related to different
treatment objectives. The structure of
the LCR provides flexibility to deal with
the issue of simultaneous compliance
with multiple rules. Section 141.2
defines optimal corrosion control
treatment, for purposes of complying
with the LCR, as "the corrosion control
treatment that minimizes the lead and
copper concentration at users' taps
while insuring that the treatment does
not cause the water system to violate
any national primary drinking water
regulations." Section 141.82(c)(5) states
that "The water system shall evaluate
the effect of the chemicals used for
corrosion control treatment on other
water quality treatment processes."
Section 141.82(d)(l) states that "When
designating optimal treatment the State
shall consider the effects that additional
corrosion control treatment will have on
water quality parameters and on other
water quality treatment processes."
Treatment changes to comply with
another rule can affect the performance
of corrosion control processes.
As discussed previously, today's
action adds provisions to the LCR
requiring systems monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap annually or less
frequently to notify the State when
treatment changes occur. EPA added
this requirement because of concerns
that changes in treatment may impact
CCT. While the LCR does not require
that this notification occur before the
treatment change is implemented
(unless required by the State or other
Federal drinking water regulations), the
Agency encourages water systems to
consult with the State before
implementing a treatment change so as
to minimize the risk that the treatment
change will have unanticipated adverse
impacts on corrosion control. The State
can require additional monitoring or the
State can require the system to re-
evaluate its CCT given the potentially
different water quality considerations.
One option may be to readjust the water
quality to produce a finished water that
meets the existing OWQPs. For
example, pH and alkalinity can be
raised to counter the effect of enhanced
coagulation. Another option is that
different WQPs may need to be set to
define optimal corrosion control
depending upon the type of treatment
change. For example, a lower pH and
the addition of inhibitors may be the
solution to resolving the conflict
between pH and disinfection by-product
formation. Systems may change their
corrosion control approach from a high
pH passivation to an inhibitor
passivation process. A new set of
optimal corrosion control parameters
would need to be established by the
State under this scenario. The system
would then need to meet those OWQPs.
EPA received several comments that a
comprehensive corrosion/corrosion by-
product regulation should be developed
that addresses other substances that
come into contact with drinking water
that could have a corrosive and/or
dissolving effect. EPA agrees that
control of corrosion of various materials
not directly related to health effects can
be a concern of water suppliers. EPA
believes that the corrosion control
treatment considerations discussed
above provide sufficient flexibility for
water systems to address water quality
aesthetic considerations. EPA is also
very conscious of the regulatory burden
imposed by the current SDWA
regulations, and believes that
promulgating corrosion-related
regulations to require utilities to meet
aesthetic performance standards is not
warranted. EPA does not have exposure
or health effects data that show that the
other corrosion by-products merit a
NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe
that the scope of the corrosion control
regulations should be expanded beyond
lead, copper and asbestos. Asbestos was
included in the Phase II rulemaking (56
FR 3526, Jan. 30,1991).
EPA also received comments related
to the cost of simultaneous compliance.
EPA recognizes that water chemistry
changes might result from either
optimization of corrosion control or
coagulation (or other treatment
processes). In order to meet all finished
water quality objectives, systems may
need to modify an existing process or
install additional process equipment.
EPA considers these to be necessary
changes and costs to achieve the best
overall treatment and risk reduction.
EPA does not consider the cost of
chemical feed equipment to be
significant, especially when compared
to other types of drinking water
treatment technology.
3. Today's action. After considering
the comments received, EPA has
concluded that the LCR, as modified by
the revisions previously discussed in
today's action, provides water systems
sufficient flexibility to address issues
arising from the need to simultaneously
comply with other drinking water
regulations. The Agency, therefore, does
not plan to further revise the LCR to
address these issues. The Agency has
developed guidance that addresses the
issue of simultaneous compliance with
enhanced coagulation and LCR
requirements (EPA, 1999c).
G. Administrative Requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, Oct. 4,1993), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action
is "significant" and therefore subject to
Office of Management and Budget
(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:
• 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;
• Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the right and
obligations of the recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles .
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is not a "significant
regulatory action" and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions
for each type of small entity. It also
authorizes an agency to use alternative
definitions for each category of small
entity, "which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency" after proposing
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1997
the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C sees. 601 (3)-(5). In addition to
the above, to establish an alternative
small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's rule on small entities, EPA
considered small entities to be those
public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer customers. Public water systems
include both publicly and privately
owned water systems. In accordance
with the RFA requirements, EPA
proposed using this alternative
definition for governmental
jurisdictions, small businesses and
small not-for-profit enterprises in the
Federal Register (63 FR 7620-7621,
February 13,1998), requested public
comment, consulted with small
Business administration (SBA) on the
alternative definition as it relates to
small businesses, and finalized the
alternative definition in the final
Consumer Confidence Report regulation
(63 FR 44512, Aug 19,1998). As stated
in that Final Rule, the alternative
definition would be applied to all future
drinking water regulations.
After considering the economic
impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Lead and Copper Rule affects each
water system in the the defined universe
of small entities (drinking water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer customers) in a
different way. For many small entities,
the rule will result in a reduced
economic impact. It will have a positive
effect on the revenues of .all systems but
the very smallest systems—those
serving fewer then 500 customers. Even
for these systems, however, the
economic impact will not exceed one
percent of their revenues during the first
three years; beyond the first three years
these systems also will experience
burden and cost savings. In these
circumstances, EPA has concluded that
the Rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of
this rule on small entities are contained
in Chapter 5 of the Information
Collection Request (EPA, 1999a).
Although this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities.
Today's rule amends EPA's 1991 Lead
and Copper Rule to reduce the burden
on PWSs, especially smaller systems.
These revisions make a number of
changes including the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements for smaller systems that
take into account the resources available
to smaller water systems. In addition,
the final regulation clarifies and
simplifies the current compliance and
reporting requirements and eliminates
unnecessary or redundant requirements.
The Agency has incorporated provisions
into the rule that specifically benefit
many small entities. These include
monitoring waiver provisions where the
risk of high levels of lead or copper at
the tap are low and greater flexibility in
the delivery of required public
education materials. In addition, other
provisions, while not specifically
targeted for small entities, should
further reduce burden for many small
entities. These provisions include
accelerated reduced monitoring, sample
invalidation, elimination of sample site
justifications and sample collection
certifications, and flexibility for the
State to calculate 90th percentile levels
for the system.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2040-0210.
This rule changes recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for some water
systems and the States in the following
categories: lead and copper tap water
monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes
in treatment and addition of a new
source; and LSL replacement. This rule
also requires more frequent reporting of
the completion of public education
tasks for CWSs serving more than 3,300.
This information collection is necessary
to evaluate system-specific needs,
including determining compliance,
examining treatment effectiveness;
adjusting monitoring frequencies and
schedules to address possible public
health concerns; and determining
whether the public is receiving timely
notification of possible health risks
associated with high levels of lead at the
tap.
In addition, this rule includes
requirements for States to report to EPA
90th percentile lead and copper values
for specified water systems; all systems
that have optimized, or are deemed to
have optimized CCT, and the basis of
that optimization determination; all
systems that are triggered into LSL
replacement; and all systems that have
completed the applicable CCT, source
water treatment, and LSL replacement
requirements. This information will be
used to develop national trends and to
help evaluate whether changes in
national policy or regulations are
necessary to protect public health.
Reporting of all other LCR-related
milestones has been eliminated.
The information collection in this rule
is mandatory and is authorized under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
information collected is not confidential
and is considered public information.
Many of the additional recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in this rule
are offset by other provisions of the rule
that will reduce monitoring burden and
eliminate some system and State
reporting requirements.
EPA is required to estimate the
burden on water systems and States for
complying with the final rule. 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 purpose 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.
For the first three years of
implementation of this rule, EPA
estimates that the annual burden on
systems for reporting and recordkeeping
will be 225,419 hours. This is based on
an estimate that there are 75,945
respondents per year who will each, on
average, need to provide 58,813
responses and that the average time per
response will be 3.8 hours. The total
annual cost burden for systems is
estimated to be $3,380,500. This
includes total annual labor costs of
$3,349,000 and non-labor costs of
$31,500 for the purchase of laboratory
supplies, pre-printed public education
materials, and postage. EPA also
estimates that the annual burden on
States for reporting and recordkeeping
will be 69,296 hours. The total annual
average cost for States is estimated to be
$2,655,900. This is based on an estimate
that each of 56 State respondents will,
on average, need to provide 77,523
responses and that the average response
will take 0.9 hours. This includes total
annual labor costs of $1,755,900 and
non-labor costs of $900,000 for
contractor support for the modification
of State data systems.
-------
1998
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
This action also contains a number of
provisions intended to reduce burden
and costs associated with implementing
the 1991 requirements. These savings
offset much of the burden and cost
associated with today's action. Table 5
shows the estimated average annual
burden and cost savings and the net
effect on burden and cost for the first
three years of implementation.
TABLE 5.—NET EFFECT OF LCRMR ON AVERAGE ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN AND COST
Systems
States
Number of
respondents
75,945
56
New/revised requirements
Burden
hours
235,419
69,296
Total cost
($M)
"3,380.5
2,655.9
Reductions
Burden
hours
262 192
-19,241
Total cost
($M)
62044
4R7 ^
Net impact of LCRMR
Burden
hours
-36,773
50,055
Total cost
($M)
-2,823.9
2,168.4
After the first three years, systems and
States are expected to complete such
activities as training, reading the
regulations, and regulatory adoption.
