815Z07003
Wednesday,
October 10, 2007
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-
Term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications; Final Rule
-------
-------
57782 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8476-5]
RIN 2040-AE83
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing seven
targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and
copper. This final rule strengthens the
implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) in the following areas:
monitoring, treatment processes, public
education, customer awareness, and
lead service line replacement. These
changes provide more effective
protection of public health by reducing
exposure to lead in drinking water.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
December 10, 2007.
The compliance date for all of this
final rule's provisions is 180 days after
promulgation except if by that date, the
primacy State has not adopted this rule,
in which case compliance with this
final rule is required the earlier of either
the State's adoption of the rule, or two
years after December 10, 2007. For
purposes of judicial review, this rule is
promulgated as of October 10, 2007 as
provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical inquiries, contact Jeffrey
Kempic, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-4880; e-mail address:
kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov. For regulatory
inquiries, contact Eric Burneson, Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(MC 4607M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564-5250; e-mail address:
burneson.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by the
Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions final 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 likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the definition
of "public water system" in § 141.2, the
section entitled "Coverage" of § 141.3,
and the applicability criteria in
§ 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
one of the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
B. Abbreviations Used in This
Document
AL: Action Level
COR: Consumer Confidence Report
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
ICR: Information Collection Request
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions
LSL: Lead Service Line
LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement
LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDL: Method Detection Limit
NOW AC: National Drinking Water Advisory
Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PE: Public Education
POE: Point-of-Entry Devices
POU: Point-of-Use'Devices
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA: Small Business Administration
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water
Information System, Federal Version
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
C. Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the
Lead and Copper Rule?
B. What Is the Regulatory History of the
Lead and Copper Rule?
C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?
II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory
Revisions Require?
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
B. Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirements for Water Systems That
Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change
in Water Treatment or Add a New
Source of Water
E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
F. Public Education Requirements
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Minimum Number of Samples Required
Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Minimum Number of
Samples Required Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
B. Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Compliance and Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Compliance and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57783
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By
Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirement for Water Systems That
Intend to Make Any Long-Term Changes
in Water Treatment or Add a New
Source of Water
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Advanced
Notification and Approval of Long-Term
Treatment Changes or Addition of New
Source Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Advanced
Notification and Approval of Long-Term
Treatment Changes or Addition of New
Source Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Consumer Notice of
Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
F. Public Education Requirements
1. Message Content
a. How Is EPA Revising the Message
Content?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Message
Content Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Message Content
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
2. Delivery
a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery
Requirements?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Delivery
Requirements Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
3. Timing
a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing
Provisions of the Rule?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for Revising the
Timing Provisions of the Rule?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Timing Provisions
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
4. Consumer Confidence Reports
a. How Is EPA Revising CCR
Requirements?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR
Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the CCR Requirements
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By
Commenters on the Reevaluation of Lead
Service Lines Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and
Copper Rule
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not
Including Any of These Other Issues in
the Final Rule Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on These Other Issues and
EPA's Response to These Issues?
I. Compliance Dates
1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for
This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Compliance Dates?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Compliance Dates
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
J. State Implementation
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions
Affect A State's Primacy Program?
2. What Does a State Have to Do to Apply?
3. How Are Tribes Affected?
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Direct Costs
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and
Assumptions
C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change III.A
D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change III.B
E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change I1I.C
F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change OLD
G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change III.E
H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change I1I.F
I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory
Change III.G
J. Summary of National Average Annual
Direct Costs
K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and
Implement Regulatory Changes
L. Indirect Costs
M. Benefits
N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the State and System
Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis)
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
VI. References
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for
the Lead and Copper Rule?
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to
establish maximum contaminant level
goals (MCLGs) and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs)
for contaminants that may have an
adverse effect on the health of persons,
may occur in public water systems at a
frequency and level of public concern,
and in the sole judgment of the
Administrator, regulation of the
contaminant would present a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public
water systems (section 1412(b)(l)(A)).
The 1986 amendments to SDWA
established a list of 83 contaminants for
which EPA is to develop MCLGs and
NPDWRs, which included lead and
copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and
Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a)
fulfilled the requirements of the 1986
SDWA amendments with respect to lead
and copper.
B. What.Is the Regulatory History of the
Lead and Copper Rule?
EPA promulgated maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and
NPDWRs for lead and copper (LCR) on
June 7, 1991. The goal of the LCR is to
provide maximum human health
protection by reducing lead and copper
levels at consumers' taps to as close to
the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish
this goal, the LCR establishes
requirements for community water
systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs)
to optimize corrosion control and
conduct periodic monitoring. Systems
are required to perform public
education when there are action level
exceedances at more than 10 percent of
the taps that are sampled, treat source
water if it contributes significantly to
lead and copper levels at the tap, and
replace lead service lines in the
distribution system if the lead level at
the tap continues to exceed the action
level after optimal corrosion control has
been installed. EPA proposed minor
revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996
(60 FR 16348, U.S. EPA 1996a) and
finalized these minor revisions on
January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA
2000b). These minor revisions
streamlined the requirements of the
LCR, promoted consistent national
-------
57784
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
implementation, and reduced the
reporting burden to affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed
the areas of optimal corrosion control
demonstration, lead service line
replacement requirements, public
education requirements, monitoring
requirements, analytical methods,
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and special primacy
considerations. The LCRMR did not
change the action level, MCLG, or the
rule's basic requirements.
C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?
The purpose of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) is to protect populations
from exposure to lead and copper in
drinking water and reduce potential
health risks associated with lead and
copper. In 2004, the District of
Columbia experienced incidences of
elevated drinking water lead levels,
which prompted EPA to initiate a
comprehensive national review of the
LCR to evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the rule. The purpose of
the review was to determine whether
elevated drinking water lead levels were
a national problem; if a large percentage
of the population received water that
exceeded the lead action level; if a
significant number of systems failed to
meet the action level; how well the
existing LCR worked to reduce drinking
water lead levels; and if the regulation
is currently being effectively
implemented, especially with respect to
monitoring and public education
requirements. EPA's comprehensive
review consisted of several elements,
including a series of workshops
designed to solicit issues, comments,
and suggestions from stakeholders on
particular issues; a review of monitoring
data to evaluate the effectiveness of the
LCR; and a review of the LCR
implementation by States and water
utilities. As a result of this multi-part
review, EPA identified seven targeted
rule changes intended to strengthen the
implementation of the LCR in the areas
of monitoring, customer awareness, and
lead service line replacement in the
short-term. The short-term changes
finalized in this action are expected to
ensure and enhance protection of public
health by reducing exposure to lead in
drinking water. This final rule does not
amend the portion of the regulations
related to copper, however provisions
addressing copper will be considered
for future revisions to the rule. EPA will
propose any future regulatory changes
under a separate regulatory action.
II. What Do the LCR Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions Require?
A. Minimum Number of Samples
Required
I. Proposed Revision
The proposed LCR Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, July
18, 2006, U.S. EPA 2006a) clarified and
maintained that five samples per
monitoring period is the minimum
number of samples required for systems
serving 100 people or fewer.
2. Final Revision
EPA's final revision to the minimum
number of samples requirement adds a
provision that gives States the discretion
to allow water systems with fewer than
five taps for human consumption to
collect one sample per tap. Under this
alternate sampling schedule, the sample
with the highest test result will be
compared to the action level to
determine compliance. While fewer
samples may be taken, comparing the
single highest level provides public
health protection since it does not allow
water systems to ignore a potential
problem by taking repeat samples at
taps that have low lead results when
they get a high sample result. See
section III.A for more information on
this regulatory revision and also for
EPA's response to significant public
comments on the proposal. A complete
response to all comments on this rule is
found in the Lead and Copper Docket at
www.regulations.gov.
B. Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods
1. Proposed Revision
EPA's proposed revision clarified the
"compliance period" as the three year
calendar period as defined at § 141.2
and the "monitoring period" as the
specific period in which water systems
must conduct required monitoring. EPA
also proposed to revise several sections
of the LCR to more precisely define
when the "start date" for the
compliance calendar begins. EPA also
proposed to clarify that systems on
reduced monitoring schedules must
monitor during four consecutive
months, and systems on triennial
monitoring must monitor once every 3
calendar years, with a similar
requirement for small systems with a
monitoring waiver to ensure they
monitor every 9 years.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as
proposed for defining the compliance
and monitoring periods. Based on
commenter concerns with implementing
the clarified definition of the term
"monitoring period," EPA is allowing
States flexibility in extending the
timeframe to complete public education
activities after an action level (AL)
exceedance. For more information and
EPA's response to significant public
comments, see section III.B of this
notice.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed a revision that would
disallow water systems that exceeded
the lead action level from initiating or
remaining on a reduced lead and copper
monitoring schedule based solely on the
results of their water quality parameter
(WQP) monitoring. This proposed
change would modify the reduced
monitoring provisions at § 141.86(d)(4).
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as
proposed for reduced monitoring
criteria. For more information and
EPA's response to significant public
comments, see section III.C of this
notice.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirements for Water Systems That
Intend To Make Any Long-Term Change
in Water Treatment or Add a New
Source of Water
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to amend several
sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to require water
systems to obtain prior approval by the
State to add a new source of water or
change a treatment process prior to
implementation.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as
proposed for advanced notification and
approval requirements with a slight
modification to clarify EPA's intention.
In finalizing this regulatory revision,
EPA is clarifying the requirements for
advance notification and approval to
apply to those treatment changes that
would have long-term impacts on water
quality. EPA has provided examples of
long-term treatment changes in
§ 141.90(a)(3) of this final rule. EPA
believes that this clarification will
prevent water systems from notifying
the State and requesting approval for
changes that are operational in nature or
made on a daily basis. See section III.D
of this notice for more information
regarding this regulatory revision and
EPA's response to significant public
comments on this issue.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57785
E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed revisions to require
water systems to notify consumers in
homes or buildings tested for lead of
their results. Specifically, systems must
provide written notification to
household occupants within 30 days
after the water system learns the results
for samples collected from that
household and post or otherwise notify
occupants of non-residential buildings
of the results of lead testing. EPA also
indicated that the consumer notification
must contain an explanation of lead
health effects, list steps consumers can
take to reduce lead drinking water
exposure, provide utility contact
information, and include the lead
maximum contaminant level goal or
MCLG, lead action level, and definitions
of each from § 141.153(c)(l).
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as
proposed to consumer notification
language. EPA is also adding language
to § 141.85(d)(4), which provides an
example of an alternative mechanism of
consumer notification for NTNCWSs.
For more information and EPA's
response to significant public
comments, see section III.E of this
notice.
F. Public Education Requirements
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to revise the public
education requirements of the LCR in
the areas of message content, delivery
requirements, and the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR). The proposed
revisions would modify the mandatory
language in public education to make it
shorter and easier to understand; require
water systems to deliver material to new
organizations, engage in new outreach
activities, post lead information on
water bills, issue two press releases
during periods of lead action level
exceedance; and modify the CCR such
that all CWSs with lead detects above
the method detection limit (MDL) of
0.001 mg/L would have to include
information about the risks of lead in
drinking water in the CCR on a regular
basis.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the proposed
revisions to the public education
requirements, but is adding a provision
that water systems must submit public
education language for State review and
approval at the option of the State.
Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery
requirements as proposed, but has made
modifications to address challenges
with water system jurisdiction and
delivery of materials. EPA is now
requiring that all systems have a simple
informational statement about lead in
their CCR because the actual level of
lead exposure for drinking water varies
between individual homes and levels
detected by the system for compliance
and would not necessarily reflect the
risk faced by consumers. EPA also
realizes there are situations where the
most vulnerable populations may be
exposed to elevated levels of lead for
many months before being notified. In
addition, this simplifies compliance
tracking and enforcement of this
requirement. See section III.F of this
notice for more information on the final
public education requirements and for
EPA's responses to significant public
comments.
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to require water
systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as "replaced" through testing
if they resume lead service line
replacement programs.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as
proposed for reevaluation of lead
service line replacement, but is adding
a provision to allow an alternative time
schedule for systems that have
completed a 15-year replacement
program before re-exceeding the lead
action level. For more information and
EPA's response to significant public
comments, see section III.G of this
notice.
III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper
Rule Short-Term Regulatory Revisions
and Clarifications
A. Minimum Number of Samples
Required
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is clarifying the minimum
sampling requirement for small water
systems that have fewer than five taps
by making revisions to § 141.86(c).
These revisions include a clarification
that the term "taps" means "taps that
can be used for human consumption,"
as opposed to outlets such as hose bibs
or taps at utility sinks. In addition, the
revisions clarify what a system must do
to meet the minimum five number of
samples requirement when the system
physically has fewer than five taps. In
this situation, the water system must
sample all taps at least once and then
take repeat samples on different days
until a total of five samples are
obtained.
EPA is, however, adding a provision
to § 141.86(c) that gives States the
discretion to allow water systems that
have fewer than five taps, to collect one
sample per tap that can be used for
human consumption. To qualify for this
provision, the water system must make
a request to the State in writing and the
State must approve the request in
writing or by onsite verification. Under
this alternate sampling schedule for all
water systems collecting fewer than five
samples, the sample with the highest
test result will be compared to the lead
action level to determine compliance. If
any sample result is above the action
level, the system is deemed to be
exceeding the action level and must
complete compliance actions (e.g.,
public education, corrosion control
treatment, and lead service line
replacement). EPA is adding regulatory
text to § 141.80 to describe this new
compliance determination. The
alternate sampling schedule may also be
applicable for water systems that are on
reduced monitoring and EPA is adding
a provision to § 141.86(d)(4)(i) for those
systems. The provision allows the water
system to reduce sampling frequency to
once per year, but in no case can the
number of samples required be reduced
below the minimum of one sample per
tap that can be used for human
consumption.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Minimum Number of Samples Required
Revisions?
In the original Lead and Copper Rule
of 1991, the term "site" is used to refer
to the number of samples collected, and
there has been confusion as to whether
"site" refers to taps or physical
locations. EPA is clarifying that
sampling "sites" refer to "taps that can
be used for human consumption." The
phrase "that can be used for human
consumption," is being added to the
regulations to ensure that samples are
taken from taps which would pose the
highest risk for exposure to lead, rather
than from taps that are not typically
used for human consumption.
EPA is also making clarifications for
water systems that have fewer than five
taps that can be used for human
consumption. In the proposal for this
rule, EPA maintained that systems must
take a minimum of five samples in order
to adequately capture the variability of
lead levels and that it was more cost
effective for small systems to take more
samples than install corrosion control or
-------
57786 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
source treatment based on a small pool
of samples taken (71 FR 40828 at 40831,
U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is maintaining
that systems must take a minimum of
five samples as part of this rule.
However, EPA is also giving States the
discretion to offer an alternative
requirement, on which it requested
comment in the proposed rule,
described as follows.
EPA requested comment on an
alternative sampling requirement for
NTNCWS with fewer than five taps that
can be used for human consumption.