• EPA estimates that the average annual
burden and cost associated with today's
action will decrease significantly at that
time.
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. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR
Part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various
regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final
rule.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104—4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal Mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating and advising small
governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector, in any one year. The
overall effect of this rule is estimated to
decrease overall expenditures to public
water systems (which include State,
local, and tribal governments as well as
the private sector) to comply with the
NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
This rule will establish requirements
that affect small water systems. EPA has
determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because the regulation
requires minimal expenditure of
resources and applies to all owners/
operators of public water systems, and
not uniquely to those owners/operators
that are small entities. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA.
5. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled
"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." "Policies that have
federalism implications" is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."
Under Section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because the rule
is consistent with, and only makes
minor changes to, the requirements
under the current national primary
drinking water regulations for lead and
copper. The existing rule imposes
requirements on public water systems to
ensure that water delivered to users is
minimally corrosive, to treat source
water, remove lead service lines and
deliver public education where
necessary to ensure public health
protection. Today's rule does not make
any significant changes to these
treatment requirements but, as
explained elsewhere in today's notice,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
1999
makes minor adjustments to the rule's
requirements to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of current
requirements. In general, these changes
should result in slight burden
reductions for public water systems
(some of which are owned and operated
by local governmental entities). States
may, if they choose, maintain primary
enforcement authority for this rule by
adopting the revisions that are more
stringent than the existing rule (see
Table 2 in the section, "Primacy State
Program Revisions," in the beginning of
the preamble). EPA projects that States
choosing to maintain primacy for this
rule may incur a slight increase in
administrative costs due to the adoption
of these revisions, additional training,
and the modifications to the State
reporting requirements. However, the
actual burdens incurred will vary from
State to State and, EPA projects that the
increased burden will not be significant
(see discussion of State impacts in
section G.3. of this preamble). In
addition, these revisions provide States
increased flexibility to make system-
specific decisions in some instances
(e.g., sample invalidation [Section
C.5.k.], small system waivers [Section
C.5.I.], alternative timing of sample
collection under reduced monitoring
[Section G.S.g.] and representative
locations for entry point water quality
parameter monitoring at ground water
systems [Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly,
this rule will not have a substantial
direct effect on the States or on
intergovernmental relationships or
responsibilities. Thus, the requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA
consulted with State and local
governments to enable them to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of this rule. Prior to the
April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a
number of activities to gain meaningful
input from State and local governments.
These activities included: Distribution
of a strawman proposal in August 1993;
State involvement in the development
of the April 1996 Proposal; and
distribution of newsletter articles
highlighting upcoming Federal Register
notices to organizations representing
these governments. These activities are
discussed in greater detail in the
preamble to the April 1996 Proposal (61
FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12,
1996). In addition to continuing these
efforts, EPA has conducted the
following efforts to actively coordinate
with these groups.
In 1997, in response to the comments
received to the April 1996 proposed
changes in State reporting requirements,
EPA worked with States through the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water's Data Sharing Committee (DSC)
to substantially revise these
requirements. Several States and the
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) participated
actively in this effort. The DSC
recommended the elimination of most
of the milestones required by the 1991
Rule, modifications to remaining
milestones including the reporting of
90th percentile data, and the addition of
two new milestones that the DSC
believes will provide more meaningful
data regarding the implementation
status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The
DSC's recommendations have been
incorporated into today's rule.17
In April 1998 and August 1998, prior
to publishing additional Notices for
comment, EPA again provided national,
local, and tribal organizations with brief
articles for inclusion in their newsletters
announcing upcoming plans to publish
the Notices and encouraging readers to
provide EPA comment on the additional
regulatory options described in those
notices. In addition, EPA coordinated
closely with several national
organizations and the States to provide
copies of the August 18,1998 Notice
directly to those water systems most
likely to be affected by the regulatory
option discussed in that notice,
including all water systems serving
more than 50,000 people and any
smaller-size water system that is likely
to continue to exceed an action level
after the installation of CCT. EPA also
requested review by a panel of State
Drinking Water Program Directors of the
Agency's estimated impacts on water
systems and States.
In February 1999, EPA requested a
panel of six State Directors 18 to review
the EPA's revised estimate of Paperwork
Reduction Act-related burden and costs
associated with the LCR and the
LCRMR. EPA incorporated the
comments received from that review
(EPA, 1999d) in the final estimates
(EPA, 1999a).
In general, State and local
governments support the provisions of
today's rule although many wanted EPA
to adopt more burden reduction than is
included in today's action. Many of the
suggestions made by these commenters
have been incorporated into the final
rule. In particular, as described in
section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has
"See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed
discussion of the State reporting requirement
revised the way in which compliance
with OWQPs is determined and
substantially revised State reporting
requirements primarily as a result of
these comments. Another concern
raised by these commenters, the
continuing requirement to collect tap
water lead and copper samples, is not
revised by today's rule because the goal
of the rule is to reduce the levels of lead
and copper at the tap to as close to the '
MCLGs as possible and the Agency does
not know of any alternatives that will
predict tap water lead and copper levels
with accuracy, precision, or both.19
Although the burden reductions are not
as extensive as some State and local
governments would like, EPA believes
that today's rule is necessary to effect as
many burden reductions as possible,
without jeppardizing the level of public
health protection, and to address a
number of implementation issues,
including lead service line replacement.
6. Consultation With Indian Tribal
Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal Government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084'
requires EPA to provide the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities."
Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments, nor does it
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities. The
provisions of today's rule apply to all
community and non-transient non-
18 The panel consisted of the Directors of the
Drinking Water program from Iowa, Michigan,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas.
19 See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more
detailed discussion of EPA's rationale for not
adopting an alternative to tap water monitoring.
-------
2000
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
community water systems. Tribal
governments may be the owners or
operators of such systems, however,
nothing in today's provisions uniquely
affects them. The overall effect of
today's rule should be to reduce water
system operational costs slightly,
depending on system-specific
circumstances, with no change in the
level of public health protection. EPA
therefore concludes that today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
7. Bisk to Children Analysis
Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR19885,
April 23,1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This Lead
and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final
rule is not subject to E.0.13045 because
it is not "economically significant" as
defined under E.0.12866.
8. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Pub L. No.
104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not.
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the
LCRMR on the Technical, Financial,
and Managerial Capacity of Public
Water Systems
Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as
amended requires that, in promulgating
a NPDWR, the Administrator shall
include an analysis of the likely effect
of compliance with the regulation on
the technical, financial, and managerial
capacity of public water systems. The
following analysis has been performed
to fulfill this statutory obligation.
Overall water system capacity is
defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a) as the
ability to plan for, achieve, and
maintain compliance with applicable
drinking water standards. Capacity has
three components: technical,
managerial, and financial.
Technical capacity is the physical and
operational ability of a water system to
meet SDWA requirements. Technical
capacity refers to the physical
infrastructure of the water system,
including the adequacy of source water
and the adequacy of treatment, storage,
and distribution infrastructure. It also
refers to the ability of system personnel
to adequately operate and maintain the
system and to otherwise implement
requisite technical knowledge.
Managerial capacity is the ability of a
water system to conduct its affairs in a
manner enabling the system to achieve
and maintain compliance with SDWA
requirements. Managerial capacity refers
to the system's institutional and
administrative capabilities.
Financial capacity is a water system's
ability to acquire and manage sufficient
financial resources to allow the system
to achieve and maintain compliance
with SDWA requirements.
Key Points
There are 75,945 water systems
affected by this rule. Overall, these
systems are not expected to require
significantly increased technical,
financial, or managerial capacity as a
result of the LCRMR, as most of the
revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR
requirements. The few exceptions are
highlighted below.
• There are an estimated 171 systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control treatment after demonstrating
that little or no lead corrosion is
occurring in the distribution system. A
few of these systems may be triggered
into the LCR's corrosion control
treatment requirements because they
exceed the copper action level. The 171
systems also will be required to conduct
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap, and in source water, at least once
every three years. Some of these systems
already are conducting such monitoring
but, for a few systems, this LCRMR
provision represents a new requirement.
The affected systems predominantly
serve more than 50,000 persons and are
not expected to require significantly
increased technical, financial, or
managerial capacity to comply with
these requirements. Certainly some
individual facilities may have
weaknesses in one or more of these
areas but overall these systems with
minimal corrosion in the distribution
system should have or be able to easily
obtain the capacity needed for these
actions.
• There are an estimated 762 systems,
592 of which serve 3,300 or fewer
persons, subject to the LCR's lead
service line replacement requirements.
The LCRMR do not alter these basic
requirements, and so do not affect the
number of systems triggered into these
requirements or significantly affect the
amount of lead pipe to be replaced;
however, the LCRMR do require
additional consumer notification and
modify post-replacement sampling and
reporting requirements when the water
system replaces less than the entire
length of the lead service line. These
systems now will be required to provide
consumers served by the partially-
replaced lead service line(s) 45-day
advance notification of the replacement,
guidance about possible short-term
increases of lead levels at the tap, and
steps consumers can take to minimize
exposure. These systems also must take
a post-replacement sample within three
days of completing the replacement and
provide the results to all affected
consumers within three business days of
receiving the results from the laboratory.