The water systems would be required to
sample 100 percent of the taps that can
be used for human consumption. Under
the alternative sampling provision,
systems collecting fewer than five
samples will compare the sample with
the highest result to the action level to
determine if they must complete
compliance actions such as public-
education, corrosion control treatment
installation, and/or lead service line
replacement. EPA believes that
requiring systems to use the highest
sample result to determine compliance
is health protective because it does not
allow water systems to take repeat
samples at taps that have low levels of
lead when they get a high sample result.
In addition, the alternative sampling
schedule alleviates the cost burden
associated with taking repeat samples.
After evaluating comments, EPA has
determined that the alternative
sampling provision will also be made
available to CWS with fewer than five
taps for human consumption, such as
washeterias in Alaska and Navajo
hauling points.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Minimum Number
of Samples Required Revisions and
EPA's Response to These Issues?
The majority of commenters did not
agree with EPA's proposal to require
water systems with fewer than five taps
to collect repeat samples from the same
taps and they supported the idea of
allowing small water systems to sample
100 percent of taps available for human
consumption. Commenters stated that
repeat sampling would be a cost burden
imposed on the smallest sized systems.
Some commenters also stated that
repeat sampling was an unfair
requirement for small systems since
large systems are not required to take
repeat samples or sample all of their
available taps for compliance. To
address these concerns, EPA is giving
discretion to the States to allow small
systems with fewer than five taps to take
fewer than five samples. EPA stresses,
however, that the requirement is not
less stringent, since systems collecting
fewer than 5 samples must compare the
sample with the highest concentration
to the action level. By taking fewer than
5 samples, systems with fewer than 5
taps are giving up the opportunity to
take repeat samples at taps with low
lead results.
Two States supported not changing
the minimum number of samples
requirement because of the
administrative burden of verifying
available taps. Although other
commenters believed that there was no
better statistical representation than
sampling 100 percent of taps in a
system, one of the States stated that it
is statistically "risky" to base
compliance on a single sample since
lead levels vary greatly even with
corrosion control treatment in place.
The other State that did not favor the
alternative suggested that EPA offer
States discretion to allow the alternative
of sampling 100 percent of taps. EPA
agrees with the State and has made
changes in this rule to reflect this
suggestion. Because the alternative is
not mandatory, those States which do
not agree with the provision are not
required to allow water systems to
utilize the alternative sampling
schedule.
In their comments, a few States
indicated that small systems with fewer
than 5 taps are "primarily" NTNCWSs,
thus indicating that some are CWSs. The
commenters who supported this
approach did not provide any reason for
limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact,
the reasons for supporting the
alternative would apply equally well to
any small system with fewer than 5
taps. As a result, States can approve the
alternative monitoring for both CWSs
and NTNCWSs with fewer than five
taps. In expanding this alternative
monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes
that this is only allowed for systems
such as washeterias in Alaska and
Navajo hauling points, where there are
physically fewer than five taps within
the system. Small CWSs with more than
five taps cannot use this alternative
monitoring to take fewer than the
required number of samples pursuant to
the table in §141.86(c).
B. Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is making a number of
clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and
monitoring periods begin and end. In
addition, the Agency is also clarifying
the timing of actions following a lead or
copper action level exceedance and the
timing of monitoring activities with
regard to reduced monitoring schedules.
EPA is clarifying that the term
"compliance period" is a three-year
calendar year period within a nine-year
compliance cycle, which is consistent
with the definition in § 141.2. EPA is
also defining the term "monitoring
period" as the specific time period
during which a water system must
perform the required monitoring (e.g.,
June-September).
In this case and consistent with these
definitions, systems will be deemed to
be exceeding the action level as of the
date on which the monitoring period
ended (i.e., on September 30). EPA is
modifying several sections of the LCR
that describe the timing of actions after
an action level exceedance, including
corrosion control treatment steps in
§ 141.81(e), source water monitoring
and treatment recommendations to the
State in § 141.83(a), lead service line
replacement in § 141.84(b)(l), public
education for community water systems
in § 141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient
non-community water systems in
§ 141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring
requirements in § 141.88(b) and (d), and
the reporting requirements in
§141.90(a)and (e).
Also, for systems on reduced
monitoring, the monitoring period is
from June to September or some other
consecutive four-month period during
normal operation when the highest lead
levels are most likely to occur. EPA has
modified the reduced monitoring
provisions in § 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to
reflect this requirement. In addition, the
Agency is clarifying when a system may
begin reduced monitoring in
§ 141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as
when a system on reduced monitoring
must resume standard monitoring
according to § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In
addition, the timing for water quality
parameter monitoring is now more
clearly defined in § 141.87(d) and (e).
Lastly, systems on triennial
monitoring must conduct their
monitoring during a four-month
consecutive period every three years
and are therefore not allowed to monitor
during Year 1 of the first compliance
period and during Year 3 of the second
compliance period. The Agency is
modifying the reduced monitoring
provisions for lead and copper sampling
in § 141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality
parameter sampling in §141.87(e)(2)(ii),
and for triennial source water
monitoring in § 141.88(d)(l)(i). EPA is
making a similar change for small
systems with monitoring waivers to
ensure that they monitor every nine
years, which modifies §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i)
and 141.88(e).
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57787
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Compliance and Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?
EPA is making revisions regarding
monitoring and compliance periods in
order to clarify the meaning of these
terms, to address the issues associated
with the timing of actions following a
lead or copper action level exceedance,
and to address the timing of samples
that should be taken under reduced
monitoring schedules.
Under the previous regulations, there
was uncertainty about when a system
was determined to have exceeded the
action level and the corresponding
deadlines for completing corrosion
control studies, lead service line
replacement and public education (e.g.,
end of December or the end of
September for systems monitoring June
to September). The changes made in this
final rule clarify that a system is deemed
to be exceeding the action level on the
last day of the monitoring period in
which the exceedance occurred.
The clarified timing of actions
following a lead or copper action level
exceedance is also intended to ensure
that the system and the State begin
actions to reduce exposure (e.g.,
corrosion control, public education, and
lead service line replacement) as soon as
possible. The deadlines for completing
these follow-up activities will be
calculated from the date the system is
determined to be exceeding the action
level (i.e., end of the monitoring period),
with some discretion for States to
extend the deadline for completing
public education activities on a case-by-
case basis.
The timing of samples that should be
taken for systems on reduced
monitoring schedules ensures that
States and systems have an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of
corrosion control. This relates to both
the duration and frequency of
monitoring. Under tbis requirement,
samples must be taken during four
consecutive months. For most systems,
this will mean monitoring during June
to September during one of the three
years in the three-year compliance
period. For systems where the State has
approved some other 4-month period,
all samples must be taken during that 4-
month period. Sampling during a short,
fixed time period will allow the system
to more accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the corrosion control
treatment than will collecting the same
number of samples over a 3-year period.
In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring are also not allowed to
monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of
the second compliance period because
that would allow five years to pass
between monitoring rounds. Similarly,
systems on nine-year monitoring
waivers are not allowed to monitor
during Year 1 of the first nine-year
period and Year 9 of the second nine-
year period.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Compliance and
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Most commenters agreed with the
definitions of monitoring and
compliance periods in tbe proposed
revisions, but some had implementation
concerns. Two commenters agreed that
four months is reasonable for
monitoring activities, including
distribution, collection, and initiation of
lab processing. However, several
expressed concern that the clock for
compliance actions should not start
until compliance has been determined
after the end of the monitoring period or
that States should be given flexibility to
alter compliance action schedules. In
response to these commenters, EPA is
modifying § 141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow
States flexibility in extending the
timeframe on a case-by-case basis to
complete public education activities
after an action level exceedance.
However, systems must start these
activities and States must approve in
writing any deadline extension within
60 days of the end of the monitoring
period in which the exceedance
occurred. This ensures that the system
and the State begin public education
actions to reduce exposure as soon as
possible, but allows these actions to
continue past the 60-day timeframe as
needed for effective implementation.
States should still make every effort to
get public water systems to complete
their public education activities within
60 days after the end of the monitoring
period.
In addition, one commenter indicated
that under the current version of the
LCR, small and medium systems
exceeding the action level must perform
water quality parameter monitoring
within the same monitoring period. The
commenter then stated that the systems
may not obtain their sample results and
identify that they have exceeded the
action level until after the monitoring
period has ended. As a result, this
requirement effectively sets systems up
for water quality parameter monitoring
violations. In the 1991 LCR, EPA
recognized that many factors influence
water corrosivity and because of this,
decided to require small and medium
water systems detecting lead and/or
copper above the action levels to
measure for water quality parameters
(56 FR 26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA,
1991a). However, EPA recognizes that
under the monitoring period
clarifications made in this final rule,
systems on reduced monitoring that
exceed the action level will most likely
not be taking water quality parameters
and would have automatically incurred
a violation based on the requirement in
§ 141.87(d). The end of the 6-month
period in which small and medium
water systems must sample for water
quality parameters would have
corresponded to the end of the 4-month
monitoring period in which they must
sample for lead and copper under
§ 141.86(d)(4). For example, a system
that takes lead and copper tap samples
between June and September and
exceeds the action level, would only
have until the end of September to take
all of their water quality parameters.
The system would most likely not be
aware of the exceedance until the end
or after the end of the monitoring period
and would incur a violation for not
having already completed water quality
parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is
revising the requirement in § 141.87(d)
to require the start of the 6-month
period in which the system must take
water quality parameters to correspond
with the start of the 4-month monitoring
period in which they must sample for
lead and copper under § 141.86(d)(4).
This revision will allow small and
medium systems on reduced monitoring
that exceed the action level two months
to take water quality parameter samples
after the end of the 4-month monitoring
period in which they had to take lead
and copper tap samples. For example, a
system that takes lead and copper tap
samples between June and September
and exceeds the action level, would
have until the end of November to take
water quality parameter samples. This
provision is intended primarily for
systems that are not aware of the
exceedance until the end of the lead and
copper monitoring period. Those
systems that are aware of the action
level exceedance earlier in the 4-month
lead and copper monitoring period
should conduct their monitoring once
they become aware of the exceedance to
better capture the water quality
conditions at the time of the
exceedance.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is no longer allowing water
systems that exceed the lead action level
to initiate or remain on a reduced lead
and copper monitoring schedule based
solely on the results of their water
-------
57788 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
quality parameter monitoring. This
change modifies the reduced monitoring
provisions in § 141.86(d)(4), specifically
subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv). These
sections discuss when small and large
water systems may reduce the required
number of lead and copper samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of
§141.86.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Reduced Monitoring Revisions?
EPA is making this change because
the Agency believes that reduced
monitoring should only be permitted
where it has been demonstrated that
corrosion control treatment is both
effective and reliable. Compliance with
water quality parameters alone may not
always indicate that corrosion control is
effective.
Monitoring lead levels is particularly
critical for systems that are exceeding
the lead action level for several reasons.
First, it will assist systems in evaluating
the effectiveness of corrosion control
treatment. The rule previously allowed
systems eligibility for reduced
monitoring even if they exceeded the
lead or copper action level if they could
demonstrate their corrosion control
treatment was effective by meeting the
State-designated water quality
parameters. However, as shown by the
events in the District of Columbia and
as stated above, compliance with water
quality parameters alone may not
always indicate that corrosion control is
effective, especially after a treatment or
source change. Continued exceedance of
the lead action level may indicate that
a particular method of corrosion control
treatment is not effective for a particular
system and knowledge of this continued
exceedance may result in the system
implementing an alternative and more
effective corrosion control treatment
strategy. In addition, a system must
know if it continues to exceed the lead
action level after installing corrosion
control treatment in order to determine
how long its lead service line
replacement requirements remain in
effect. Continued understanding of the
range of lead levels detected within the
system can also help the system
implement an effective public education
program.
Second, continued monitoring will
allow primacy agencies to gain a more
accurate picture of lead levels in
drinking water in their States. Many
systems within States share water
sources, have similar treatment
technologies, and have similar materials
in their distribution systems. States and
other primacy agencies with knowledge
of effective corrosion control for one
system may be able to aid other systems
within their jurisdiction in lowering
lead levels in water. Having a more
accurate characterization of lead levels
in drinking water that is exceeding the
action level will allow States and
systems to better inform consumers and,
thereby, create greater confidence in
their efforts to reduce lead levels.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By
Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
The majority of commenters agreed
with EPA that a system must remain
under the action level to continue
operating on reduced monitoring. States
and others supported the current
requirement to allow systems that
exceed the copper action level to
continue on reduced monitoring if water
quality parameters are met. Therefore,
the Agency is not making any changes
that differ from the proposal with regard
to this provision.
Some commenters did feel that
systems that exceed the copper "action
level should not be allowed to reduce
their monitoring requirements. As stated
in the proposal, EPA did consider
requiring that all systems meet both the
lead and the copper action levels as
criteria for eligibility for reduced
monitoring. However, the Agency
determined that copper issues should be
considered as part of longer term
revisions to the rule. EPA also believes
that adding the copper action level
requirement could impose a large
monitoring increase on some small and
medium systems that are currently
limited in their ability to reduce copper
below the action level due to their
source water (e.g., high alkalinity
ground waters). For these systems, the
States currently have flexibility in the
existing rule to limit systems from
proceeding to reduced lead and copper
tap monitoring. Under
§§141.86(d)(4)(ii) and 141.86(d)(4)(iii),
a State may review and revise its
determination to allow a system to
proceed with reduced monitoring when
the system submits new monitoring or
treatment data, or when other data
relevant to the number and frequency of
tap sampling becomes available.
Therefore, the Agency is not requiring
that systems that meet the lead action
level and water quality parameter
requirements must also meet the copper
action level to be eligible for reduced
lead and copper monitoring.
Other commenters stated that systems
which make treatment changes or add
new sources of water should also be
required to monitor for lead and copper
for two consecutive 6-month periods.
Currently, § 141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides
States authority to require systems that
either add a new source of water or
change any water treatment to resume
standard monitoring. In addition,
§§141.81(b)(3)(iii) and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)
allows the State to require any system
adding a new source of water or
changing any water treatment to
conduct additional monitoring. EPA is
not changing these requirements as part
of this rule. EPA believes States should
continue to have the flexibility to
require systems to resume standard
monitoring after making a treatment
change or adding a new source of water
that could impact corrosion control.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirement for Water Systems That
Intend To Make Any Long-term Change
in Water Treatment or Add a New
Source of Water
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
This final rule amends
§§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii),
141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to
require water systems to obtain prior
approval by the State to add a new
source of water or make any long-term
change in water treatment process prior
to implementation. The final regulatory
language allows as much time as needed
for water systems and States to consult
before making these changes. To assist
the State in making its determinations,
EPA published a March 2007
Simultaneous Compliance Guidance
Manual for the Long Term 2 and Stage
2 DBF Rules (US EPA, 2007b). This
document will be an aid to the State in
identifying those situations where
optimal corrosion control can be
affected by long-term changes in
treatment or source water.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for
Advanced Notification and Approval of
Long-Term Treatment Changes or
Addition of New Source Revisions?
Previously, the rule required that
systems notify the State within 60 days
of making a change in treatment or
adding a new source. EPA proposed that
systems be required to provide advance
notification of any change in treatment
or addition of a new source and receive
approval from the State prior to making
the change. The final rule requires
systems to provide advanced
notification of any long-term change in
treatment or addition of a new source
and receive approval from the State
before implementing the change. When
a water system makes long-term changes
to its treatment process or adds a new
source of water, it can unintentionally
affect the system's optimal corrosion
control. EPA believes that State review
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57789
and approval of changes in long-term
treatment or addition of a new source
will provide an opportunity to minimize
any potential impacts on optimal
corrosion control.
For this final rule, EPA has clarified
the intent of this provision by stating
that it applies to long-term changes in
treatment. Examples of long-term
treatment changes include the addition
of a new treatment process or
modification of an existing treatment
process. Examples of modifications
include switching secondary
disinfectants (e.g., chlorine to
chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g.,
alum to ferric chloride), and switching
corrosion inhibitor products (e.g.,
orthophosphate to blended phosphate).
Long-term changes can include dose
changes to existing chemicals if the
system is planning long-term changes to
its finished water pH or residual
inhibitor concentration. Long-term
treatment changes would not include
chemical dose fluctuations associated
with daily raw water quality changes.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Advance
Notification and Approval of Long-Term
Treatment Changes or Addition of New
Source Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
Many commenters supported the
concept of advance notification and
approval of treatment changes that
could affect optimal corrosion control,
but were concerned that the rule
language as proposed was too broad and
could include daily operational
changes. Commenters were concerned
that review and approval of daily
changes that are dictated by the raw
water quality could not be done in a
timely manner and could be detrimental
to public health if they were covered by
the advance notification and approval
requirement. It was not EPA's intention
to include these daily operational
activities. In response, EPA has revised
the final rule to require advance
notification and State approval of long-
term treatment changes or addition of
new source. Daily dose fluctuations due
to changes in raw water quality would
not be considered a long-term treatment
change and would not require advance
notification and State approval.
EPA requested comment on whether
it should revise the existing rule
language on "addition of new source" to
"source change," but did not propose to
make this change. Many commenters
stated that revising the rule to cover any
source change would be too prescriptive
and that this could also include daily
changes. Source changes occur on a
daily basis due to changes in demand
and commenters expressed concern that
State review and approval of these
changes could not be done in a timely
manner and therefore could be
detrimental to public health. EPA has
retained the language of "addition of
new source" in the final rule rather than
use the term "source change." EPA
believes that it would be difficult to
define a long-term source change
because the source mixture can
constantly change due to demand or
changes in availability of sources. EPA
discussed several scenarios in the
proposed rule, including switching from
100% surface water to 100% ground
water, switching from 100% surface
water to 50% ground water and 50%
surface water, and a change in
proportion of moving from 75% ground
water and 25% surface water to 25%
ground water and 75% surface water.
EPA believes that the existing language
"addition of new source" covers the
first two scenarios. Notification and
approval would not be necessary if the
switch is repeated on an annual basis.
The optimal corrosion control
treatment for systems with mixed
sources (ground water and surface
water) should consider the impact of
changing the proportions. Section
141.87(a)(l)(i) states that the tap
samples shall be representative of water
quality throughout the distribution
system taking into account the number
of persons, the different sources of
water, the different treatment methods
employed by the system, and seasonal
variability. Both water source and water
treatment methods can produce
different finished water pH values or
other critical water quality parameters.
For example, if the finished water pH
values from both the surface sources
and ground water sources are very
similar, then this can mitigate the
impact of changing the proportions of
the various sources. Systems with
waters that have different finished pH
values should consider monitoring at
the representative sites in the
distribution system after making a major
change in the proportions of the sources
(75% ground water to 25% ground
water). EPA will provide guidance to
help systems identify source water
changes (such as changing the mixture)
that could impact optimal corrosion
control.
Some commenters stated that State
approval of the treatment change or
addition of a new source is not
necessary and would delay changes
needed by the system. EPA disagrees
with these commenters. EPA believes
that clarifying the revision to focus on
long-term treatment changes will
address concerns that this requirement
would affect a system's ability to
address daily water quality treatment
changes. State notification and approval
of long-term treatment changes is
important because these changes could
adversely impact optimal corrosion
control. As EPA noted in the proposed
rule, this approach allows the State to
evaluate the change prior to
implementation and, if needed, to
design a monitoring program to ensure
that optimal corrosion control is
maintained after the change. EPA
expects that States will review and
approve long-term treatment changes
and additions of new sources
expeditiously and will avoid
unnecessary delays to long-term
changes that are needed by the system.
E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
I. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is amending the public education
requirements described in § 141.80(g)
and is adding a new notification
requirement to § 141.85(d) that will
require water systems to provide
consumers who occupy homes or
buildings that are part of the utility's
monitoring program with the testing
results when their drinking water is
tested for lead. EPA is also adding a
reporting requirement to § 141.90(f) for
systems to certify they have completed
this new consumer notification
requirement.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results Revisions?
Although some utilities may have
provided customers with the results of
analyses conducted to meet
requirements of the regulations, utilities
were not previously required by EPA to
notify occupants of the lead levels
found in their drinking water. While
samples are primarily collected to
evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion
control or to evaluate the corrosivity of
the utility's water across the entire
service area, the results of lead
monitoring can provide useful
information to the occupants of the
household from which the samples were
taken. Occupants can evaluate the
results of lead tests for their drinking
water and use that information to
inform any decisions they might make
to take action to reduce their exposure
to lead in drinking water.
-------
57790 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Consumer Notice of
Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
EPA received a range of comments
regarding the inclusion of the maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the
action level for lead, along with the
definitions for these two terms from
§ 141.153(c) in the consumer notice of
lead tap results. Some commenters
stated that listing the MCLG was
unnecessary and would be confusing.
However, other commenters expressed
that it was appropriate to include the
MCLG and many commenters stated
that there should be some reference to
the action level. Some of these
commenters stated that the consumer
notice should just indicate whether the
result was above or below the action
level, while others stated that there
should be an acknowledgment that the
action level is not health-based. Still
others wanted EPA to provide a level of
lead that is a health concern along with
information on how to interpret results.
EPA disagrees that the MCLG is
unnecessary and would cause
confusion, since the definition of the
term in § 141.153(c)(l) clearly states that
it is the level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health,
allowing for a margin of safety. In 1991,
EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based
on the following considerations: (1) The
occurrence of a variety of low level
health effects for which it is difficult to
identify clear threshold exposure levels
below which there are no risks of
adverse health effects; (2) the Agency's
policy goal that drinking water should
contribute minimal lead to total lead
exposures because a portion of the
sensitive population already exceeds
acceptable blood lead levels; and (3) the
classification of lead as a probably
human carcinogen (56 FR 26460 at
26467, U.S. EPA 1991a). EPA believes
that individuals who have their homes
tested for lead should be aware of the
levels below which there is no known
or expected risk to health and should
have the knowledge that there are steps
they can take to further reduce
exposure. Therefore, this final rule
includes the provision to include the
MCLG along with its definition from
EPA agrees that there should be a
reference to the lead action level, since
this is the level at which systems are
required to take actions (e.g., public
education, corrosion control treatment,
lead service line replacement). This rule
includes a requirement to include the
term "action level" and its definition
from § 141.153(c)(3). EPA is not
requiring that systems include an
explicit sentence that the level is not
health based, but notes that this rule
does not preclude a system from adding
such a statement to the notice.
In response to providing a level of
lead that is a health concern, EPA
believes the current MCLG is the best
estimate below which there is no known
or expected risk to health from lead in
drinking water. EPA is currently
working toward better defining the
correlation between drinking water lead
levels and adverse health effects. With
regard to how to interpret results, EPA
believes that including the required
information in the consumer notice
allows consumers to make informed
decisions regarding their lead levels and
provides actions they might take to
reduce their lead exposure.
In addition, some commenters
expressed confusion about who would
receive the result where testing occurred
in buildings with many units, such as
apartment buildings. Many of these
commenters cited landlord-tenant issues
that may arise by sending results to all
residents. EPA's intent in the proposal
was that the sample results go to the
individual residence where the sample
was taken and this final revision
clarifies the intent was not to extend
notification of the result from one unit
to all units in a building.
A number of commenters were
concerned with the burden on non-
transient non-community water systems
which, they presumed, would have to
notify all users of a facility. It was not
EPA's intent to have these systems
notify all of their users of the results of
testing, but to have them post results in
a public place under an alternative
mechanism. In order to clarify this
intent, EPA has added language to
§ 141.85(d)(4) that provides an example
of an alternative mechanism as follows:
"For example, upon approval by the
State, a non-transient non-community
water system could post the results on
a bulletin board in the facility to allow
users to review the information."
Some states were concerned about the
burden associated with tracking and
enforcement of this requirement. In
response, EPA is requiring in this final
rule that systems certify to the State that
notification was sent consistent with the
requirements in § 141.85(d), as part of
the reporting requirements for public
education in § 141.90(1].
Lastly, one commenter stated that the
consumer notice requirement needed its
own unique citation, because citing it
under § 141.85 implied that it only
applied to the public education
activities triggered by a lead action level
exceedance. The proposed revisions did
contain a reference to the consumer
notice requirements in § 141.80, which
stated that all water systems must
provide a consumer notice to persons
served at the sites that are tested. In
addition, there is a similar statement in
§ 141.85. In order to clarify that all
systems must complete this
requirement, EPA reordered the
sentences in § 141.80 and § 141.85 to
state the consumer notification
requirements up front. The Agency feels
that this adequately clarifies that all
systems must provide notification of tap
results to consumers at sites that are
tested.
F. Public Education Requirements
EPA is changing the public education
requirements of the Lead and Copper
Rule in § 141.85. Water systems are still
required to deliver public education
materials after a lead action level
exceedance. However, EPA is making
significant modifications to the content
of the written public education
materials (message content) and adding
a new set of delivery requirements. EPA
is also making revisions to § 141.154
that will require all community water
systems (CWSs) to include an
educational statement about lead in
their Consumer Confidence Reports.
1. Message Content
a. How Is EPA Revising the Message
Content?
EPA is changing the required content
of the message provided to consumers
after a lead action level exceedance by
shortening and simplifying the
mandatory language. Previously,
§ 141.85 required written materials to
include mandatory language consisting
of over 1,800 words describing health
effects, levels of lead in drinking water,
steps to reduce exposure, and how to
obtain additional information. In this
revision, the mandatory language will
consist of an opening statement, health
effects language and sources of further
information. The health effects language
has been revised to provide greater
specificity on the health problems that
can result from exposure to lead (e.g.,
the original health effects language
indicated that lead can cause damage to
the brain, while the new language
specifies that this damage is associated
with lower IQ in children). Although
the new language includes mandatory
language related to health effects, water
systems will have the flexibility to tailor
some of the topics of the public
education message, as mentioned above,
to fit their community and situation. For
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57791
example, previous public education
language required water systems to
instruct consumers to flush their faucet
for 15-30 seconds or one minute (if the
home has a lead service line) before
drinking the water. This rule allows
systems to tailor flushing directions to
their specific situations. Water systems
will have to submit the public education
materials to the State for review and
approval prior to the delivery to
consumers. However, the State has the
flexibility to not require this approval.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Message Content Revisions?
During EPA's national review of the
LCR, many stakeholders stated that the
public education requirements needed
improvement. At the 2004 EPA Public
Education Expert workshop, a number
of concerns were raised about the
effectiveness of the existing public
education language and requirements.
Workshop participants stated that the
mandatory language in the rule was too
long, cumbersome, and complex. EPA is
revising the public education
requirements to ensure that the
delivered information is meaningful and
useful to consumers. In addition, by
simplifying the language, EPA hopes
that systems can more effectively
convey steps to their customers that
they can take to reduce their exposure
to lead in drinking water.
EPA also identified compliance as an
issue in its review of LCR
implementation. Because many water
utilities did not conduct the required
public education, at-risk populations
did not get information they needed to
reduce their exposure from lead in
drinking water (71 FR 40828 at 40835,
U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is revising the
public education requirements of the
LCR in an effort to improve compliance
by simplifying the mandatory language
and to reduce potential adverse health
effects by ensuring that consumers,
specifically at-risk populations, receive
the information they need in a timely
manner to limit their exposure to lead
in drinking water.
With some modifications, EPA has
included the public education language
developed by the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NOWAC) in
this rule as a replacement of the existing
public education requirements of the
LCR. The revised public education
information is more clear and concise
and also encourages the public to take
an appropriate course of action to
reduce their exposure to lead. The
health effects language section was
revised by EPA to improve consumer
awareness and understanding of
potential effects of exposure to lead.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Message Content
Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
While most of the commenters
supported the proposed flexibility in the
development of public education
materials, one suggested that EPA
provide a template for small and
medium-sized systems that may lack the
expertise to draft the public education
materials. EPA is in the process of
developing guidance that will include
templates for the public education
materials. Generally, commenters did
support shortening the mandatory
language. While some commenters
believed that the revised language is
clearer and easier to understand, most
commenters did not like the
recommended health effects language,
stating that it was too alarming and
complex. A few commenters preferred
the existing health effects language to
what EPA proposed. EPA believes the
language should convey the need for
consumers to pay attention to the
message and understand the risks of
exposure. In addition, the new health
effects language is more specific about
the health effects of greatest concern
than was the prior language. However,
EPA agrees that the complexity of the
proposed mandatory health effects
language would limit its utility in
conveying to the general public an
understanding of the risk posed by lead
in drinking water and an appropriate
course of action. Therefore, the Agency
revised the health effects statement in
this final rule to simplify the language
to a reading level that is appropriate for
the general publicwhile retaining its
specificity regarding the health effects of
greatest concern.
Some commenters believed that the
health effects language should promote
awareness of the potential effects of lead
in drinking water and put them in
context with respect to other sources of
lead in the environment. EPA believes
exposure of humans to lead from any
source is a reason for concern and has
added the following statement to the
mandatory health effects language:
"Lead can cause serious health
problems if too much enters your body
from drinking water or other sources."
In addition, this rule contains a
provision in § 141.85{a)(iii) that
provides for an explanation of other
important sources of lead exposure in
the public education message.
A few commenters believed that EPA
should provide scientific support for the
statements about health effects in the
revision to substantiate the changes to
the health effects language. EPA's most
recent comprehensive analysis of lead
health effects may be found in the final
document, Air Quality Criteria for Lead
(US EPA, 2006b), which provides a
thorough discussion of lead health
effects and includes citations for the
studies that support the statements
made in the public education language
in this rule.
Some commenters wanted the public
education materials to explain that a
90th percentile result above the action
level does not mean all customers are
exposed to water above the action level.
EPA did not include any additional
mandatory language to this effect in the
revision, but believes that there is
enough flexibility for a water system to
include this type of language if they
believe it is important.
Most commenters thought it would be
a burden to require States to approve
water systems' public education
materials before distribution. EPA
recognizes that distribution of public
education materials following an action
level exceedance should not be delayed
if States cannot review materials in an
expedient manner. Therefore, this rule
allows States to determine if they will
require State approval of a water
system's public education materials
before distribution.