These requirements strengthen the
notification and post-partial
replacement monitoring and reporting
requirements of the 1991 LCR. The
notification requirements may require
an enhancement of technical,
managerial, and financial capacity. EPA
anticipates, however, that the post
partial-replacement monitoring will
require less capacity than the 1991 LCR
because systems may now limit this
monitoring to one sample per line
(compared to one sample per household
served by the line) to comply with these
requirements. The net effect should
result in an overall decrease of
technical, managerial, and financial
capacity required to comply with these
requirements.
• All 75,945 water systems
potentially are affected by new LCRMR
provisions requiring any water system
subject to reduced monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap to notify the State
no later than 60 days after any change
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 200O/Rules and Regulations
2OO1
in treatment or the addition of a new
source. The State, in response, may
require the system to conduct some
additional monitoring and/or to take
other appropriate action to ensure that
optimal corrosion control is maintained.
Many States already impose comparable
requirements as a condition of the
operating permit and, thus, this
provision will not represent a new
requirement for many systems.
Consequently, systems generally are not
expected to require significantly
.increased technical, managerial, or
financial capacity to deal with this
requirement. Certainly some individual
facilities may have weaknesses in one or
more of these areas but overall, water
systems should have or be able to easily
obtain the capacity needed for these
activities.
• There are an estimated 6,116
systems, 5,552 of which serve 50,000 or
fewer persons, required to monitor for
water quality parameters after the
installation of corrosion control
treatment under the 1991 LCR. The
LCRMR do not affect the monitoring
requirement but makes changes in the
way the results are to be evaluated to
determine compliance with State-
designated optimal water quality
parameters. For some systems this
revised approach for determining
compliance is expected to require
additional analysis to assess
compliance, but to result in fewer
systems incurring violations due to
temporary short-term fluctuations in
water quality. Some of these systems
may need to enhance their technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to
comply with these requirements;
however, most of the affected systems
should have or easily be able to obtain
the needed capacity because fewer
resources will be required to address
violations that likely would have
occurred under the 1991 regulations.
These violations, in turn, would have
triggered activities including public
notification and loss of eligibility for
reduced monitoring that would have
required technical, managerial, and
financial capacity to address.
• There are 4,649 CWSs and
NTNCWSs that are estimated to
continue to be required to conduct
public education programs after the
installation of treatment. 387 of these
systems are CWSs that serve more than
3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these
387 systems will need to report
completion of public education tasks to
the State twice a year, instead of once
per year as required by the 1991 LCR.
The required supporting documentation
for this second submission is minimal,
since it need only include a list of the
broadcast stations to which the system
provided bi-annual public service
announcements. Moreover, States have
the discretion \o waive submission of
the supporting documentation in some
cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no
longer required to provide public
service announcements and will
continue to report completion of public
education tasks on an annual basis.
Therefore, water systems are not
expected to require increased technical,
financial, or managerial capacity to
comply with this increased reporting
requirement.
Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify
1991 LCR requirements. These
clarifications include:
• The requirement to properly
operate and maintain optimal corrosion
control;
• The requirement that water systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under § 141.81(b)(2) conduct
routine water quality parameter
monitoring;
• The requirements pertaining to the
number and location of tap water lead
and copper sampling sites;
• The requirements specifying the
conditions under which a system must
resume monitoring at the tap every six
months; and
• The resampling triggers for
composite source water samples.
Certainly, there may be some
individual facilities that need to
enhance technical, financial, and
managerial capacity to comply with
these pre-existing requirements;
however, most systems are expected to
have or be able to easily obtain the
capacity necessary for these activities.
All 75,945 systems may benefit from
one or more of the LCRMR provisions
intended to reduce regulatory burden.
There are an estimated 4,554 systems
that are eligible to reduce the frequency
of tap water monitoring to once every
three years without first conducting
several rounds of annual monitoring. An
estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300
or fewer persons may be eligible for
waivers that will reduce the frequency
of monitoring for lead and/or copper at
the tap to once every nine years. An
estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water
systems subject to routine water quality
parameter monitoring will be able to
reduce the number of samples by using
representative locations instead of
sampling at every entry point. Some
systems also will be able to reduce the
frequency of source water monitoring.
An estimated 6,116 systems subject to
routine water quality monitoring
requirements will be able to reduce
paperwork seeking approval for reduced
monitoring. All systems will be able to
reduce the amount of supporting
documentation that must accompany
tap water monitoring results and an
estimated 34,046 systems will be able to
eliminate 90th percentile calculations.
The 4,256 systems required to conduct
public education will be able to take
advantage of the LCRMR provisions
allowing greater flexibility in the
delivery of materials to homeowners
and others in the community.
Generally, it is expected that the
reductions in regulatory burden will
offset any enhanced technical, financial,
and managerial capacity requirements
resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly,
some individual facilities may have
weaknesses in one or more of these
areas with respect to the basic LCR
requirements, but overall, it is expected
that the LCRMR will not exacerbate any
weaknesses that already may exist.
10. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
'Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in.
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a major rule as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective on April 11, 2000.
H. References
.American Water Works Association, et al. v.
EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.G. Cir. (1994).
[AWWAv.EPA]
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997.
Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for
Public Comment. Prepared by Research
Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of
Health & Human Services, Public Health
Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27,104,132-
133,166 [ATSDR, 1997]
Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November
1981. Factors Influencing Plumbosolvency
in Scotland. Originally presented as: A
potpourri on plumbosolvency. At a
Scientific Section Symposium on
Plumbosolvency. [Britton and Richards,
1981]
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E.,
and Harward, G. June 1992.
Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in
Hard Waters. J IWEM, 6:259-268. [Colling,
et al., 1992]
-------
2002
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M.,
Zielhuis, R.L. 1976. Biochemical Response
of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic
Lead for 49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup.
Environ. Health, 38:129-139. [Cools, etal.,
1976]
Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995.
Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility
Experience. Journal AWWA, 74-85.
[Dodrill and Edwards, 1995]
Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E.
March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper
Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal
AVVWA, 81-94. [Edwards, et al., 1996]
Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring
for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule.
(Wed., Jul. 8,1987), 25690-25717. [52 FR
25690]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. 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. 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. 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. 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,
1994), 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]
Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Fri.,
Apr. 12,1996), 16348-16371. [60 FR
16348]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking
Water Monitoring Requirements for Certain
Chemical Contaminants—Chemical '
Monitoring Reform (CMR) and Permanent
Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3,
1997), 36100-36136. [62 FR 36100]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163.
Interpretation of New Drinking Water
Requirements Relating to Lead Free
Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures; Notice.
(Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684-44685. [62 FR
44684]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;
Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule.
(Mon., Nov. 3,1997), 59388-58484. [62 FR
59388]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule.
(Fri., Feb. 13,1998), 7605-7633. [63 FR
7605]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Wed.,
Apr. 22,1998), 20038-20047. [63 FR
20038]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions
to State Primary Requirements to
Implement Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments; Final Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28,
1998), 23361-23368. [63 FR 23361]
Federal Register, Vol. 6.3, No. 151.
Announcement of Small System
Compliance Technology Lists for Existing
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and Findings Concerning
Variance Technologies. (Thur., Aug. 6,
1998), 42032-42048. [63 FR 42032]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Tue.,
Aug. 18,1998), 44214-44218. [63 FR
44214]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;
Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16,1998), 69388-
69476. [62 FR 69388]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16] 1998),
69477-69521. [63 FR 69521]
Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe,
T.L. 1992. Evaluation of Lead Corrosion
Control Measures for a Multi-source Water
Utility. American Water Works
Association, 1992 Water Quality
Technology Conference Proceedings. Part I:
777-797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992]
Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphrias: Recent
Advances. Clinical Chemistry, 32(7)a;
1255-1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986]
Kuch, A. and Wagner, 1.1983. A mass
transfer model to describe lead
concentrations in drinking water. Water
Research, 17(10): 1301. [Kuch and Wagner,
1983]
Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between
Quantities of Lead Ingested and Health
Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics,
59(3): 448-156. [Mahaffey, 1977]
Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector,
A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A Case-Oriented
Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis.
[Montgomery, et al., 1990]
Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu,
N., McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golut,
M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian,
N., and Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid
Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies
in Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health,
8(1-2): 89-102. [Nakhoul, etal., 1992]
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982.
Drinking Water and Health. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4,
pp. 179-183. [NAS, 1982]
Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing
Household Water Lead: A British National
Survey. Arch, of Env. Health, 35(1): 45-51.
[Pocock, 1980]
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. [Rezania and Anderl, 1996]
Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term
observation of biochemical effects of lead
in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin.
Biochem., 17: 225-233. [Schlegel and
Kufner, 1979]
Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead
Intoxication in Infancy. Pediatrics, 89: 87—
90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992]
Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of
male and female volunteers to inorganic
lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83-97. •
[Struik, 1974]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Undated. 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 Evaluation Branch, Water
Supply and Water Resources Division,
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. [EPA, undated]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb.
23,1988. Memorandum to Arthur Perler,
Science and Technology Branch from Jon
Longtin, Water Supply Technology Branch,
regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS
Results. [EPA, 1988]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April
1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of
Proposed National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared
by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA,
1991a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: April
1991. Summary: Peach Orchard'
Monitoring; Lead Service Line
Replacement Study. Prepared by Barbara •
Wysock, Office of Drinking Water
.Technical Support Division. [EPA, 199lb]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
1991. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance
Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared
by Black & Veatch, EGOS, Inc., and
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92-112101).
[EPA, 1991c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan.
10,1992. Memo from Jeff Cohen, Chief
Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, to Regional Drinking
Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems
Regulated Under the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper. [EPA 1992a]
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
20O3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
1992. Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions
and Federal Reporting for Milestones,
Violations and SNCs. (ERIC G405.-NTIS
PB-93-156-131). IEPA, 1992b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
1992. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance
Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control
Treatment. Prepared by Black & Veatch and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB-93-
101583). [EPA, 1992c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
1994. Methods for Determination of Metals
in Environmental Samples—Supplement 1.
(NTIS PB-94-184942). [EPA, 1994]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr.
4,1995. Memo from Robert J. Blanco,
Director, Drinking Water Implementation
Division, to O. Thomas Love, Chief, Water
Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic
Systems—Compliance with the Lead and
Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct.
1995. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis
of Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile
Lead Levels. (EPA 812-X-95-001; NTIS PB
96-129077). [EPA, 1995b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
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. [EPA, 1995c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar.
20,1996. Memo from Jeff Cohen to Connie
[Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Xead Rule
for Transient Systems. [EPA, 1996a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
19.1996. Memorandum to Jeffrey B.
Kempic, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water from Michael R. Shock,
Treatment and Technology Branch, Water
Supply and Water Resources Division,
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision.
(Note: References 5,6, and 7 cited in the
memorandum are not publically available
data and the data contained in these
studies have not been factored into EPA's
decision making.) [EPA, 1996b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 1997. Manual for the Certification of
Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking
Water—Criteria and Procedures Quality
Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815-B-
97-001. [EPA 1997a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
August 1997. Alternative Monitoring
Guidelines. [EPA-816-R-97-011]. [EPA,
1997b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
26,1997. The Data Sharing Committee's
Recommendations for the Lead and Copper
Rule. Draft Report. Prepared for the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water by
the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA,
1997c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July
1998. Guidance on Implementing the
Capacity Development Provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996. EPA 816-R-98-006. [EPA 1998a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
22,1998. Health Effects from Short-Term
Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water. [EPA, 1998b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
28,1998. Memo to the Record from Jeffrey
B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service
Line Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June
1999. Information Collection Request for
the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared
by the Cadmus Group, Inc. [EPA, 1999a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June
19,1999. Memo from Anne Jaffe Murray,
the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith
Lebowich. Review of Data for Large
Community Water Systems (CWSs) that
Continue to Exceed the Action Level After
Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
August 1999. Microbial Disinfection
Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance
Manual. EPA 815-R-99-015. [EPA, 1999c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug.
2,1999. Memo to the Record by Judith
Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review
of Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions Burden and Costs under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 30,1999. Response to Comment
Document for The Lead and Copper Rule
Minor Revisions. [EPA, 1999e]
Wagner, I. Jun. 18-22,1988. Effects of
Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal
Uptake. Proceedings of American Water
Works Conference. [Wagner, 1988]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
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: December 20,1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 chapter 1, parts 141
and 142 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 9—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C. 331), 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 etseq., 1311,1313d, 1314,1318,
1321, 1326, 1330,1342, 1344, 1345(d) and.
(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-1,
300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9,1857 ef seq.,
6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023,11048.
2. In § 9.1 the table is amended under
the indicated heading by revising entry
"141.80-141.91," by removing entries
"142.10-142.15," and by adding new
entries in numerical order to read as
follows:
§ 9,1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
40 CFR citation
OMB control
No.
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
141.80-141.91 2040-0210
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Implemen-
tation.
142.10-142.14 2040-0090
142.14(d)(8)-(11) 2040-0210
142.15 2040-0090
142.15(c)(4) 2040-0210
142.16(d) 2040-0210
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
3. 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,
300J-9, and 300J-11.
4. Section 141.43 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2),
removing the undesignatted paragraph
immediately following paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving
(b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
§ 141.43 Prohibition on use of lead pipes,
solder, and flux.
* *. * * *
(d) Definition of lead free. For
purposes of this section, the term lead
free:
(1) When used with respect to solders
and flux refers to solders and flux
containing not more than 0.2 percent
lead;
-------
2004
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
(2) When used with respect to pipes
and pipe fittings refers to pipes and pipe
fittings containing not more than 8.0
percent lead; and
(3) When used with respect to
plumbing fittings and fixtures intended
by the manufacturer to dispense water
for human ingestion refers to fittings
and fixtures that are in compliance with
standards established in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e).
5. Section 141.81 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text,
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) 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. Any such system deemed to
have optimized corrosion control under
this paragraph, and which has treatment
in place, shall continue to operate and
maintain optimal corrosion control
treatment and meet any requirements
that the State determines appropriate to
ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained.
(!)•**
(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(fJ. Water systems deemed to
have optimized corrosion control under
this paragraph shall operate in
compliance with the State-designated
optimal water quality control
parameters in accordance with
§ 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead
and copper tap and water quality
parameter sampling in accordance with
§ 141.86(d)(3) and § 141.87(d),
respectively. 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).
(i) Those systems whose highest
source water lead level is below the
Method Detection Limit may also be
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph if the 90th
percentile tap water lead level is less
than or equal to the Practical
Quantitation Level for lead for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods.
(ii) Any water system deemed to have
optimized corrosion control in
accordance with this paragraph shall
continue monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap no less frequently than once
every three calendar years using the
reduced number of sites specified in
§ 141.86(c) and collecting the samples at
times and locations specified in
§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that
has not conducted a round of
monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d) since
September 30,1997, shall complete a
round of monitoring pursuant to this
paragraph no later than September 30,
2000.
(iii) Any water system deemed to have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to
this paragraph shall notify the State in
writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any
change in treatment or the addition of
a new source. The State may require any
such system 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.
(iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is
not deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph, and shall
implement corrosion control treatment
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this
section unless it meets the copper action
level.
(v) Any system triggered into
corrosion control because it is no longer
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph shall
implement corrosion control treatment
in accordance with the deadlines in
paragraph (e) of this section. Any such
large system shall adhere to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-size systems, with the time
periods for completing each step being
triggered by the date the system is no
longer deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph.
*****
6. Section 141.82 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 141.82 Description of corrosion control
treatment requirements.
*****
(g) Continued operation and
monitoring. All systems optimizing
corrosion control shall continue to
operate and maintain optimal corrosion
control treatment, including
maintaining water quality parameters at
or above minimum values or within
ranges designated by the State under
paragraph (fj of this section, in
accordance with this paragraph for all
samples collected under § 141.87(d)
through (f). Compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph shall be
determined every six months, as
specified under § 141.87(d). A water
system is out of compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph for a six-
month period if it has excursions for
any State-specified parameter on more
than nine days during the period. An
excursion occurs whenever the daily
value for one or more of the water
quality parameters measured at a
sampling location is below the
minimum value or outside the range
designated by the State. Daily values are
calculated as follows. States have
discretion to delete results of obvious
sampling errors from this calculation.
(1J On days when more than one
measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling
location, the daily value shall be the
average of all results collected during
the day regardless of whether they are
collected through continuous
monitoring, grab sampling, or a
combination of both. If EPA has
approved an alternative formula under
§ 142.16 of this chapter in the State's
application for a program revision
submitted pursuant to § 142.12 of this
chapter, the State's formula shall be
used to aggregate multiple
measurements taken at a sampling point
for the water quality parameter in lieu
of the formula in this paragraph.
(2) On days when only one
measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling
location, the daily value shall be the
result of that measurement.
(3) On days when no measurement is
collected for the water quality parameter
at the sampling location, the daily value
shall be the daily value calculated on
the most recent day on which the water
quality parameter was measured at the
sample site.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday; January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
2OO5
7. Section 141.84 is amended by
removing paragraph (e), redesignating
paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through
(g), and by revising paragraphs (b) and
(dj to read as follows:
§ 141.84 Lead service line replacement
requirements.
*****
(b) A water system shall replace
annually at least 7 percent of the initial
number of lead service lines in its
distribution system. The initial number
of lead service lines is the number of
lead lines in place at the time the
replacement program begins. The
system shall identify the initial number
of lead service lines in its distribution
system, including an identification of
the portionfs) owned by the system,
based on a materials evaluation,
including the evaluation required under
§ 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities
{e.g., contracts, local ordinances)
regarding the portion owned by the
system. The first year of lead service
line replacement shall begin on the date
the action level was exceeded in tap
sampling referenced in paragraph (a) of
this section.
* * * - * *
(d) A water system shall replace that
portion of the lead service line that it
owns. In cases where the system does
not own the entire lead service line, the
system shall notify the owner of the
line, or the owner's authorized agent,
that the system will replace the portion
of the service line that it owns and shall
offer to replace the owner's portion of
the line. A system is not required to bear
the cost of replacing the privately-
owned portion of the line, nor is it
required to replace the privately-owned
portion where the owner chooses not to
pay the cost of replacing the privately-
owned portion of the line, or where
replacing the privately-owned portion
would be precluded by State, local or
common law. A water system that does
not replace the entire length of the
service line also shall complete the
following tasks.