EPA requested comment on whether
there should be a mandatory
requirement to include the contact
information for the State drinking water
primacy agency. Although large systems
most likely will have a representative
who can answer customer questions
about lead in drinking water, very small
systems may not have the expertise to
answer all questions. In these cases it
may be useful to have State contact
information included in the public
education materials. Most commenters
did not support the addition of State
contact information in the public
education materials, stating this would
create a burden for the States. Some
commenters believed that the individual
States should make the decision
whether to include their State contact
information in the public education
materials. EPA has therefore not added
a mandatory requirement for State
contact information as part of the public
education content, but believes there is
enough flexibility in this final rule for
States to make the decision whether to
include it.
Two commenters suggested that,
rather than using the proposed
regulatory language with regard to
communicating with customers in their
native tongue, EPA should use the
existing language in the Public
Notification Rule (PNR),
§ 141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water
-------
57792 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers, as
determined by the State, the public
education materials must contain
information in the appropriate
language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone
number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to
obtain a translated copy of the public
education materials or to request
assistance in the appropriate language.
EPA agrees with tbis suggestion and has
changed the rule language accordingly.
2. Delivery
a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery
Requirements?
EPA is revising the delivery
requirement associated with public
education materials. EPA is requiring
water systems to deliver materials to
additional organizations (e.g., licensed
childcare facilities, obstetricians-
gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools) and to include an
informational notice with the public:
education materials explaining the
importance of sharing the information
with their customers or users. Water
systems are required to contact the local
health agency via phone or in-person,
rather than relying solely on mailing, to
request their assistance in distributing
information on lead in drinking water
and how people can reduce their
exposure to lead. Systems must contact
the local public health agency even if it
is located outside the service area of the
water system. Furthermore, the local
public health agency may provide a
water system with a specific list of
additional community-based
organizations serving target populations,
which may include organizations
outside the service area of the water
system. If such lists are provided,
systems must deliver materials to all
organizations on the provided lists.
Under the previous regulation,
systems serving less than 500 people
could limit their distribution to only
those facilities and organizations
frequented by the most vulnerable
population without approval from the
State, but systems serving 501-3,300
persons could only do so if they
received written approval from the
State. This rule allows all small systems
serving 3,300 or fewer people to limit
their distribution to only those places
frequented by the most vulnerable
populations without written approval
from the State.
EPA is also requiring water systems to
do additional outreach activities, but
offers a list of activities from which they
may choose in consultation with the
State. Systems serving more than 3,300
people are required to do three
additional public education activities
from this list, while systems serving
3,300 or fewer people must do one
additional activity. Primacy agencies
can choose to waive the mandatory
press release requirement if there are no
media outlets that specifically reach the
target population.
In addition, this rule removes the
requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two public service
announcements (PSAs), which differ
from press releases, per year. Under this
rule, all water systems must post
information on water bills (no less than
quarterly) and issue press releases
throughout the period during which the
system is exceeding the lead action
level. However, EPA did add a
provision which provides State
discretion to allow systems to deliver
the information in a separate mailing if
the informational statement cannot be
included on the water bill.
In addition, water systems will have
to distribute two press releases as
opposed to the one required by the
previous Lead and Copper Rule. Larger
systems (serving a population >100,000
persons) must also post and keep
information on their Web site until the
system tests below the action level.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Delivery Requirements Revisions?
In recognition of the importance of
distributing information to the at-risk
populations (e.g., pregnant women,
infants, and young children) on the
hazards of lead and how one can protect
themselves from exposure to lead, EPA
has added additional organizations (e.g.,
licensed childcare facilities,
obstetricians-gynecologists and
midwives, and preschools) to the list of
organizations a water system must
contact when a lead action level
exceedance occurs to ensure that the
information reaches all potential bill
paying and non-bill paying customers.
This is based on NDWAC's
recommendation.
EPA believes the informational notice
water systems must include, along with
the public education materials
explaining the importance of sharing
this information with their customers/
patients, will encourage the
organizations that receive the
information to share in the task of
promoting public awareness. EPA
recognizes that local health agencies
play an important role in ensuring that
consumers who are most vulnerable
receive critical information on how one
can reduce their exposure to lead.
Therefore, EPA is requiring water
systems to directly contact the local
health agencies via telephone or in
person.
In addition, since EPA believes that
communication with consumers is
important in promoting public
awareness, this rule requires systems to
continually communicate with
consumers as long as they continue to
exceed the lead action level. EPA
believes the additional activities
required in the rule following a lead
action level exceedance (e.g., including
information on the water bill; two
presses releases per year as opposed to
the current rule, which requires only
one per year; posting information on
systems' Web sites) will appropriately
bring the seriousness of lead exposure to
the attention of consumers.
To ensure that systems employ the
appropriate delivery mechanism and
content in terms of developing the most
effective way of reaching a system's
target population, water systems must
work in consultation with the State.
System, State and consumer
representatives on the NDWAC Working
Group all agreed that what works in one
community does not always work best
in another. In order to make the public
education as effective as possible, EPA
is giving systems some flexibility in
how they deliver their public education
materials. They are still required to
disseminate information to people
served by their system, but they have
some flexibility in how they complete
their program. For instance, a large
system in an urban area may choose to
use a public service announcement and
paid advertisements to reach
consumers, while a system in a rural
area may find the best way to reach
customers is through displaying
information in frequently visited public
areas or conducting public meetings.
Realizing that small systems may have
difficulty in completing these
requirements, EPA offers States the
option to waive the press release
requirement if there are no media
outlets that target the population served
by the system. Furthermore, small
systems (serving 3,300 or less people)
may limit their distribution to those
places frequented by the most
vulnerable populations without written
approval from the State. EPA recognizes
that small systems are typically aware of
the constituents in their community and
often have the capability to target
specific populations through personal
relationships. By removing the
requirement to obtain State approval,
this provision allows these systems to
send public education materials to their
vulnerable populations as soon as
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57793
possible and reduces burden on both the
system and the State.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
Many commenters expressed concern
that it would be an implementation
burden to deliver public education
materials and maintain relationships
with the new organizations (e.g.,
licensed child care facilities,
obstetricians-gynecologists and
midwives, and preschools). Some
commenters believed that water systems
should rely on local health departments
to provide contact information for the
new organizations. As stated in the
proposal, EPA believes that the local
health agencies play an important role
in making sure consumers who are most
vulnerable receive the information they
need to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water. However, EPA cannot
mandate that health departments
generate and provide contact
information for the new organizations
and is not assuming that local health
agencies will have the contact
information for these organizations
readily available in all cases. As
discussed below, this rule has
provisions for systems to request that
the local health department provide lists
of the additional organizations that may
or may not only be those within the
water system's service area, or the
system must make a good faith effort by
other means to contact those
organizations within their service area.
Some commenters expressed concerns
with EPA's proposed regulatory
language, which indicated that water
systems should make a good faith effort
to contact all customers who are most at
risk by delivering materials to specified
organizations. The commenters stated
that "good faith effort" was too open-
ended and difficult to enforce. EPA
employed the terminology "good faith
effort" to cover the unforeseen
situations outside of the water system's
control when they would not be able to
deliver public education materials to
organizations (e.g., non-cooperative
organization, a new obstetrician-
gynecologist office opening up after or
right before public education materials
are distributed by the water system, and
no contact information is available) and
allows States the flexibility to address
the public education challenges a water
system might face. Some commenters
stated that requiring water systems to
contact their local health agencies and
rely on them to provide contact
information for the new organizations
would constitute a good faith effort.
EPA believes this may be considered a
good faith effort but suggests that a
water system attempt to find contact
information for these organizations by
some other means if the local public
health agency cannot provide the
information.
Some commenters indicated that
contacting the new organizations should
be in guidance and not a requirement.
EPA disagrees. It is important to alert
the at-risk populations of how to reduce
their exposure to lead. EPA believes the
addition of the new organizations to the
public education requirements
accomplishes two goals: (1) It increases
the likelihood that information reaches
the most vulnerable populations (i.e.,
pregnant women, infants and young
children) or their caregivers; and (2) It
ensures that critical information reaches
not only bill paying customers, but also
non-bill paying consumers. The non-bill
paying consumers may be contacted
through these organizations if the
organizations are provided with the
necessary information and encouraged
to share the task of improving public
awareness.
Some commenters stated that
requiring distribution of material
outside of the water system's service
area is a burden for the water systems
as well as being inconsistent with other
drinking water rules. However, EPA
believes that if the local public health
agency can identify organizations that
potentially serve target populations,
then a water system should deliver
public education materials to this
organization even if it is not within the
water system's service area. EPA
believes there could also be instances
where an individual does not reside
within the system's service area but is
served by the water system in another
capacity (e.g., a child lives in another
county but spends a large part of their
day at a child care facility that is served
by a water system with a lead action
level exceedance).
Some commenters were concerned
that States do not have the means to
oversee or verify that systems are
fulfilling the requirement to contact the
new organizations. Systems that are
subject to public education
requirements are required as part of
§ 141.90(f) of this rule to send written
documentation to the State that includes
a demonstration that the system has
delivered the public education materials
that meet content requirements of
§ 141.85(a) and the delivery
requirements in § 141.85(b). EPA
believes that systems may provide a
copy of the contact lists to the State as
part of this requirement.
EPA also proposed that systems
include a cover letter with the printed
materials that they send to organizations
to explain the importance of sharing this
information with their customers/
patients. Some commenters were
concerned that this was too prescriptive.
Other commenters suggested that the
Agency create a template. EPA has
revised this requirement to require that
systems include an informational notice
instead of a cover letter, since this will
give systems flexibility in the exact
format. In addition, EPA will provide
templates as part of separate guidance.
Some States commented that the
proposed new requirements were
excessive, especially as compared to
other rules. However, some commenters
supported the requirement that water
systems have to conduct the additional
activities and believed that the
flexibility in the selection of the public
education delivery activities would
enhance the effectiveness of
communication with the public. EPA
disagrees with commenters who believe
the requirements are excessive; EPA
believes these changes better ensure that
at-risk populations receive information
to enable them to act to reduce their
exposure. In addition, the new
requirements are based on
recommendations from NOW AC, which
are modeled after the public education
requirements in two existing EPA rules:
The Consumer Confidence Report Rule
(63 FR 44526, August 19, 1998, U.S.
EPA, 1998) and the Public Notification
Rule (65 FR 25982, May 4, 2000, U.S.
EPA, 2000c).
Commenters supported the revision
that provides small water systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) the
authority to limit their public education
distribution to the organizations and
places frequented by the most
vulnerable populations without State
approval. Commenters also supported
the provision that would allow States to
waive the press release requirement for
a small system if there were no media
outlets that would reach the target
population.
Many commenters thought there were
logistical challenges with including an
informational statement in water bills
when a lead action level exceedance
occurs. Some systems do not have the
ability to add any information to their
water bill especially where they bill
using a postcard. Accordingly, EPA
added a provision to this final rule
which provides State discretion to allow
systems to deliver the information in a
separate mailing if the informational
statement cannot be included on the
water bill. Some commenters indicated
that many systems do not bill monthly,
-------
57794 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
so those consumers will not receive the
same degree of notification as customers
of systems that do bill monthly. In
response, EPA has added text to the
provision to indicate that when systems
notify customers via their water bill,
they must do so no less than quarterly.
While some customers might receive
more notification, EPA believes that no
less than quarterly is the maximum time
a water system should allow to elapse
between notifications during a lead
action level exceedance to ensure that
the issue still holds customers'
attention.
3. Timing
a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing
Provisions of the Rule?
EPA is requiring that water systems
that exceed the lead action level
conduct public education within 60
days after the end of the monitoring
period in which the exceedance
occurred. However, as mentioned in
section III.B of this notice, States may
extend the timeframe to complete the
public education activities as long as a
water system has started the public
education activities within the 60-day
period.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for
Revising the Timing Provisions of the
Rule?
NDWAC was concerned about the lag
time between testing water samples,
receiving the results, calculating the
90th percentile, and finally sending out
public education materials. They were
concerned that an individual,
particularly an infant or child, could be
drinking water with high lead levels for
months before the individual or
caretaker knows of the problem. As a
result, they recommended changes to
increase the timeliness of public
education on lead in drinking water.
The NDWAC recommendations are, in
part, modeled after the public education
information under two existing EPA
rules, the Consumer Confidence Report
Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O) and the
Public Notification Rule (40 CFR 141,
Subpart QJ. The NDWAC
recommendations form the basis for the
changes to § 141.85 in this final rule.
While the revision requires systems to
complete public education activities
within 60 days of the end of the
monitoring period in which the
exceedance occurred, there is flexibility
for the State to allow additional time for
completion of these activities. However,
systems must receive State approval
within the 60-day window for an
extension. This ensures that the system
and the State begin public education
actions to reduce exposure as soon as
possible, but allows these actions to
continue past the 60-day timeframe on
a case-by-case basis as needed for
effective implementation.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Timing Provisions
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Commenters indicated that the 60-day
timeframe for a system to complete
public education requirements was
sufficient for most but not all systems.
In response, EPA has added a provision
to the final rule providing that the State
may extend the 60-day window under
certain conditions. However, EPA
believes that systems should make every
effort to complete their public education
activities within 60 days after the end of
the monitoring period.
4. Consumer Confidence Reports
a. How Is EPA Revising CCR
Requirements?
EPA is revising requirements of the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Rule. Previously, all community water
systems (CWSs) that detected lead above
the action level in more than five
percent of the homes sampled and up to
and including 10 percent of homes, had
to include an informational statement in
their CCR about lead in drinking water.
EPA is now requiring that all CWSs
include an informational statement
about lead in their CCRs. In addition,
the proposed CCR language that referred
to "home plumbing" as the source of
high lead levels has been broadened to
include service lines, and the National
Lead Information Center phone number
has been replaced with the phone
number for the EPA Safe Drinking Water
Hotline.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR
Revisions?
EPA believes that exposure to lead
can be a localized phenomenon and has
revised the rule based on concerns that
exposure to lead may be taking place,
even though the action level is not
exceeded; consumers, therefore,
currently may not receive sufficient
information on how to reduce their
exposure to lead. Furthermore, in the
situation where there has been a lead
action level exceedance, NDWAC
expressed concern that public education
materials may not be delivered
immediately; therefore, vulnerable
populations may drink water with high
levels of lead for months before
knowing of the risk.
Under the previous regulations and as
stated above, all water systems which
detect lead above the action level in
more than 5 percent of the homes
sampled had to include a short
informational notice about lead in their
CCR. EPA is now requiring that all
community water systems provide
information in their CCRs on lead in
drinking water regardless if a system did
or did not detect lead. This short
statement will be educational in nature
and help to ensure that all vulnerable
populations or their caregivers receive
information (at least once a year) on
how to reduce their risk to lead in
drinking water. In this revision, EPA is
incorporating NDWAC's recommended
changes to the informational notice,
which would serve to clarify the risk of
lead in drinking water, including basic
steps on how to reduce exposure to lead
in drinking water and where to go for
more information. Additionally,
requiring all systems to have one
statement simplifies compliance with
this provision of the rule for the systems
and the States. The new language is
intended to help consumers understand
the health effects associated with lead,
that lead levels can vary from home to
home, that they can take steps to reduce
their exposure, and where to get more
information.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the CCR Requirements
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Most of the comments that EPA
received were directed towards the
proposed detection limit threshold for
requiring statements about lead in the
CCR. Some commenters agreed that the
method detection limit for lead of 0.001
mg/L should be used as the threshold
for the inclusion of the lead statement.