(1) At least 45 days prior to
commencing with the partial
replacement of a lead service line, the
water system shall provide notice to the
resident(s) of all buildings served by the
line explaining that they may
experience a temporary increase of lead
levels in their drinking water, along
with guidance on measures consumers
can take to minimize their exposure to
lead. The State may allow the water
system to provide notice under the
previous sentence less than 45 days
prior to commencing partial lead service
line replacement where such
replacement is in conjunction with
emergency repairs. In addition, the
water system shall inform the
resident(s) served by the line that the
system will, at the system's expense,
collect a .sample from each partially-
replaced lead service line that is
representative of the water in the service
line for analysis of lead content, as
prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3), within
72 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 resident(s) served by the
line within three business days of
receiving the results. Mailed notices
post-marked within three business days
of receiving the results shall be
considered "on time."
(2] The water system shall provide the
information required by paragraph (d)(l)
of this section to the residents of
individual dwellings by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In
instances where multi-family dwellings
are served by the line, the water system
shall have the option to post the
information at a conspicuous location.
* * * * *
8. Section 141.85 is amended by •
redesignating paragraphs (a)(l) through
(a)(4)(v) as follows:
Old paragraph
(a) Introductory text.
(a)(1) Introductory
text.
(a)(4)(iv)
(a)(4)(v)
New paragraph
(a)(1)(iv)(A).
;iv)(B)(;
[iv)(B)(^).
(a)(1)(iv)(C).
(a)(1)(iv)(D).
(a)(1)(iv)(D)(3.
8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended
by adding paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising
all references to "each lead service line
that we control" in redesignated
paragraph (a)(l)(i) to read "the portion
of each lead service line that we own"
and by revising newly designated
paragraphs (a)(l), (a)(l)(iv)(B)(5), and by
revising paragraphs (c}(2) introductory
text and (c)(2Ki) through (iii), (c)(4)
introductory text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read
as follows:
§ 141.85 Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
*****.
(a) Content of written public
education materials. (1) Community
water systems. A community water
system shall include the following text
in all of the printed materials it
distributes through its lead public
education program. Systems may delete
information pertaining to lead service
lines, upon approval by the State, if no
lead service lines exist anywhere in the
water system service area. Public
education language at paragraphs
(a)(lKiv)(B)(5) and (a)(l)(iv)(D)(2) of this
section may be modified regarding
building permit record availability and
consumer access to these records, if
approved by the State. Systems-may also
continue to utilize pre-printed materials
that meet the public education language
requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective
November 6,1991, and contained in the
40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised
as of July 1,1991. Any additional
information presented by a system shall
be consistent with the information
below and be in plain English that can
be understood by lay people.
*****
(iv)* * *
(B) * * *
. (5) Determine whether or not the
service line that connects your home or
apartment to the water main is made of
lead. The best way to determine if your
service line is made of lead is by either
hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the
line or by contacting the plumbing
contractor who installed the line. You
can identify the plumbing contractor by
checking the city's record of building
permits which should be maintained in
the files of the [insert name of
department that issues building
permits]. A' licensed plumber can at the
same time check to see if your home's
plumbing contains lead solder, lead
pipes, or pipe fittings that contain lead.
The public water system that delivers
water to your home should also
maintain records of the materials
located in the distribution system. If the
service line that connects your dwelling
to the water main contributes more than
15 ppb to drinking water, after our
comprehensive treatment program is in
place, we are required to replace the
portion of the line we own. If the line
is only partially owned by the [insert
the name of the city, county, or water
system that owns the line], we are
required to provide the owner of the
privately-owned portion of the line with
-------
2006
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
information on how to replace the
privately-owned portion of the service
line, and offer to replace that portion of
the line at the owner's expense. If we
replace only the portion of the line that
we own, we also are required to notify
you in advance and provide you with
information on the steps you can take to
minimize exposure to any temporary
increase in lead levels that may result
from the partial replacement, to take a
follow-up sample at our expense from
the line within 72 hours after the partial
replacement, and to mail or otherwise
provide you with the results of that
sample within three business days of
receiving the results. Acceptable
replacement alternatives include
copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes.
*****
(2) Non-transient non-community
water systems. A non-transient non-
community water system shall either
include the text specified in paragraph
(a)(l) of this section or shall include the
following text in all of the printed
materials it distributes through its lead
public education program. Water
systems may delete information
pertaining to lead service lines upon
approval by the State if no lead service
lines exist anywhere in the water system
service area. Any additional information
presented by a system shall be
consistent with the information below
and be in plain English that can be
understood by lay people.
(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 [insert 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 the portion of each lead
service line that we own 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
thev only put food in their mouths.
(lii) 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.
(Bj 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:
(2) [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.
*****
(c) * * *
(2) A community water system that
exceeds the lead action level on the
basis of tap water samples collected in
accordance with § 141.86, and that is
not already repeating public education
tasks pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7),
or (c)(8), of this section, 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." A community water
system having a billing cycle that does
not include a billing within 60 days of
exceeding the action level, or 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
20O7
section as long as the information is
delivered to each customer within 60
days of exceeding the action level. Such
water systems shall also include the
"alert" language specified in this
paragraph.
(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.
(iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or
brochures that contain the public
education materials in paragraphs
(a)(l)(ii) 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 (unless it already is
repeating public education tasks
pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this
section), a non-transient non-
community water system shall deliver
the public education materials specified
by paragraph (a)(l) of this section or the
public education materials specified by
paragraph (a) (2) of this section as
follows:
(i) * * *
(ii) Distribute informational
pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in
drinking water to each person served by
the non-transient non-community water
system. The State may allow the system
to utilize electronic transmission in lieu
of or combined with printed materials
as long as it achieves at least the same
coverage.
*****
(7) A community water system may
apply to the State, in writing, (unless
the State has waived the requirement for
prior State approval) 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 3,300 or fewer people may omit
the task contained in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) of this section. As long as it
distributes notices containing the
information contained in paragraph
(a)(l) of this section to every household
served by the system, such systems may
further limit their public education
programs as follows:
(A) Systems serving 500 of fewer
people may forego the task contained in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such
a system may limit the distribution of
the public education materials required
under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section
to facilities and organizations served by
the system that are most likely to be
visited regularly by pregnant women
and children, unless it is notified by the
State in writing that it must make a
broader distribution.
(B) If approved by the State in writing,
a system serving 501 to 3,300 people
may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
of this section and/or limit the
distribution of the public education
materials required under paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and
organizations served by the system that
are most likely to be visited regularly by
pregnant women and children.
(ii) A community water system
serving 3,300 or fewer people that
delivers public education in accordance
with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section
shall repeat the required public
education tasks at least once during
each calendar year in which the system
exceeds the lead action level.
*****
9. Section 141.86 is amended by
removing paragraph (a)(8), by
redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as
paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by
redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as
paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising it, by
adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v),
(d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising
paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(D, (b)(2), (c),
and (d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read
as follows:
§141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in tap water.
(a)* * *
(5) Any community water system with
insufficient tier 1 and tier 2 sampling
sites shall complete its sampling pool
with "tier 3 sampling sites", consisting
of single family structures that contain
copper pipes with lead solder installed
before 1983. 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. For
the purpose of this paragraph, a
representative site is a site in which the
plumbing materials used at that site
would be commonly found at other sites
served by the water system.
*****
(7) A non-transient non-community
water system with insufficient tier 1
sites that meet the targeting criteria in
paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall
complete its sampling,pool with
sampling sites that contain copper pipes
with lead spider installed before 1983.
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. For the purpose
of this paragraph, a representative site is
a site in which the plumbing materials
used at that site would be commonly
found at other sites served by the water
system.
(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) Sample collection methods. (1) 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) Each first-draw tap sample for lead
and copper shall be one liter in volume
and have stood motionless in the
plumbing system of each sampling site
for at least six hours. First-draw samples'
from residential housing shall be
collected from the cold water kitchen
tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw
samples from a nonresidential building
shall be one liter in volume and shall be
collected at an interior tap from which
water is typically drawn for
consumption. Non-first-draw samples
collected in lieu of first-draw samples
pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this
section shall be one liter in volume and
shall be collected at an interior tap from
which water is typically drawn for
consumption. First-draw samples may
be collected by the system or the system
may allow residents to collect first-draw
samples after instructing the residents of
the sampling procedures specified in
this paragraph. To avoid problems of
residents handling nitric acid,
acidification of first-draw samples may
be done up to 14 days after the sample
is collected. After acidification to
resolubilize the metals, the sample must
stand in the original container for the
time specified in the approved EPA
method before the sample can be
analyzed. If a system allows residents to
-------
2008
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2 000/Rules and Regulations
perform sampling, the system may not
challenge, based on alleged errors in
sample collection, the accuracy of
sampling results.
*****
(5) A non-transient non-community
water system, or a community water
system that meets the criteria of
§§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), 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 collect as many first-draw
samples from appropriate taps as
possible and identify sampling times
and locations that would likely result in
the longest standing time for the
remaining sites. The State has the
discretion to waive the requirement for
prior State approval of non-first-draw
sample sites selected by the system,
either through State regulation or
written notification to the system.
(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)
>100,000
10,001 to 100,000
3,301 to 10,000
501 to 3,300
101 to 500
S100
(d)* * *
(4). . *
Number
of sites
(stand-
ard
moni-
toring)
100
60
40
20
10
5
Number
of sites
(reduced
moni-
toring)
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
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(0 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
representative 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 unless the
State has approved a different sampling
period in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section.
(A) The State, at its discretion, may
approve a different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap
sampling for systems collecting a
reduced number of samples. Such a
period shall be no longer than four
consecutive months and must represent
a time of normal operation where the
highest levels of lead are most likely to
occur. For a non-transient non-
community water system that does not
operate during the months of June
through September, and for which the
period of normal operation where the
highest levels of lead are most likely to
occur is not known, the State shall
designate a period that represents a time
of normal operation for the system.
(B) Systems monitoring annually, that
have been collecting samples during the
months of June through September and
that receive State approval to alter their
sample collection period under
paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section,
must collect their next round of samples
during a time period that ends no later
than 21 months after the previous round
of sampling. Systems monitoring
triennially that have been collecting
samples during the months of June
through September, and receive State
approval to alter the sampling collection
period as per paragraph (d)(4)(ivJ(A) of
this section, must collect their next
round of samples during a time period
that ends no later than 45 months after
the previous round of sampling.
Subsequent rounds of sampling must be
collected annually or triennially, as
required by this section. Small systems
with waivers, granted pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section, that have
been collecting samples during the
months of June through September and
receive State approval to alter their
sample collection period under
paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section
must collect their next round of samples
before the end of the 9-year period.
(v) Any water system that
demonstrates for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods that the tap
water lead level computed under
§ 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to
0.005 mg/L and the tap water copper
level computed under § 141.80(c)(3) is
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may
reduce the number of samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section and reduce the frequency of
sampling to once every three calendar
years.
(vi)(A) A small or medium-size water
system subject to reduced monitoring
that exceeds the lead or copper action
level shall resume sampling in
accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this
section and collect the number of
samples specified for standard
monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section. Such a system shall also
conduct water quality parameter
monitoring in accordance with
§ 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate)
during the monitoring period in which
it exceeded the action level. Any such
system may resume annual monitoring
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
2009
for lead and copper at the tap at the
reduced number of sites specified in
paragraph (c) of this section after it has
completed two subsequent consecutive
six-month rounds of monitoring that
meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of
this section and/or may resume triennial
monitoring for lead and copper at the
reduced number of sites after it
demonstrates through subsequent
rounds of monitoring that it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or
(d)(4)(v) of this section.
(B) Any water system subject to the
reduced monitoring frequency that fails
to operate at or above the minimum
value or within the range of values for
the water quality parameters specified
by the State under § 141.82(f) for more
than nine days in any six-month period
specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct
tap water sampling' for lead and copper
at the frequency specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, collect the number
of samples specified for standard
monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section, and shall resume monitoring for
water quality parameters within the
distribution system in accordance with
§ 141.87(d). Such a system may resume
reduced monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap and for water quality
parameters within the distribution
system under the following conditions:
(1) The system may resume annual
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap at the reduced number of sites
specified in paragraph (c) of this section
after it has completed two subsequent
six-month rounds of monitoring that
meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4){ii)
of this section and the system has
received written approval from the State
that it is appropriate to resume reduced
monitoring on an annual frequency.
(2) The system may resume triennial
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap at the reduced number of sites after
it demonstrates through subsequent
rounds of monitoring that it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or
(d)(4)(v) of this section and the system
has received written approval from the
State that it is appropriate to resume
triennial monitoring.
(3) The system may reduce the
number of water quality parameter tap
water samples required in accordance
with § 141.87(e)(l) and the frequency
with which it collects such samples in
accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a
system may not resume triennial
monitoring for water quality parameters
at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for
triennial monitoring.
(vii) Any water system subject to a
reduced monitoring frequency under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section that
either adds a new source of water or
changes any water treatment shall
inform the State in writing in
accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The
State may require the system to resume
sampling in accordance with paragraph
(d)(3) of this section and collect the
number of samples specified for
standard monitoring under paragraph
(c) of this section or take other
appropriate steps such as increased.
water quality parameter monitoring or
re-evaluation of 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 determining lead or copper 90th
percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(3) or
toward meeting the minimum
monitoring requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section.
(1) The State may invalidate a lead or
copper tap water sample at least if one
of the following conditions is 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
supporting 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. States may not invalidate a
sample solely on the grounds that a
follow-up sample result is higher or
lower than that of the original sample.
(4] The water system must collect
replacement samples for any samples
invalidated under this section if, after
the invalidation of one or more samples,
the system has too few samples to meet
the minimum requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section. Any such
replacement samples must be taken as
soon as possible, but no later than 20
days after 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 small
systems. Any small system that meets
the criteria of this paragraph may apply
to the State to reduce the frequency of
monitoring for lead and copper under
this section to once every nine years
(i.e., a "full waiver") if it meets all of the
materials criteria specified in paragraph
(g)(l) of this section and all of the
monitoring criteria specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If State
regulations permit, any small system
that meets the criteria in paragraphs
(g)(l) and (2) of this section only for
lead, or only for copper, may apply to
the State for a waiver to reduce the
frequency of tap water monitoring, to
once every nine years for that
contaminant ohly (i.e., a "partial
waiver").
(1) Materials criteria. The system
must demonstrate that its distribution
system and service lines and all
drinking water supply plumbing,
including plumbing conveying drinking
water within all residences and
buildings connected to the system, are
free of lead-containing materials and/or
copper-containing materials, as those
terms are defined in this paragraph, as
follows:
(i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver,
or a waiver of the tap water monitoring
requirements for lead (Le., a "lead
waiver"), the water system must provide
certification and supporting
documentation to the State that the
system is free of all lead-containing
materials, as follows:
(A) It contains no plastic pipes which
contain lead plasticizers, or plastic
service lines which contain lead
plasticizers; and
(B) It is free of lead service lines, lead
pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and
leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and
fixtures, unless such fittings and
fixtures meet the specifications of any
standard established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 300g-6(e) (SDWA section
1417(e)).
(ii) Copper. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a waiver of the tap water
monitoring requirements for copper
(i.e., a "copper waiver"), the water
system must provide certification and
supporting documentation to the State
that the system contains no copper
pipes or copper service lines.
(2) Monitoring criteria for waiver
issuance. The system must have
-------
2010
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
completed at least one 6-month round of
standard tap water monitoring for lead
and copper at sites approved by the
State and from the number of sites
required by paragraph (c) of this section
and demonstrate that the 90th percentile
levels for any and all rounds of
monitoring conducted since the system
became free of all lead-containing and/
or copper-containing materials, as
appropriate, meet the following criteria.
0) Lead levels. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a lead waiver, the system
must demonstrate that the 90th
percentile lead level does not exceed
0.005 mg/L.
(ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a copper waiver, the system
must demonstrate that the 90th
percentile copper level does not exceed
0.65 mg/L.
(3) State approval of waiver
application. The State shall notify the
system of its waiver determination, in
writing, setting forth the basis of its
decision and any condition of the
waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the
State may require the system to perform
specific activities (e.g., limited
monitoring, periodic outreach to
customers to remind them to avoid
installation of materials that might void
the waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or
copper concentration of concern in tap
water. The small system must continue
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap as required by paragraphs (d)(l)
through (d)(4) of this section, as
appropriate, until it receives written
notification from the State that the
waiver has been approved.
(4) Monitoring frequency for systems
with waivers, (i) A system with a full
waiver must conduct tap water
monitoring for lead and copper in
accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of
this section at the reduced number of
sampling sites identified in paragraph
(c) of this section at least once every
nine years and provide the materials
certification specified in paragraph
(g)(i) of this section for both lead and
copper to the State along with the
monitoring results.
(ii) A system with a partial waiver
must conduct tap water monitoring for
the waived contaminant in accordance
with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section
at the reduced number of sampling sites
specified in paragraph (c) of this section
at least once every nine years and
provide the materials certification
specified in paragraph (g)(l) of this
section pertaining to the waived
contaminant along with the monitoring
results. Such a system also must
continue to monitor for the non-waived
contaminant in accordance with
requirements of paragraph (d)(l)
through (d)(4) of this section, as
appropriate.
(iii) If a system with a full or partial
waiver adds a new source of water or
changes any water treatment, the system
must notify the State in writing in
accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The
State has the authority to require the
system to add or modify waiver
conditions (e.g., require recertification
that the system is free of lead-containing
and/or copper-containing materials,
require additional round(s) of
monitoring), if it deems such
modifications are necessary to address
treatment or source water changes at the
system.
• (iv) If a system with a full or partial
waiver becomes aware that it is no
longer free of lead-containing or copper-
containing materials, as appropriate,
(e.g., as a result of new construction or
repairs), the system shall notify the
State in writing no later than 60 days
after becoming aware of such a change.
(5) Continued eligibility. If the system
continues to satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the
waiver will be renewed automatically,
unless any of the conditions listed in
paragraph (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of
this section occurs. A system whose
waiver has been revoked may re-apply
for a waiver at such time as it again
meets the appropriate materials and
monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(l)
and (g)(2) of this section.
(i) A system with a full waiver or a
lead waiver no longer satisfies the
materials criteria of paragraph (g)(l)(i) of
this section or has a 90th percentile lead
level greater than 0.005 mg/L.
(ii) A system with a full waiver or a
copper waiver no longer satisfies the
materials criteria of paragraph (g)(l)(ii)
of this section or has a 90th percentile
copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L.
(iii) The State notifies the system, in
writing, that the waiver has been
revoked, setting forth the basis of its
decision.