Others suggested that requiring the lead
statement should be based on the
practical quantitation limit for lead of
0.005 mg/L, a 90th percentile lead
action level exceedance, or a lead
detection in drinking water at a level
determined to have adverse health
effects. Some commenters even
suggested that no changes be made to
the CCR requirements. EPA realizes,
however, there are situations where the
most vulnerable populations may be
exposed to elevated levels of lead for
many months before or without being
notified, as can occur in the case of a
system that has elevated lead levels but
only in less than 10 percent of
compliance samples. EPA believes,
therefore, that the CCR is a good
mechanism to communicate with all
customers the health risks of lead in
drinking water in the interest of being
proactive. EPA also believes the CCR is
another opportunity to remind
customers that they share responsibility
for reducing their exposure to lead with
their water system.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and. Regulations 57795
Some commenters thought there
should be a different information
statement for water systems samples
above the lead action level than for
systems below the lead action level and
above the MDL. Other commenters were
concerned that multiple, varying notices
would unduly complicate compliance
tracking and enforcement of this
requirement. Furthermore, a large
percentage (>95%) of the water systems
would have detects above the MDL and
therefore be required to have an
informational statement in their CCR.
Because the actual level of lead
exposure for drinking water varies with
individual homes, EPA concluded that
levels detected in the system would not
necessarily reflect the risk faced by
consumers. As a result, and because of
the concern over the logistics of
compliance and tracking multiple
different lead statements in CCRs, EPA
concluded that all systems should have
a simple informational statement about
lead in their CCR, which would be
educational in nature.
Some commenters indicated that the
CCR is a good way to educate the public
about lead in drinking water. On the
other hand, some viewed the proposed
CCR requirement as redundant with the
other public education requirements
and not an effective way to reach
populations before there is a major
problem with lead in the water system.
Consistent with the NDWAC
recommendations, EPA believes that the
combination of methods for delivering
this urgent message (through public
education materials, CCR, and consumer
notice of tap water results) will provide
a more effective way to reach the
customer in a timely and appropriate
basis. Some commenters thought that
additional CCR language would pose an
undue burden on systems that are in
compliance with the LCR and that the
required text would be too alarming.
Some commenters believed that the CCR
requirement for lead was inconsistent
with the public notification regulations
for other inorganic contaminants.
However, while a water system may be
in full compliance with the LCR, a home
served by that water system may have
elevated levels of lead in their tap water.
Lead is unlike many other contaminants
in that it is primarily introduced into
drinking water as the water passes
through plumbing materials from the
distribution main into the household.
As a result, and due to the particular
concern that it is critically important to
reach vulnerable populations in a timely
manner to avoid as much lead exposure
for those populations as possible, EPA
believes a special lead notice is
appropriate.
Some commenters stated that the
proposed language on the sources of
lead required to be included in the
Consumer Confidence Report focused
too much on household plumbing
materials as the source of lead exposure
in drinking water and did not consider
the other sources of lead in the
distribution system. To address this
concern, EPA has modified the text by
adding "service lines" to more fully
characterize sources of lead in drinking
water.
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is requiring water systems to
reevaluate lead service lines classified
as "replaced through testing" if they
resume lead service line replacement
programs. This will only apply to a
system that had (1) initiated a lead
service line replacement program, then
(2) discontinued the program, and then
(3) subsequently resumed the program.
When resuming the program, this
system will have to reconsider for
replacement any lead service lines
previously deemed replaced through the
testing provisions in § 141.84{c) during
the initial program. This change adds a
subsection to the lead service line
replacement requirements in § 141.84(b)
to include provisions for systems
resuming lead service line replacement
programs. Systems will have to update
the inventory of lead service lines to
include those that were classified as
"replaced through testing." The system
will then divide the updated number of
remaining lead service lines by the
number of remaining years in the
program to determine the number of
lines that must be replaced per year
(seven percent lead service line
replacement is based on a 15-year
replacement program so, for example,
systems resuming lead service line
replacement after previously conducting
two years of replacement would divide
the remaining inventory by 13).
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Revisions?
Lead service line replacement is
intended as an additional step to reduce
lead exposure when corrosion control
treatment is unsuccessful. The provision
in § 141.84(c), which allows systems to
leave in place an individual lead service
line if the lead concentration in all
service line samples from that line is
less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L, is
intended to maximize the exposure
reduction achieved per service line
replaced by avoiding the disruption and
cost of replacing lines that are not
leaching elevated levels of lead.
However, samples taken from a lead
service line pursuant to § 141.84(c)
cannot predict future conditions of the
system or of the service line. Systems
can discontinue a lead service line
replacement program by meeting the
lead action level for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods. Therefore,
EPA is requiring these systems to
reconsider any lines previously
determined to not require replacement if
they exceed the action level again in the
future and resume the lead service line
replacement program.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Reevaluation of
Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
Commenters generally agreed that all
existing lead service lines should be
considered when resuming a lead
service line replacement program.
However, there were some commenters
who had concerns with the timing and
believed that the 15-year clock should
be reset when resuming a replacement
program. In 1991, EPA established the
maximum replacement schedule of 15
years for all systems in order to ensure
that public health is adequately
protected (56 FR 26460 at.26507-26508,
U.S. EPA, 1991a). The Agency continues
to believe that systems that are
exceeding the action level should have
no more than 15 years to replace all of
their lead service lines, as intended by
the original rule. Sites that met the test-
out provision would need to be re-
evaluated or replaced within the
remaining timeframe. This approach
provides an incentive to physically
replace the portion of the lead service
line under the control of the system.
Many lead service lines are over 70
years old and may need to be replaced
soon simply based on their age.
Some commenters also recommended
that flexibility be given to the State to
determine wben treatment or source
changes are significant enough to
require reevaluation of lead service
lines. This rule does not change the
requirements that trigger lead service
line replacement. Systems that have
installed optimal corrosion control and
that subsequently exceed the lead action
level must perform lead service line
replacement. If a system makes a
treatment or source change that does not
affect the system's optimal corrosion
control and the system continues to
comply with the LCR, then it is not
necessary for the system to perform lead
service line replacement. If a system
-------
57796 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
makes a treatment or source change that
does affect the optimal corrosion control
and the system subsequently exceeds
the lead action level, then the system
must perform lead service line
replacement. This rule does not
preclude any system currently meeting
the lead action level from optionally
replacing lead service lines.
Some commenters expressed concern
that a system could complete a 15-year
lead service line replacement program
and then meet the action level only to
re-exceed it and be triggered into lead
service line replacement. Under this
scenario, there would be no time left to
re-evaluate or replace lead service lines.
EPA has added the following provision
to address this specific situation. For
those systems that have completed a 15-
year lead service line replacement
program, the State will determine a
schedule for replacing or retesting lines
that were previously tested out under
the replacement program when the
system re-exceeds the action level.
However, once a system has been in a
lead service line replacement program
for more than five years, the system may
want to consider physically replacing
the portion of all lead service lines
under their control rather than
continuing to use the test-out provision.
Replacing the line would eliminate the
possibility of having to go back and re-
evaluate it or replace it if the action
level is re-exceeded. In addition, many
systems currently replace lead service
lines when they find them regardless of
their 90th percentile.
H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and
Copper Rule
I. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA has decided not to make any
further rule changes at this time to
address the following issues that EPA
requested comment on in section III.H
of the proposed rule (71 FR 40828 at
40839, U.S. EPA, 2006a): Plumbing
component replacement; point-of-use
(POU) and point-of-entry (POE)
treatment; site selection in areas with
water softeners and POU treatment
units; and water quality parameter
monitoring.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not
Including Any of These Other Issues in
the Final Rule Revisions?
EPA concluded that sufficient
flexibility exists under the current rule
for small systems to utilize plumbing
fixture replacement or point-of-use/
point-of-entry devices to meet the action
level and be deemed optimized under
§ 141.81(b)(l). Under the current rule,
small non-transient, non-community
water systems, where 100% of the
plumbing fixtures and components are
directly controlled by the system, may
replace them and be optimized once the
system has met the action levels for two
consecutive six-month monitoring
periods. Small water systems may also
install point-of-use (POU) devices, if
they meet the SDWA requirements for
their use, and be deemed optimized by
meeting the action levels for two
consecutive six-month monitoring
periods. In the preamble to the proposed
rule, EPA noted that where a State does
not require a corrosion control study,
systems have 24 months after an action
level is exceeded before the State
specifies optimal corrosion control
treatment (71 FR 40828 at 40840, U.S.
EPA, 2006a). The fixture replacement or
POU installation would need to be
completed within 12 months of
exceeding the action level in order to
complete two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods before the State
specifies optimal corrosion control.
Additionally, systems will still need to
recommend optimal corrosion control
treatment to the State within six months
of the action level exceedance.
Plumbing fixture replacement may not
be successful in meeting the action level
or the system may be unable to secure
participation from all sites under a POU
approach, so the system may need to
install the optimal corrosion control
treatment.
There is also additional flexibility
under the existing rule. States could
require a corrosion control study for
systems that have made progress
towards completing either a plumbing
replacement or POU approach. The
study would need to be completed
within 18 months or 30 months after the
action level exceedance. This would
provide an additional six-month
monitoring period to meet the
optimization requirement pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(l), while having the system
develop an optimal corrosion control
recommendation if the plumbing
replacement is not successful or the
POU approach cannot be implemented.
The State will designate optimal
corrosion control six months after the
completion of the corrosion control
study. When a corrosion control study
is required by the State, systems can
have up to three years after the action
level exceedance to meet the action
level for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods before they would
need to install the optimal corrosion
control specified by the State.
EPA also requested comment on two
monitoring issues. The first was
whether the Lead and Copper Rule
should be amended to allow sampling at
locations with POU/POE devices used
to remove inorganic contaminants in
exceptional cases (such as systems with
a high prevalence of water softeners),
and, if so, how high risk sites should be
identified. The second was whether the
Lead and Copper Rule should be
amended to require systems to
synchronize required water quality
parameter sampling with lead and
copper tap sampling. Due to the
complexity of the issue, EPA has
determined that rule changes on site
selection and synchronization should be
addressed as part of the broader
monitoring revisions. For the POU/POE
site selection issue, EPA notes that there
may be additional flexibility under
§ 141.86(a)(5) which states: "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." EPA
believes that the current rule provisions
and guidance on this issue are sufficient
at this time.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on These Other Issues and
EPA's Response to These Issues?
EPA received a range of comments on
the issue about whether there is enough
flexibility under the existing rule to use
plumbing replacement without
specifying it as optimal corrosion
control. Some commenters stated that
the existing timeframes are sufficient for
systems to implement plumbing
replacement and that the rule should
not be revised to call it an optimal
corrosion control treatment. Other
commenters asserted that EPA should
specify plumbing replacement as
optimal corrosion control treatment. As
noted above, EPA believes that there is
sufficient flexibility under the existing
rule for a small system to pursue a
fixture replacement strategy without
listing it as an optimal corrosion control
treatment. Because fixture replacement
may not be successful in reducing lead
below the action levels if some lead
sources remain in the plumbing system,
systems will need to prepare an optimal
corrosion control treatment
recommendation (either with or without
a corrosion control study) and be
prepared to install it if the action level
is still exceeded. EPA noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule that
plumbing fixture replacement is not a
corrosion control technique and would
not have applicable water quality
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57797
parameters that could be set by the State
if the system continued to exceed the
action level,
EPA also received a range of
comments on the issue about whether
there is enough flexibility under the
existing rule to use POU or POE without
specifying it as corrosion control. Some
commenters stated that the existing
timeframes are sufficient for systems to
implement a POU strategy and that the
rule should not be revised to call it an
optimal corrosion control treatment.
Other commenters said that EPA should
specify POU/POE as an optimal
corrosion control treatment. As noted
above, EPA believes that there is
sufficient flexibility under the current
rule for a small system to pursue a POU
strategy without listing it as an optimal
corrosion control treatment. Unless the
POU option was limited to only those
systems that control 100% of the
distribution system (as was suggested by
several commenters), the system may
not be able to secure participation from
all sites and may need to install
corrosion control. Even if EPA limited
the option to only those systems that
control 100% of the distribution system,
EPA does not believe that POU should
be listed as an optimal corrosion control
treatment. Under the existing rule, the
action levels serve as screens for
optimization, but systems can exceed
the action levels and still be in
compliance with the LCR by meeting
the optimal water quality parameters
specified by the State. Commenters who
supported POU as an optimal corrosion
control treatment did not provide any
alternatives on how to demonstrate
compliance with the treatment
technique when the action level is
exceeded. Many commenters agreed
with EPA's concern that because there
are lead-containing materials in
plumbing after POE devices, it may not
be successful in meeting the action
level. EPA does not believe that POE
should be listed as an optimal corrosion
control treatment because of these
unaddressed lead sources.
Most of the comments on the issue of
sampling sites with POU and POE
devices indicated that a rule change was
not necessary and that the prohibition
should remain in § 141.86(a)(l). EPA
agrees with those commenters and does
not plan to codify the guidance.
The final issue on which EPA
requested comment was
synchronization of water quality
parameter sampling with lead and
copper tap sampling. While many
commenters supported the scientific-
rationale for this proposed change, a
number of comments received
expressed concern over which
synchronization timeframe would be
appropriate and the feasibility of
implementing a synchronized sampling
approach. Several large systems noted
that homeowners are the ones who
collect the lead and copper tap samples
and send them back to the utility. These
commenters expressed that since the
utility does not know the exact date that
the samples will be taken by the
homeowner, synchronizing water
quality parameter and lead and copper
tap samples would be difficult to
coordinate. Some commenters noted
that current water quality parameter
sampling requirements for systems on
reduced monitoring require these
systems to take their water quality
parameter samples throughout the year
in order to capture seasonal variability.
EPA also received input that in many
States, water quality parameter
sampling for small and medium systems
is not started until after all tap samples
are collected and the determination
made that a water system does not meet
the 90th percentile action level,
consistent with the specific language of
the LCR. Due to the complexity of
issues, challenges with implementation,
and potential burden, EPA has decided
not to revise the LCR to require water
quality parameter synchronization at
this time, but will revisit this issue in
future revisions to the rule.
I. Compliance Dates
I. What Are the New Compliance Dates
for This Rule?
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act requires that a
proposed national primary drinking
water regulation (and any amendments)
take effect on the date that is three years
after the date of promulgation, unless
the Administrator determines that an
earlier date is practical. EPA proposed
that the revisions take effect for
purposes of compliance three years after
the promulgation of the final rule. EPA
requested comment on the practicality
of implementing the following specific
changes within 60 days of final rule
promulgation: Minimum Number of
Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for
Compliance and Monitoring Periods
(III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead
Tap Water Monitoring Results (III.E) and
Public Education Requirements (III.F).