(6) Requirements following waiver
revocation. A system whose full or
partial waiver has been revoked by the
State is subject to the corrosion control
treatment and lead and copper tap water
monitoring requirements, as follows:
(i) If the system exceeds the lead and/
or copper action level, the system must
implement corrosion control treatment
iii accordance with the deadlines
specified in § 141.81(e), and any other
applicable requirements of this subpart.
(ii) If the system meets both the lead
and the copper action level, the system
must monitor for lead and copper at the
tap no less frequently than once every
three years using the reduced number of
sample sites specified in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system
waivers approved by the State in writing
prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in
effect under the following conditions:
(i) If the system has demonstrated that
it is both free of lead-containing and
copper-containing materials, as required
by paragraph (g)(l) of this section and
that its 90th percentile lead levels and
90th percentile copper levels meet the
criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the waiver remains in effect so
long as the system continues to meet the
waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph
(g)(5) of this section. The first round of
tap water monitoring conducted
pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this
section shall be completed no later than
nine years after the last time the system
has monitored for lead and copper at the
tap.
(ii) If the system has met the materials
criteria of paragraph (g)(l) of this
section but has not met the monitoring
criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the system shall conduct a
round of monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap demonstrating that it meets
the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section no later than September 30,
2000. Thereafter, the waiver shall
remain in effect as long as the system
meets the continued eligibility criteria
of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The
first round of tap water monitoring
conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)
of this section shall be completed no
later than nine years after the round of
monitoring conducted pursuant to
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
*****
10. Section 141.87 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as
(e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and
(e)(2)(ii), and by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by
revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory
text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end
of § 141.87 following paragraph (f), to
read as follows:
§ 141.87 Monitoring requirements for
water quality parameters.
*****
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, systems shall
collect two samples for each applicable
water quality parameter at each entry
point to the distribution system during
each monitoring period specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
*****
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, at each entry point
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
2O11
to the distribution system, at least one
sample no less frequently than 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 treatment conditions
throughout the system. If water from
untreated ground water sources mixes
with water from treated ground water
sources, the system must monitor for
water quality parameters both at
representative entry points receiving
treatment and representative entry
points receiving no treatment. Prior to
the start of any monitoring under this
paragraph, the system shall provide to
the State written information identifying
the selected entry points and
documentation, including information
on seasonal variability, sufficient to
demonstrate that the sites are
representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system.
(d) Monitoring after State specifies
water quality parameter values for
optimal corrosion control. After the
State specifies the values for applicable
water quality control parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment under § 141.82(f), all large
systems shall measure the applicable
water quality parameters in accordance
with paragraph [c) of this section and
determine compliance with the
requirements of § 141.82(g) every six
months with tlie first six-month period
to begin on the date the State specifies
the optimal values under § 141.82(f).
Any small or medium-size system shall
conduct such monitoring during each
six-month period specified in this
paragraph in which the system exceeds
the lead or copper action level. For any
such small and medium-size system that
is subject to a reduced monitoring
frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at
the time of the action level exceedance,
the end of the applicable six-month
period under this paragraph shall
coincide with the end of the applicable
monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4).
Compliance with State-designated
optimal water quality parameter values
shall be determined as specified under
§ 141.82(g).
(e)* * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A 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 or equal to the PQL for lead
specified in § 141.89 (a){l)(ii), that its
tap water copper level at the 90th
percentile is less than or equal to 0.65
mg/L 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(fJ.
*****
(4) Any water system subject to the
reduced monitoring frequency that fails
to operate at or above the minimum
value or within the range of values for
the water quality parameters specified
by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than
nine days in any six-month period
specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume
distribution system tap water sampling
in accordance with the number and
frequency requirements in paragraph (d)
of this section. Such a system may
resume annual monitoring for water
quality parameters at the tap at the
reduced number of sites specified in
paragraph (e)(l) of this section after it
has completed two subsequent
consecutive six-month rounds of •
monitoring that meet the criteria of that
paragraph and/or may resume triennial
monitoring for water quality parameters
at the tap at the reduced number of sites
after it demonstrates through
subsequent rounds of monitoring that it
meets the criteria of either paragraph
(e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
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, calcium, conductivity, tem-
perature.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and con-
centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
part of corrosion control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor resid-
uals.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con-
centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
part of corrosion control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor resid-
ual5.
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or
silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con-
centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
part of corrosion control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor resid-
ual5.
Taps and at entry point(s) to dis-
tribution system.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Taps
Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
tem6.
Every 6 months.
Every 6 months.
No less frequently than
every two weeks.
Every 6 months. •
No less frequently than
every two weeks.
Every 6 months, annually7
or every 3 years8; re-
duced number of sites.
No less frequently than
every two weeks.
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 used as part of corrosion control.
-------
2012
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
* 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.
7 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.
8 Water 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 optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual
monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile
lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality param-
eter designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
11. Section 141.88 is 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) * * *
(l) 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) Groundwater systems shall take a
minimum of one sample at every entry
point to the distribution system which
is representative of each well after
treatment (hereafter called a sampling
point). The system shall take one
sample at the same sampling point
unless conditions make another
sampling point more representative of
each source or treatment plant.
(ii) Surface water systems shall take a
minimum of one sample at every entry
point to the distribution system after
any application of treatment or in the
distribution system at a point which is
representative of each source after
treatment (hereafter called a sampling
point). The system shall take each
sample at the same sampling point
unless conditions make another
sampling point more representative of
each source or treatment plant.
Note to paragraph (a)(l)(ii): For the
purposes of this paragraph, surface water
systems include systems with a combination
of surface and ground sources.
(iii) 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).
(iv) 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
or equal to 0.001 mg/L or the copper
concentration is greater than or equal to
0.160 mg/L, then either:
(A) A follow-up sample shall be taken
and analyzed within 14 days at each
sampling point 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 ground
water may reduce the monitoring
frequency for lead and copper in source
water to once during each nine-year
compliance cycle (as that term is
defined in § 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 or equal
to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of
copper in source water was less than or
equal to 0.65 mg/L.
(2) A water system using surface
water (or a combination of surface water
and ground water) 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 or equal to 0.005
mg/L and the concentration of copper in
source water was less than or equal to
0.65 mg/L.
*****
12. Section 141.89 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(l)(iii) to read as
follows:
§ 141.89 Analytical methods.
(a) * * *
(D* * *
(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).
*****
13. Section 141.90 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(l)(iii), by revising all references to
"§ 141.84(f)" in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
(ii) to read "§ 141.84(e)", by revising
paragraphs (a)(l) introductory text,
(a)(l)(ii), (a)(l)(iv), (a)(2) through (a)(5),
(e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from
(a)(l)(vii) and adding a semicolon, and
by adding paragraphs (a)(l)(viii) and (h)
to read as follows:
§141.90 Reporting requirements.
*****
(a) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(l)(viii) of this section, a water system
shall report the information specified
below for all tap water samples
specified in § 141.86 and for all water
quality parameter samples specified in
§ 141.87 within the first 10 days
following the end of each applicable
monitoring period specified in § 141.86
and § 141.87 (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)(2);
(iii) [Reserved];
(iv) The 90th percentile lead and
copper concentrations measured from
among all lead and copper tap water
samples collected during each
monitoring period (calculated in
accordance with § 141.80(c)(3)), unless
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations
2O13
the State calculates the system's 90th
percentile lead and copper levels under
paragraph (h) of this section;
*****
(viii) A water system shall report the
results of all water quality parameter
samples collected under § 141.87(c)
through (f) during each six-month
monitoring period specified in
§141.87(d) within the first 10 days
following the end of the monitoring
period unless the State has specified a
more frequent reporting requirement.
*****
(2) For a non-transient non-
community water system, or a
community water system meeting the
criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that
does not have enough taps that can
provide first-draw samples, the system
must either:
(i) Provide written documentation to
the State identifying standing times and
locations for enough non-first-draw
samples to make up its sampling pool
under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the
first applicable monitoring period under
§ 141.86(d) that commences after April
11, 2000, unless the State has waived
prior'State approval of non-first-draw
•sample sites selected by the system
pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or
(ii) If the State has waived prior
approval of non-first-draw sample sites
selected by the system, identify, in
writing, each site that did not meet the
six-hour minimum standing time and
the length of standing time for that
particular substitute sample collected
pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and include
this information with the lead and
copper tap sample results required to be
submitted pursuant to paragraph
(a)(l)(i) of this section.
(3) No later than 60 days after the
addition of a new source or any change
in water treatment, unless the State
requires earlier notification, a water
system deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a
water system subject to reduced
monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4),
or a water system subject to a
monitoring waiver pursuant to
§ 141.86(g), shall send written
documentation to the State describing
the change. In those instances where
prior State approval of the treatment
change or new source is not required,
water systems are encouraged to provide
the notification to the State beforehand
to minimize the risk the treatment
change or new source will adversely
affect optimal corrosion control.
(4) Any small system applying for a
monitoring waiver under § 141.86(g), or
subject to a waiver granted pursuant to
§ 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the
following information to the State i'n
writing by the specified deadline:
(i) By the start of the first applicable
monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any
small water system applying for a
monitoring waiver shall provide the
documentation required to demonstrate
that it meets the waiver criteria of
§§ 141.86(g)(l) and (2).
(ii) No later than nine years after the
monitoring previously conducted
pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or
§ 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small system
desiring to maintain its monitoring
waiver shall provide the information
required by §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii).
(iii) No later than 60 days after it
becomes aware that it is no longer free
of lead-containing and/or copper-
containing material, as appropriate,
each small system with a monitoring
waiver shall provide written notification
to the State, setting forth the
circumstances resulting in the lead-
containing and/or copper-containing
materials being introduced into the
system and what corrective action, if
any, the system plans to remove these
materials.
(iv) By October 10, 2000, any small
system with a waiver granted prior to
April 11, 2000 and that has not
previously met the requirements of
§ 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the
information required by that paragraph,
(5) Each ground water system that
limits water quality parameter
monitoring to a subset of entry points
under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by
the commencement of such monitoring,
written correspondence to the State that
identifies the selected entry points and
includes information sufficient to
demonstrate that the sites are
representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Any system which collects lead
service line samples following partial
lead service line replacement required
by § 141.84 shall report the results to the
State within the first ten days of the
month following the month in which
the system receives the laboratory
results, or as specified by the State.
States, at their discretion may eliminate
this requirement to report these
monitoring results. Systems shall also
report any additional information as
specified by the State, and in a time and
manner prescribed by the State, to verify
that all partial lead service line
replacement activities have taken place.
(f) Public education program
reporting requirements. (1) Any water
system that is subject to the public
education requirements in § 141.85
shall, 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),
send written documentation to the State
that contains:
(i) A demonstration 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);
and
(ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio
stations, television stations, and
facilities and organizations to which the
system delivered public education
materials during the period in which the
system was required to perform public
education tasks.
(2) Unless required by the State, a
system that previously has submitted
the information required by paragraph
(f)(l)(ii) of this section need not
resubmit the information required by
paragraph (f)(l)(ii) of this section, as '
long as there have been no changes in "
the distribution list and the system
certifies that the public education
materials were distributed to the same
list submitted previously.
*****
(h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead
and copper concentrations where the
State calculates a system's 90th
percentile concentrations. A water
system is not required to report the 90th
percentile lead and copper
concentrations measured from among
all lead and copper tap water samples
collected during each monitoring
period, as required by paragraph
(a)(l)(iv) of this section if:
(1) The State has previously notified
the water system that it will calculate
the water system's 90th percentile lead
and copper concentrations, based on the
lead and copper tap results submitted
pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this
section, and has specified a date before
the end of the applicable monitoring
period by which the system must
provide the results of lead and copper
tap water samples;
_(2) The system has 'provided the
following information to the State by the
date specified in paragraph (h)(l) of this
section:
(i) The results of all tap samples for
lead and copper including the location
of each site and the criteria under
§141.86(a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and/or (7)
under which the site was selected for
the system's sampling pool, pursuant to
paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this section; and
(ii) An identification of sampling sites
utilized during the current monitoring
period that were not sampled during
-------
2014
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
previous monitoring periods, and an
explanation why sampling sites have
changed; and
(3) The State has provided the results
of the 90th percentile lead and copper
calculations, in writing, to the water
system before the end of the monitoring
period.
PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
14. The authority citation for part 142
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,
300J-9. and SOOj-ll.
15. Section 142.14 is amended by
removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by
redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i)
through (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii) through
(d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new
paragraphs (d)(8)(i), and (d)(8)(ix)
through (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising
newly designated paragraphs (d)(8)(vi)
and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs
(d)(8)(vm), (d)(9), Cd)(10), and (d)(ll) to
read as follows:
§ 142.14 Records kept by States.
*****
fd) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) Section 141.81(b)—for any water
system deemed to be optimized under
§ 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3) of this chapter,
any conditions imposed by the State on
specific water systems to ensure the
continued operation and maintenance of
corrosion control treatment in place;
*****
(vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)—
determinations of source water
treatment;
(vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)—
designations of maximum permissible
concentrations of lead and copper in
source water;
(viii) Section 141.84(e)—-
determinations establishing shorter lead
service line service line replacement
schedules under § 141.84;
(ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii),
141.86(d)(4Kvii), and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)—
determinations of additional monitoring
requirements and/or other actions
required to maintain optimal corrosion
control by systems monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap less frequently
than once every six months that change
treatment or add a new source of water;
(x) Section 141.85—system-specific
decisions regarding the content of
written public education materials and/
or the distribution of these materials;
(xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—system-
specific determinations regarding use of
non-first-draw samples at non-transient
non-community water systems, and
community water systems meeting the
criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of
this chapter, that operate 24 hours a
day;
(xii) Section 141.86(c)—system-
specific designations of sampling
locations for systems subject to reduced
monitoring;
(xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)—
system-specific determinations
pertaining to alternative sample
collection periods for systems subject to
reduced monitoring;
(xiv) Section 141.86(g)—
determinations of small system
monitoring waivers, waiver
recertifications, and waiver revocations;
(xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)—
determinations regarding representative
entry point locations at ground water
systems;
(xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)—system-
specific determinations regarding the
submission of information to
demonstrate compliance with partial
lead service line replacement
requirements; and
(xvii) Section 141.90(f)—system-
specific decisions regarding the
resubmission of detailed documentation
demonstrating completion of public
education requirements.
(9) Records of reports and any other
information submitted by PWSs under
§ 141.90 of this chapter, including
records of any 90th percentile values
calculated by the State under
§141.90(h) of this chapter.
(10) Records of State activities, and
the results thereof, to:
(i) Verify compliance with State
determinations issued under
§§141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of
this chapter, 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter,
and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter;
(ii) Verify compliance with the
requirements related to partial lead
service line replacement under
§ 141.84(d) of this chapter and
compliance with lead service line
replacement schedules under
§ 141.84(e) of this chapter; and
(iii) Invalidate tap water lead and
copper samples under § 141.86(f) of this
chapter.
(11) Records of each system's
currently applicable or most recently
designated monitoring requirements. If,
for the records identified in paragraphs
(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this
section, no change is made to State
determinations during a 12-year
retention period, the State shall retain
the record until a new decision,
determination, or designation has been
issued.
16. Section 142.15 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through
(c)(4)(i)(G) respectively, by adding
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text,
(c)(4)(ii), and (c)(4)(iii), and by revising
paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to
read as follows:
§ 142.15 Reports by States.
*****
(c) * * *
(4) States shall report quarterly, in a
format and on a schedule prescribed by
the Administrator, the following
information related to each system's
compliance with the treatment
techniques for lead and copper under 40
CFR part 141, subpart I during the
preceding calendar quarter. Specifically,
States shall report as follows:
(i) For any reports provided prior to
May 15, 2000, States shall report the
name and PWS identification number:
*****
(ii) For any reports provided after May
14, 2000 and before January 14, 2002,
States may report in accordance with
either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of
this section.
(iii) For all reports submitted on or
after January 14, 2002, States shall
report the PWS identification number of
each public water system identified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of
this section.
(A) For each large and medium-size
public water system, all 90th percentile
lead levels calculated during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86
of this chapter, and the first and last day
of the monitoring period for which the
90th percentile lead level was
calculated;
(B) For each small public water
system, the 90th percentile lead level
calculated during each monitoring
period in which the system exceeds the
lead action level, and the first and last
day of each monitoring period in which
an exceedance occurred;
(C) For each public water system
(regardless of size), the 90th percentile
copper level calculated during each
monitoring period in which the system
exceeds the copper action level, and the
first and last day of each monitoring
period in which an exceedance
occurred;
(D) For each public water system for
which the State has designated optimal
water quality parameters under
§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the
State has deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(l) or
(b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the
determination and the paragraph(s)
under which the State made its
determination;
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
2O15
(E) For each public water system
required to begin replacing lead service
lines as specified in § 141.84 of this
chapter and the date each system must
begin replacement; and
(F) For each public water system that
has implemented optimal corrosion
control, completed applicable source
water treatment requirements pursuant
to § 141.83 of this chapter and/or
completed lead service line replacement
requirements pursuant to § 141.84 of
this chapter, and the date of the State's
determination that these requirements
have been met. The date reported shall
be the latest of the following events:
(1} The date the State designates
optimal water quality parameters under
§ 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the
system to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to. § 141.81fb)(l) or
(b) (3) of this chapter;
(2) For systems triggered into source
water treatment, the date the State
designates maximum permissible source
water levels under § 141.83(b)(4) of this
chapter or determines pursuant to
§ 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source
water treatment is not required; or
(3) For systems triggered into lead
service line replacement, the date the
• system completes lead service line
replacement or becomes eligible to cease
lead service line replacement pursuant
to §141.84(0 of this chapter.
*****
17. Section 142.16 is amended by
adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by
revising paragraphs (d)(l) and (d)(3) to
read as follows:
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
*****
(d)* * *
(1) Section 141.82—State designation
of optimal corrosion control.
(i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and
141.82(h)—Designating optimal
corrosion control treatment methods,
optimal water quality parameters, and
modifications thereto.
(ii) Section 141.82(g)—Designating an
alternative approach for aggregating
multiple measurements collected during
the same day for a water quality
parameter at a sampling location, if the
State elects to adopt a formula other
than the one specified in § 141.82(g)(l)
of this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) Section 141.90(e)—Verifying
compliance with lead service line
replacement schedules and completion
of all partial lead service line
replacement activities.
(4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)—
Designating an alternative period for
sample collection for community water
systems subject to reduced monitoring.
*****
[FRDoc. 00-3 Filed 1-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-P
-------
------- |