EPA also requested comment upon
whether all of the proposed revisions
should have an effective date earlier
than three years after publication of the
final rule. After reviewing comments,
EPA is adopting a compliance date for
all of the final rule provisions, of 180
days after publication in the Federal
Register or the effective date of any
State program changes needed to
implement the rule, whichever is later.
However, EPA is also requiring an
outside compliance date of two years
after promulgation, which coincides
with the date by which States are
required to adopt and submit revised
programs adopting this rule under 40
CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this
rule after six months but before two
years, this rule will become effective on
the date that the State rule is effective,
as long as it is before the date two years
after promulgation of this rule.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the
Compliance Dates?
There were several considerations
behind this compliance date. First, EPA
believes that States and systems will not
need three years to implement any of
the rule changes. These rule changes are
all modifications of existing
requirements and procedures under the
LCR or CCR. EPA believes States and
systems will not need extensive training
or program development to implement
these revisions. Additionally, none of
the revisions require systems to
undertake new capital improvements
prior to implementation. Second, many
of these changes are important
improvements to the LCR, which should
help improve critical consumer
information about lead and reduce lead
exposure, so they should be established
as quickly as possible. Third, EPA is
also aware that because many of these
requirements are procedural in nature,
having dual Federal and State
requirements at the same time is
confusing to systems, the public, and
the regulators. As a result, it is
important to try to make the Federal
changes and State changes coincide as
much as possible. Finally, EPA received
helpful comments from the public
urging that the requirements should take
effect no earlier than six months after
promulgation.
EPA therefore decided to adopt a
compliance date structure that is similar
to the one used for the public
notification rule revisions in 2000. This
rule, therefore, provides a minimum
compliance date of 180 days after
promulgation, after which the rule will
be in effect where EPA has primacy
(Wyoming, DC, and most Indian
territories) and where States incorporate
EPA's drinking water regulations by
reference. EPA is also providing a
maximum compliance date of two years
after promulgation, which coincides
with the date by which States are
required to adopt and submit revised
programs adopting this rule under 40
CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this
rule after six months but before two
-------
57798 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
years, this rule will become effective on
the date that the State rule is effective,
as long as it is before the date two years
after promulgation of this rule. This
gives States the flexibility of choosing
early implementation, enabling the
water systems to take advantage of the
efficiencies in the new regulations in
less than two years, or provides States
two years to accomplish the preparatory
activities needed to implement the
revisions.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Compliance Dates
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Some commenters indicated that an
early compliance date would impose
additional burden on the States and
utilities (e.g., conduct staff training,
inform water systems, revise rules and
submit primacy revisions) and
suggested the compliance date be three
years after final rule promulgation.
Some commenters had concerns about
the feasibility of a 60-day effective date
and proposed an effective date within
180 days of final rule promulgation.
EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer
States enough time to conduct training,
review guidance and distribute
information to water systems about the
new requirements; therefore, EPA has
revised the compliance date to 180 days
after final rule promulgation. EPA
believes there are a number of
improvements in this rule that States
will want to utilize and that 180 days is
a feasible timeframe for the States to
conduct the necessary preparatory
actions. One commenter noted that EPA
TABLE III.1.FINAL RULE REVISIONS
should not make the requirements
effective before the State has time to
adopt the change to avoid complications
in meeting both State and Federal
requirements. EPA agrees and is
revising the date to give a broad
timeframe during which the State may
adopt the rule (180 days to 2 years).
/. State Implementation
States with approved primacy
programs under 40 CFR part 142 subpart
B must revise their programs to adopt
any changes to the Lead and Copper
Rule that are more stringent than their
approved program. The primacy
revision crosswalk table lists all the
provisions that States must adopt to
retain primacy. Table III.l summarizes
the rule revisions.
CFR citation
Is the requirement more
stringent?
Revision
§141.80(a)(2) ....
§141.80(c)(3)(v)
§141.80(g)
No
No
iii), §141.86(d)(4)(vii),
§141.90(a)(3).
§141.81(e)(2)
§141.83(a)(1)
§141.84(b)(1)
§141.84(b)(2)
§141.90(e)(2)(ii)
§141.85
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§141.88 (b), §141.90(a)(1), § 141.90(e)(1), §141.90
(e)(2).
§141.86(c)
Yes
No ..
§141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), §141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1),
§141.86(g)(4)(i), §141.87(e)(2)(ii), § 1
§141.88(d)(1)(ii), §141.88(e)(1), §141.88(e)(2).
§141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)
§141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Technical correction that deletes effective dates of the
LCR which no longer apply.
PWS allowed by the State to collect fewer than five
samples must compare the highest sample result to
the action level.
PWSs will be required to provide consumers with the
results of lead testing who are located at sites that
are part of the utility's monitoring program.
States must approve new sources or long-term
changes in water treatment before PWS implementa-
tion.
Clarifies end of the tap sampling and timing for PWS
recommending optimum corrosion treatment.
Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for
State requiring corrosion control studies.
Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for
State specifying optimum corrosion control treatment.
Clarifies end of the source water monitoring period and
timing for recommending source water treatment to
the State.
Clarifies beginning of the first year for lead service line
replacement.
Requires updating inventory and yearly replacement of
lead lines when resuming lead service line replace-
ment program.
Clarifies resumption of line replacement.
New public education requirements that replace the
ones that exist in the current rule. New requirement
for PWS to provide a notice to consumers who are
part of the utility's lead testing program with sampling
results. New content and delivery requirements for
public education materials. New requirement for PWS
to target specific audiences for increased awareness.
Clarifies end of the monitoring period.
Requires PWS to collect a specified number of sam-
ples. Allows State discretion to allow PWS to sample
100 percent of taps if there are fewer than five taps
that can be used for human consumption in the sys-
tem.
Clarifies sample collection periods for reduced moni-
toring.
Requires all systems must meet the lead action level
as a condition for reduced monitoring.
Specifies time period to resume standard tap water
monitoring.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57799
TABLE III.1.FINAL RULE REVISIONSContinued
CFR citation
§141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B) ...
§141.86(d)(4)(ii) ....
§141.87(d) §141 87(e)(2)(i)
§141.90 (f)(1), §141.90 (f)(1)(i), §141.90 (f)(3)
§141 154 (d)(1) and (2)
Is the requirement more
stringent?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Revision
Specifies time period to resume water quality param-
eter monitoring.
Clarifies monitoring frequency
Clarifies time period for water quality parameter moni-
toring.
Revised public education program reporting require-
ments based on amendments to § 141.85.
All CWSs must include a statement about lead health
effects language and ways to reduce exposure in
every CCR released to the public. Flexibility is given
to CWSs to write its own educational statement, but
only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions
Affect a State's Primacy Program?
States must revise their programs to
adopt any part of this final rule which
is more stringent than the approved
State program. Primacy revisions must
be completed in accordance with 40
CFR 142.12 and 142.16. States must
submit their revised primacy
application to the Administrator for
approval. State requests for final
approval must be submitted to the
Administrator no later than two years
after promulgation of a new standard
unless the State requests and is granted
an additional two-year extension.
For revisions of State programs, 40
CFR 142.12 requires States to submit,
among other things, any additional
materials that are listed in 40 CFR
142.16 of this part for a specific EPA
regulation, as appropriate 40 CFR
142.12(c)(l)(ii). For the final revisions to
the lead and copper rule, EPA believes
that requirements in § 142.12(c) will
provide sufficient information for EPA
review of the State revision. The side-
by-side comparison of requirements
required in § 142.12(c)(l)(i) will consist
of sections revised to adopt the changes
required for the revised lead and copper
rule and any other revisions requested
by the State. Because the rule consists
of changes to an already approved
Federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA
believes that the State's existing statutes
and regulations will already have
received extensive legal review. Under
§ 142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request
supplemental information as necessary
for a specific State submittal on a case-
by-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is
waiving the Attorney General's
statement required in § 142.12(c)(l)(iii),
as allowed by § 141.12[c)(2).
2. What Does a State Have To Do To
Apply?
To maintain primacy for the Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim
primacy enforcement authority for
future regulations, States must adopt
this final rule. A State must submit a
request for approval of program .
revisions that adopt the regulations and
implement those regulations within two
years of promulgation unless EPA
approves an extension under
§ 142.12(b). Interim primacy
enforcement authority allows States to
implement and enforce drinking water
regulations once State regulations are
effective and the State has submitted a
complete and final primacy revision
application. To obtain interim primacy,
a State must have primacy with respect
to each existing NPDWR. Under interim
primacy enforcement authority, States
are effectively considered to have
primacy during the period that EPA is
reviewing their primacy revision
application.
3. How Are Tribes Affected?
At this time the Navajo Nation has
primacy to enforce the PWSS program.
EPA Regions implement the rules for all
the other Tribes under section
1451(a)(l)ofSDWA.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section describes the estimates of
annual costs for the seven regulatory
changes to utilities' and States'
requirements, including costs associated
with administrative, monitoring,
sampling, reporting, and notification
activities for this final rule. One-time,
upfront costs of rule review and rule
implementation are also described.
There are two types of annual costs that
may result from the rule changes
direct and indirect. Direct costs are from
those activities that are specified by the
rule change, such as costs for additional
monitoring or distribution of consumer
notices. Indirect costs may also result
when systems and States use the
information generated by directly-
related rule activities to modify or
enhance practices to reduce lead levels.
These indirect costs, and related health
risk reductions, are not quantified for
the purposes of this analysis, but are
described qualitatively in section IV.K
of this notice and in Chapter 5 of the
Economic and Supporting Analyses:
Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA,
2007a). Table IV.l summarizes the
expected direct and indirect cost
impacts for the seven regulatory
changes.
TABLE IV.LSUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF THE LCR SHORT TERM RULE CHANGES
Regulatory Change 1
Regulatory Change 1
Regulatory Change 1
Regulatory Change 1
Regulatory Change 1
Regulatory Change 1
Rule change
1 A (Number of samples)
1 B (Monitoring Period)
1 C (Reduced Monitoring Criteria)
1 D (Advanced Notification and Approval)
1 E (Consumer Notice of Lead Results)
1 F (Public Education)
1 G (Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines)
Direct cost implications
Yes
Unquantified
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes . ..
Yes
Indirect cost and health risk
implications
Yes
None.
Yes.
Yes
Yes
Yes.
Yes.
-------
57800 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
A. Direct Costs
The revisions in this final rule will
result in direct costs to utilities and
States from activities that are specified
by rule changes, including
administrative, monitoring, sampling,
reporting, and notification activities.
These costs will result in an increase in
the overall costs associated with the
LCR.
The most recent cost estimates to
utilities and States of the LCR can be
found in the 2004 Information
Collection Request for Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and
Radionuclides Rules (Information
Collection Request for Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and
Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA, 2004a).
The 2004 ICR estimates administrative
burden and costs associated with the
LCR for systems and States. System
costs are estimated for community water
systems and non-transient non-
community water systems to perform
the following activities: Monitor for
water quality parameters, tap sampling
of lead levels for action level
compliance, review of sample data,
including the calculation of lead and
copper 90th percentile levels,
submission to the State of monitoring
data and any other documents or
reports, and recording and maintaining
information. In addition, some systems
must submit corrosion control studies,
recommend and submit information
regarding the completion of corrosion
control treatment (CCT) or source water
treatment installation, conduct public
education, or conduct lead service line
(LSL) monitoring, notification, and
replacement. In the 2004 ICR, the
average annual cost to CWSs and
NTNCWSs for the LCR requirements
was estimated to be $57.9 million
(2006$) and the burden was estimated to
be 1.72 million hours for reporting
(including lead service line replacement
reporting), recordkeeping, and public
education activities of the LCR. For
States, the annual cost and burden
incurred by primacy agencies for
activities associated with the LCR were
estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21
million hours, respectively.
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and
Assumptions
As part of its comprehensive review
of the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA
collected and analyzed new data on
various aspects of LCR implementation.
When available and appropriate, this
new information has been used in
estimating the incremental costs of this
rule. If new information was not
available about a cost item or
assumption, previous analyses of LCR
requirements were reviewed to
determine if a suitable estimate was
available. The 1991 Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) (Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis of National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper,
U.S. EPA 1991b), the 1996 RIA
Addendum (Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum, U.S. EPA 1996b), and the
various Information Collection Requests
were all used as sources of information
and assumptions.
For the rule revisions that clarify the
existing LCR rule language, if the costs
associated with those activities were
included in the original LCR cost
estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA,
those costs are not included in this
analysis.
C. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.A
Regulatory Change III. A clarifies
EPA's intent that a minimum of five
samples must be taken when conducting
compliance monitoring. If a system has
fewer than the minimum number of taps
required for sampling, then those
systems will have to collect multiple
samples on different days from the same
tap so that the total number of samples
per monitoring period is five. States,
however, have the discretion to allow
water systems with fewer than five taps
for human consumption to collect one
sample per tap. Under this alternate
sampling schedule, the sample with the
highest test result will be compared to
the action level to determine
compliance.
Although some systems may change
the number of samples taken in
response to these provisions, there is
very limited available data on the
number of these systems and on the
frequency with which they conduct lead
and copper monitoring. Because of lack
of data, EPA has not quantified the
annual direct costs or savings associated
with Regulatory Change III.A. EPA has
quantified the one-time implementation
costs for water systems with fewer than
five taps to request permission to collect
one sample per available tap and for
States to review and decide upon these
requests to collect one sample per
available tap. Those costs are given in
section IV.K.
D. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.B
Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the
meaning of "monitoring period" and
"compliance period," addressing in
particular the date on which actions are
triggered by an exceedance and the
timing of samples under reduced
monitoring schedules. Based on the rule
change, if a system exceeds the lead
action level during a monitoring period,
non-compliance starts at the end of the
monitoring period (for most systems on
September 30). Under the previous
language, it was not clear whether non-
compliance began at the end of the
calendar year (December 31) or at the
end of the monitoring period
(September 30).
As a result of this rule change,
activities triggered by an action level
exceedance could begin three months
earlier (e.g., at the end of September
versus the end of December), but the
duration of these activities would not
likely be longer. The net result is a
change in the timing of activities, with
a difference of three months having
negligible, if any, impact on costs.
Regulatory Change III.B also requires
that systems on reduced monitoring,
such as triennially or once every nine
years, must take all compliance-samples
within the same calendar year during
the June-September monitoring period.
Under the existing rule, a system could
collect compliance samples over
multiple calendar years, as long as they
were taken during the JuneSeptember
time frame and during the three-year
compliance period. In addition, systems
on triennial monitoring must monitor
no later than every third calendar year.
Similarly, systems on nine-year
monitoring schedules must monitor no
later than every ninth calendar year.
Since this rule change does not alter the
number of samples to be taken, but the
timing of samples, the direct cost impact
is expected to be negligible.
E. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.C
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
As a result of Regulatory Change III.C,
utilities that have 90th percentile LCR
monitoring samples that exceed the lead
action level, and are currently on
reduced monitoring, will be required to
resume standard monitoring schedules
for monitoring lead at taps. In addition
to monitoring activities, utilities will
have to meet reporting requirements to
the State/primacy agency. State/primacy
agencies will be required to review
utility monitoring reports.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities,
summarized in Table IV.3, are estimated
to be $2.7 million annually including
$2.5 million in labor costs and $0.2
million in materials costs. Detailed
estimates are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix C.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57801
The systems that will incur costs
under this regulatory change are those
systems that exceed the lead action level
and that had been on reduced
monitoring. The number of systems EPA
estimates to exceed the lead action level
each year is 994 as shown in Table IV. 2.
This estimate is based upon 2003 lead
action level exceedances reported by
States to EPA's Safe Drinking Water
Information System for systems serving
more than 3,300 people. For purposes of
this analysis, EPA used this data to
estimate that 1.4 percent of systems
(including system serving fewer than
3,300 people) will exceed the action
level each year.
TABLE IV.2.SYSTEMS EXCEEDING THE ACTION LEVEL SINCE 2003
Number of systems above action level since 2003
Total number of systems . . .
Percent of systems with monitoring results since 2003 over AL
<3,300 1
884
64382
1 4%
3,300<50,000
96
7 388
1 3%
>50,000
14
819
1 7%
Total
994
72 589
1 4%
1The Estimate for systems <3,300 is based upon data from systems >3,300.
Source: For medium and large systems, January 2005 Summary of lead action level, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html; for
small systems, Summary, lead action level exceedances for public water systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through Sep-
tember 13, 2004).
The number of systems on reduced
monitoring was estimated using State
responses to the EPA State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule survey (State Implementation of
the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA
2004b). States provided estimates of the
percent of systems on reduced LCR
monitoring. Based on this data, 91
percent of systems are on reduced lead
and copper monitoring. This analysis
assumes that systems that are likely to
exceed the lead action level, and are on
reduced monitoring, are likely to exceed
at the same rate as all systems.
Therefore, EPA assumes that 1.4 percent
of the 91 percent of the systems
estimated as likely to exceed the action
level are on reduced monitoring and
will therefore incur costs due to
Regulatory Change III.C. EPA notes that
this assumption likely over-estimates
the number of systems that will be
affected by this regulatory change
because systems that are likely to have
exceedances are generally less likely to
be on reduced monitoring in the first
place.
For the number of additional
monitoring events, it is assumed that
each utility will conduct five additional
monitoring events in each three year
period by switching from a reduced
monitoring schedule (triennial) to
standard tap monitoring (semi-annual).
While reduced monitoring could refer to
either monitoring once every year or
once every three years, it is not possible
to distinguish, from the State responses
to the EPA survey, between systems
monitoring once every year and systems
monitoring once every three years. This
analysis assumes that all systems on
reduced monitoring are on a one sample
every three years schedule, an
assumption that might slightly over-
estimate costs. Likewise, the number of
samples collected in each monitoring
period will change when the utility
switches from reduced monitoring to
standard monitoring. Thus, a system
that was on reduced monitoring, but is
placed on regular monitoring after an
action level exceedance under
Regulatory Change III.C, will incur an
additional five monitoring events over a
three year period (six monitoring events
in three years under regular monitoring
instead of one monitoring event in three
years under reduced monitoring), with
an increased number of samples
collected in each event. The required
number of samples varies by system
size, with the smallest systems (serving
less than or equal to 100 people)
required to take five samples per
monitoring event under both standard
and reduced monitoring, and the largest
systems (serving >100,000 people)
required to take 100 samples per
monitoring event under standard
monitoring and 50 samples per
monitoring event under reduced
monitoring.
3. Costs to States
Regulatory Change III.C will require
States to review utility monitoring
reports as a result of resuming standard
monitoring schedules. The direct costs
to States is estimated to be $82,000
annually including $81,000 in labor
costs and $1,000 in materials costs, as
summarized in Table IV. 3. Detailed
estimates are included in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix C.
TABLE IV.3.SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATES ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY
CHANGE III.C (2006 DOLLARS)
Costs to Systems:
Reporting
Tap Monitoring
Total System Costs
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
RGVJGW Costs
Total State Costs
Annual labor
$60,000
2,442,000
2,502,000
81,000
81,000
Annual
materials
$1,000
193,000
194,000
1,000
1,000
Total annual
$61 ,000
2,635,000
2,696,000
82,000
82,000
-------
57802 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
F. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.D
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Regulatory Change III.D requires
water systems to obtain prior approval
by the State to add a new source of
water or to make a long-term treatment
change prior to implementation. New
system activities will include an
assessment of the implications of long-
term treatment or source changes on
corrosion control prior to the change
and a letter to the state. New State
activities will include the review of the
system data on the implications of a
long-term treatment or source change on
corrosion control prior to a change,
preparation of conclusions, and
coordination with utilities. The
estimated costs to the affected systems
and States are summarized in Table
IV.4.
2. Costs to Utilities
EPA estimates that the direct costs to
utilities range from $506,000 to
$765,000 annually. These direct costs
are strictly labor costs; materials costs
are expected to be negligible. Detailed
estimates are provided in Appendix D
(Table 6.1) of the Economic Analysis.
In order to estimate the annual cost of
this provision to utilities, information is
needed on the number of systems that
would likely implement a long-term
treatment change or add a source each
year, as well as the number of systems
that are located in States that already
have a review and approval
requirement. Systems located in these
States will not incur additional costs
under this provision.
As determined during EPA's review of
the implementation of LCR
requirements by States, many States
already have a review and approval
process for treatment or source changes.
For the purposes of this analysis, two
estimates were used for the number of
States that already have a review and
approval process that would include
information on corrosion control issues:
14 States for a high end of the cost range
and 31 States for a low end. Under the
alternative in which only the 14 States
with explicit review and approval are
excluded from the count, 53,372
systems (of 72,213 CWSs and NTNCWSs
based on 4th quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED)
may incur costs for the regulatory
change. Under the alternative in which
States with permitting and plan review
are also excluded from the count, 27,615
systems may incur costs for this
regulatory provision.
An estimate was also needed of the
number of systems projected to
undertake a long-term treatment change
or add a source annually in order to
estimate the cost of this provision to
utilities. Long-term treatment changes
over the next several years are likely as
systems will be faced with new
regulatory requirements, including
changes to comply with the
promulgated Arsenic Rule, the Long
Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2
D/DBP). EPA estimated the number of
systems that would undertake treatment
changes for the following new
regulatory requirements:
Arsenic4,100 systems (Data
source: Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule
Economic Analysis, pp. 6-25, 6-27, U.S.
EPA, 2000a);
LT22,882 systems (Data source:
Economic Analysis for the Final Long
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule, Exhibit 6-1, page 6-3,
U.S. EPA, 2005a);
Stage 2 D/DBP2,261 systems
(Data source: Economic Analysis for the
Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Exhibit
ES-7a, page ES-17, U.S. EPA, 2005b).
Together, these regulatory
requirements are estimated to cause
9,243 systems to institute a treatment
change, although not all of these
treatment changes will affect corrosion
control. Additionally, the compliance
periods for these regulations varies. For
example, the Stage 2 D/DBP and LT2
treatment changes are projected to take
place within a six year compliance
period for large systems (with the
possibility of two-year extension) and
eight years for small systems (with the
possibility of two-year extension). To
account for these expected treatment
changes, and to account for treatment
changes unrelated to the Arsenic, LT2,
and Stage 2 D/DBP rules, EPA assumed
(based on the projected rule-related
treatment changes and expert judgment)
that approximately 20 percent of the
systems affected by the LCR will
institute a treatment change in the next
10 years. For purposes of this analysis,
it is assumed that these changes will
occur uniformly over that 10-year
period, so that approximately one-tenth
of these systems (or two percent of the
total) institute a treatment change each
year.
Using the two percent estimate, 1,067
(53,372 x .02) systems each year will
report a treatment change or source
addition. However, systems in States
that already have a permitting or plan
approval process in place will not incur
additional costs to report the treatment
change or source addition, since their
States already require them to report
treatment changes or source additions
through these processes. The annual
estimate of the number of systems in
States that currently do not have a
permitting or plan approval process in
place and that will, therefore, incur
costs is 552.
EPA anticipates that systems will
incur additional costs under this rule
change as systems and States more
carefully review and consider possible
corrosion impacts of treatment changes
or source additions. In the absence of
information on the current prevalence of
these activities, EPA has used best
professional judgment to estimate the
range of potential activities and
associated costs resulting from the
review and approval process. All
systems, regardless of size or
complexity, are assumed to undertake
additional activities related to data
collection and evaluation, preparation
of a submittal to the State, and
coordination with the State. For small
systems or systems making relatively
simple changes, considering the
corrosion impacts of the change may be
a rather basic process of reviewing water
quality data and previous lead
monitoring results. For these systems,
additional effort will be incurred by
system staff in coordinating with State
personnel to assemble water quality
parameter and lead data and evaluate
the potential impacts. EPA estimates the
burden for this additional effort at 7.5
hours per system, at an average cost of
$231 per system. For larger or more
complex systems making major
treatment changes, activities would be
more extensive, including conducting
engineering studies to evaluate impacts
on corrosion control. Based on best
professional judgment, EPA estimates
that between 10 percent and 20 percent
of medium and large systems may need
to conduct additional engineering
studies on corrosion impacts at a cost of
$20,000. To some extent, systems may
already evaluate the impacts of
treatment or source changes on
corrosion. EPA has considered these
current activities in estimating the
portion of systems that would require an
engineering study.
3. Costs to States
The direct costs to States are
estimated to range from $163,000 to
$348,000 annually. These direct costs
are strictly labor costs; materials costs
are expected to be negligible. Estimates
are summarized in Table IV.4. Activities
that States will undertake include
review of system data, preparation of
conclusions and letters to systems, and
coordination with utilities. Because the
level of effort associated with these
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57803
activities is expected to vary based on
the complexity of the change and the
type of submittal (amount and type of
information), EPA included a range of
State review time from four to eight
hours.
Those States incurring additional
costs due to Regulatory Change III.D are
those that do not already have a review
and approval process that considers the
corrosion control implications of
treatment changes. For the States that
will incur new costs as they review and
approve changes before they are made,
rather than simple review after the
change has been made, which is the
existing requirement, new State
activities will include review of the
system data on the corrosion control
implications of a long-term treatment or
source change prior to a change,
preparation of conclusions and
coordination with utilities.
TABLE IV.4.ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATE/PRIMACY AGENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY
CHANGE III.D (2006 DOLLARS)
Costs to Systems:
Reporting .
Total System Costs ...
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs
Total State Costs
Annual cost
low estimate 1
$506 000
506 000
1 63 000
1 63 000
Annual cost
high estimate2
$765 000
765 000
348 000
348 000
Notes: 1. 10 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 4 hours for State review.
2. 20 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 8 hours for State review.
G. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.E
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Regulatory Change III.E requires
CWSs to provide written notification to
each owner/occupant of the lead level
found in the tap sample collected for
LCR compliance monitoring.
Compliance for NTNCWSs will be
determined by their circumstances and
may consist of posting a notice on
community bulletin boards or Web sites.
Systems must also prepare a letter that
self-certifies that they have distributed
the sampling results as appropriate and
submit it to the State. While States may
review sample customer letters/notices
from each utility for each monitoring
period, such a review is not required by
the regulatory change and thus is not
considered a direct cost of the
regulatory change. States will be
required to review, track, and store the
self-certification letters. Supporting
calculations and information regarding
costs to utilities and States associated
with this regulatory change are included
in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities for
compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Table IV.5 and
estimated to be $1,248,000 annually
including $1,098,000 in labor costs and
$150.000 in materials costs for
envelopes and postage. This is based on
an estimated 310,510 notices being
provided to customers each year, with
associated labor. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis,
Appendix E2.
In order to estimate the additional
costs associated with Regulatory Change
III.E, an estimate is needed of the
number of systems that already notify
customers of tap monitoring results.
Based on feedback from participants in
workshops and interactions with States,
some systems already notify customers
of monitoring results. These systems
would not incur costs under the
regulatory change. Of 72,213 CWSs and
NTNCWSs (per 4th quarter 2004
SDWIS/FED) subject to the LCR, EPA
estimates that approximately 11 percent
of these systems are estimated to already
notify owner/occupants of tap sample
results. Therefore, this regulatory
change will apply to the remaining 89
percent of systems.
3. Costs to States
The direct costs to States to comply
with Regulatory Change III.E are
presented in Table IV. 5. States are
required to review, track, and store the
self-certification letters.
TABLE IV.5SUMMARY OF DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY CHANGE III.E (2006 DOLLARS)
Costs to Systems:
Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs and self-certification letters ....
Total System Costs ..
Costs to States:
Review track and store self-certification letters
Total State Costs
Annual labor
$1,098,000
1,098,000
1 63 000
163,000
Annual
materials
$150000
150,000
Total annual
$1,248,000
1 ,248,000
163000
163,000
H. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change HI.F
Regulatory Change III.F changes the
public education requirements of the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in § 141.85.
Water systems would still be required to
deliver public education materials after
a lead action level exceedance, but the
text of the message to be provided to
consumers, how the materials are
delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be
-------
57804 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
delivered would change. The changes to
the delivery requirements include
additions to the list of organizations
systems must partner with to
disseminate the message to at-risk
populations as well as changes to the
media used to ensure water systems
reach consumers when there is an
action level exceedance. Table IV.6
presents a summary of the additional
activities for reaching at-risk
populations and the associated annual
costs per system.
In addition to the changes to § 141.85
of the LCR, EPA is also revising
§ 141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR
141, Subpart O), which requires all
community water systems to send an
annual report to billed customers
containing information relevant to the
quality of the drinking water provided
by the system.
TABLE IV.6.ANNUAL COST PER SYSTEM ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES To BETTER REACH AT-RISK
POPULATIONS (2006 DOLLARS)
System size cat-
egory
25-100
101-500
501-3,300
3.3K-10K
1 OK-50K
50K-100K
>100K
i. Public
service an-
nounce-
ments
$98
101
105
118
1 400
1 400
1 400
ii. Paid ad-
vertise-
ments
$105
105
180
180
850
5000
5000
iii. Display
in public
areas
$24
26
111
137
696
1 392
3,943
iv. Internet
notification
$24
26
28
420
596
596
1,035
v. Public
meetings
$48
51
55
900
2,400
3,000
5,000
vi. Delivery
to every
household
$7
30
166
435
1,114
2,448
3,874
vii. Targeted
contact
$34
35
37
44
66
138
563
viii. Mate-
rials directly
to multi-fam-
ily & institu-
tions
$12
15
27
81
303
945
5,035
Average per
system all
activities
$44
49
89
289
928
1,865
3,231
Details of how these unit costs were
calculated are provided in Appendices
H-6 through H-20 of the Economic
Analysis for this final rule.
States are required to review the
language in the utility's notice to
consumers to make sure the utility is
including the required information.
States are also required to consult with
each system with an action level
exceedance. States will no longer be
required to approve a waiver for
notifications for each system that
exceeds the lead action level that serves
a population of 501-3,300.
2. Costs to Utilities
The annual direct costs to utilities
resulting from Regulatory Change III.F
are estimated to be $859,200. The
annual system labor cost is estimated to
be $837,900 and the annual system
materials are estimated to cost $21,200.
Estimates of costs associated with each
activity are presented in Table IV.7.
Detailed estimates of costs to utilities
are provided in the Economic Analysis,
Appendix F.
The requirement to provide
information about lead in the CCR is
new only for systems that currently do
not detect lead above the action level in
95 percent or more of their sites, since
systems in which the 95th percentile
result is above the action level are
already required to provide such
information. However, EPA does not
have data on such systems. Rather, EPA
has data on the (smaller) number of
systems that currently detect lead below
the action level in 90 percent of their
sites, and has subtracted this value from
the universe of systems to estimate the
number of systems that would incur
new costs under this requirement.
Underestimating the current baseline of
systems that currently detect lead at the
95th percentile level, by using data on
systems that detect lead at the 90th
percentile level (a smaller number of
systems), overestimates the remaining
number of systems that do not currently
report lead information in their CCR.
EPA's estimate assumes that 52,257
additional systems would have to
provide information about lead in their
CCR each year, with an additional
associated labor of 0.25 hours per
system per year.
TABLE IV.7.SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)
Activity
Requirement
Annual
labor
Annual
materials
Total sys-
tem cost
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials:
III F(a)(1)
Customer Notification
$91 ,400
$0
$91 ,400
b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations:
III F(b)(1)
III.F(b)(2)
Ill F(b)(2)
Notify Additional Organizations ....
Additional Activities i-viii
Consult with State on Activities
21,900
292,700
33,500
21,400
0
300
43,300
292,700
33,700
c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers Throughout the Exceedance:
|||.F(c)(1)
Ill F(c)(2)
III F(c)(3)
Customer Bills . .
Post on Website
PSAs and Press Releases
47400
100
3 700
0
0
500
47 400
100
-4200
d. Changes to the Required Timing:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57805
TABLE IV.7.SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)
Continued
Activity
Requirement
Annual
labor
Annual
materials
Total sys-
tem cost
No cost impact
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report:
III F(eK1)
CCR Statement
354 600
0
354 600
Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F):
Total
837 900
21 200
859 200
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
3. Costs to States to be $63,000. These costs are the
The direct costs to States as a result annual State labor costs'> no materials
of Regulatory Change III.F are estimated cost ls expected. These costs are
presented in Table IV.8. Detailed
estimates of costs to States are provided
in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
TABLE IV.8.SUMMARY OF COSTS TO STATES DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)
III.F Costs to States:
Review and consultation
IMF Total State Costs
Annual
labor
$63 000
63 000
Annual
materials
$0
0
Total annual
$63 000
63 000
/. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change III.G
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Under this regulatory change, utilities
that have 90th percentile LCR samples
that exceed the lead action level will
need to identify all lead service lines
(LSL) that had previously been
determined to be replaced via sampling.
These utilities will be affected by
Regulatory Change III.G if they exceed
the action level again and renew a LSL
replacement program. These utilities
must put these "tested out" LSLs back
into their inventory of lead service lines
that could be considered for
replacement. To estimate the impact of
this change, we assume these formerly
"tested out" LSLs will be retested and
that some of them will exceed the lead
action level. The primary activities as a
result of this regulatory change include
collecting and analyzing samples from
these LSLs. Replacement of lines that
were previously tested out may also
occur as a result of this change.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities as a result
of Regulatory Change III.G are estimated
to be $110,000 annually, which includes
$101,000 in labor costs and $9,000 in
materials costs. Detailed estimates of
costs to utilities are provided in the
Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
Estimating the costs to utilities requires
an estimate of the number of systems
who have been involved in a lead
service line replacement program, the
number of systems likely to discontinue
such a program due to low tested lead
levels, and the fraction of those systems
likely to subsequently exceed the action
level and restart their lead service line
replacement program.
In the responses to the 50-State survey
on lead implementation (U.S. EPA,
2004b), which is available in the public
docket for this rulemaking, 11 States
responded that at least one system in
their State has been involved in a lead
service line replacement program. Six
States provided sufficient information to
derive the number of systems within
that State required to perform lead
service line replacementa total of 28
systems. Based on an average of five
systems per State for the six States that
provided data, for purposes of this
analysis, EPA assumes that the
remaining five States have five systems,
plus one system for DC (which did not
respond to the survey) for a total of 54
systems that have been required to
perform lead service line replacement.
Because there is insufficient
information to determine how many of
the 54 systems suspended their lead
replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an
exceedance, EPA assumed the worst
case scenario that all of these systems
suspended their lead replacement
programs and that the rate of subsequent
exceedance was the same as for the
universe of systems subject to the LCR,
as shown in Table IV.2. Thus, EPA
assumed that 1.4 percent of the 54
systems or one system will exceed the
action level and will therefore be
triggered back into lead service line
replacement each year.
EPA does not have information on the
number of systems using the test out
provisions rather than physically
replacing lines, so this approach likely
overestimates the number of affected
systems, because it assumes that all
systems in a lead service line
replacement program are using the test
out provisions. Systems removing lead
service lines are not impacted by this
change. While the rate at which systems
are triggered back into lead service line
replacement might be higher than the
initial rate, it is offset by the
assumptions regarding systems using
the test out provisions and the universe
of systems that would stop their lead
service line replacement program and
later resume it because of this regulatory
change. Please see the Economic
Analysis for the final rule, Appendix F,
for additional details on the
assumptions EPA made to derive the
estimated costs for this provision.
-------
57806 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
3. Costs to States reports, these costs are attributed to the
No direct costs are projected for States 1991 LCR rather than this rule-
as a result of Regulatory Change III.G.
Although the States will review utility
LSL replacement program annual
/. Summary of National Average Annual
Direct Costs
The estimates of annual direct costs
for the final regulatory changes are
presented in Table IV.9.
TABLE IV.9.SUMMARY OF ANNUAL DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATES FROM ALL REGULATORY CHANGES (2006
DOLLARS) 1
Regulatory change
III A
III B
III C
III D Low
III D High
III E
III F
III G
Total Low
Total Hiah
Reporting
$61 000
506 000
765 000
136000
34000
736,000
995,000
Annual direct c
Monitoring
$2 635 000
110 000
2 745 000
Dsts to systems
Consumer
notice
1 112000
825 000
1 938,000
Total
$2 696 000
506 000
765 000
1 248 000
859 000
1 1 0 000
5,418,000
5,677,000
Annual
direct costs
to states
$82 000
1 63 000
348 000
1 63 000
63000
471,000
657.000
direct costs
$2 778 000
669 000
1 1 1 3 000
1 41 1 000
922 000
1 1 0 000
5,890,000
6,335,000
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
K. Total Upfront Costs To Review and
Implement Regulatory Changes
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Systems and States will incur one-
time upfront costs associated with
reviewing and implementing this rule.
For systems, activities include
reviewing the rule changes, training
staff, and verification costs associated
with Regulatory Change III.A. For
States/Primacy Agencies, activities
include regulation adoption, program
development, and miscellaneous
training.
2. Total Costs to Utilities
Direct costs to utilities are estimated
to be approximately $11 million, as
summarized in Table IV.10. Detailed
estimates of costs to utilities are
provided in the Economic Analysis
Appendix G. Direct costs to utilities are
based solely on labor; no materials costs
are expected for these one-time upfront
costs.
3. Total Costs to States
Direct costs to the States are estimated
to be $1,650,000 as summarized in
Table IV. 10 and detailed in Appendix G
of the Economic Analysis. Similar to the
one-time costs for utilities, these direct
costs are based solely on upfront labor
costs. Fifty-seven States will review and
implement these LCR revisions.
TABLE IV. 10.SUMMARY OF ONE-
TIME DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH RULE REVIEW AND IMPLEMEN-
TATION (2006 DOLLARS)
Costs to Systems:
Review & Communication
Verification (III.A)
Total System Costs:
Costs to State/Primacy
Agencies:
Regulation Adoption
Verification (III.A)
Total State Costs
Total Rule Implementa-
tion Costs
One time labor
costs
$10,971,000
104,000
11,075,000
1,488,000
162,000
1,650,000
12,725,000
L. Indirect Costs
Previous sections focused on the
direct costs of this rulemaking, costs
resulting from activities specified by the
rule change, such as costs for additional
monitoring or distribution of consumer
notices. A second type of cost, an
indirect cost, may also result when
systems and States use the information
generated by the rule-required activities
to modify or enhance practices to
reduce lead levels. Indirect costs may
also result if systems or States decide to
undertake additional information-
gathering activities not required by the
rule.
The revisions will require some
systems to generate new information
which, in some cases, may be provided
to States and customers. The
information that is generated may
suggest lead and copper risks that
would not otherwise have been
discovered (or such risks might be
discovered sooner than otherwise).
Upon obtaining this information, a
system itself, the State, or some of the
system's customers may take actions to
address these risks, incurring the costs
of those actions. For example, a system
may redesign a planned treatment
change following State review of the
planned change, or a system may
replace a lead service line that was
previously "tested out." System
customers, upon receiving notification
of the lead content of their tap samples,
may take some action, and in the
process, incur a cost.
It is both difficult to project what the
content will be of the information
generated pursuant to the regulation,
and difficult to predict how systems and
individuals might act in response to the
new information generated as a result of
these regulatory changes. Because of the
uncertainty in tracing the linkages from
the regulation to new information to
exposure prevention measures, EPA is
unable to quantify the indirect costs that
might ensue from these regulatory
changes.
It is also possible that some additional
information-gathering activities may
result from this rule. For example, a
system may decide to undertake a new
study of the corrosion implications of a
rule change. Or a State may decide to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57807
review sample system customer letters
of notification to owner/occupants
about the lead levels found in their
collected tap samples. These activities
would also result in indirect costs
associated with this final rule.
M. Benefits
The intent of this rulemaking is to
improve implementation of the lead and
copper regulations by clarifying
monitoring requirements, improving
customer awareness, and modifying the
lead service line test out procedure.
These revisions do not affect the action
levels, corrosion control requirements,
lead service line replacement
requirements, or other provisions in the
existing rule that directly determine the
degree to which the rule reduces risks
from lead and copper.
However, the increase in
administrative activities that will result
from the revisions will generate new
information (e.g., more monitoring data,
some of which may show exceedances),
and may prompt some systems or
individuals to respond to this new
information by taking measures to abate
lead and copper exposures and thus
reduce the associated risk. Also, the
requirement that long-term treatment
changes be approved by the State prior
to implementation will provide an
additional opportunity to identify
possible adverse impacts due to
treatment changes, which may lower the
risk to consumers.
Because the precise impact of these
revisions on the behavior of individuals
and systems is not known, EPA has not
quantified the changes in associated
health benefits. However, EPA does
expect that overall benefits from the
LCR will increase as a result of the
indirect effects of the revisions on the
actions of individual consumers and
systems.
N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the State and System
Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis)
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Many commenters stated that EPA
underestimated the overall burden of
the proposed rule, both for systems and
for States. Many commenters thought,
for example, that both systems and
States would need more time to read
and understand the rule. EPA agrees
with these commenters and has revised
the burden and cost estimates for some
sections of the rule, and for the
implementation activities. In particular,
EPA made an upward revision to the
burden estimate for the larger systems,
estimating that it would take them an
average of 40 hours to read, understand,
and communicate the rule's significance
to required personnel. EPA also
reviewed and revised the State
implementation burden and cost,
significantly increasing these estimates
(from 312 hours to 600 hours).
One commenter stated that some
NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care
centers, and small businesses) do not
have staff to satisfactorily implement
new drinking water rules and respond
to public inquiries regarding lead in
drinking water. EPA agrees with this
comment and has increased the state
burden assumptions for this final rule.
EPA recognizes that "operators" at
NTNCWSs typically have many other
job functions and are often not
professional water system managers,
and that States, therefore, must
continually educate, assist, and enforce
regulations to ensure compliance.
Commenters also stated that EPA
underestimated the impact to States
regarding the requirement to provide a
consumer notice of lead tap water
monitoring results. EPA agrees with this
comment and has revised the consumer
notice estimates to indicate that
additional funding will be required for
this activity.
Some commenters asserted that EPA
did not address the implications for a
regulatory program assigned to
"approve" rather than simply "review"
treatment changes, and specifically that
EPA underestimated the costs of
requiring advanced State approval.
Commenters also thought that every
PWS would need to have additional and
more intensive interaction with the
State prior to making any change in
water treatment or source water. While
the Agency agrees with this comment,
EPA has narrowed the scope of this
provision in the final rule to only long-
term changes in treatment. Since this
will considerably reduce the potential
burden of the requirement by removing
the daily water quality treatment
changes from consideration, EPA is not
revising the cost estimate for this change
from the proposal.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a "significant regulatory
action." Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
In addition, EPA has prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
This analysis is contained in the
Economic and Supporting Analyses:
Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA,
2007a). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action
and the analysis is briefly summarized
in section IV of this notice.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
EPA requires comprehensive and
current information on lead and copper
contamination and associated
enforcement activities to implement its
program oversight and enforcement
responsibilities mandated by the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Highly
publicized incidences of elevated
drinking water lead levels prompted
EPA to review and evaluate the
implementation and effectiveness of the
LCR on a national basis. As a result of
this multi-part review, EPA identified
seven targeted rule changes that clarify
the intent of the LCR and ensure and
enhance protection of public health
through reduction in lead exposure.
EPA will use the information collected
as a result of the short-term revisions to
the LCR to support the responsibilities
outlined in SDWA by strengthening the
implementation of the LCR in the areas
of monitoring, customer awareness, and
lead service line replacement. The rule
revisions described in section III of this
notice are intended to improve the
implementation of the LCR and do not
alter the original maximum contaminant
level goals or the fundamental approach
to controlling lead and copper in
drinking water.
Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires
that there must be "criteria and
procedures to assure a supply of
drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum
contaminant levels; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing
procedures to insure compliance with
such levels and to insure proper
operation and maintenance of the
system * * *" Furthermore, section
1445(a)(l) of SDWA requires that every
person who is a supplier of water "shall
establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, conduct such
monitoring, and provide such
information as the Administrator may
-------
57808 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
reasonably require by regulation to
assist the Administrator in establishing
regulations * * * in determining
whether such person has acted or is
acting in compliance" with this title. In
addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA
requires States to "keep such records
and make such reports * * * as the
Administrator may require by
regulation."
Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as
amended in 1996, requires the Agency
to publish maximum contaminant level
goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
contaminants that may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons, are
known to or anticipated to occur in
PWSs, or, in the opinion of the
Administrator, present an opportunity
for health risk reduction. The NPDWRs
specify maximum contaminant levels or
treatment techniques for drinking water
contaminants (42 U.S.C 300g.-l).
Section 1412(b)(9) requires that EPA, no
less than every 6 years review, and as
appropriate, revise existing drinking
water standards. Promulgation of the
LCR complies with these statutory
requirements.
1. Burden Estimate
The universe of respondents for this
ICR is comprised of 52,838 CWSs and
19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213
systems (4th Quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED),
and 57 States. The activities that take
place during the 3-year period covered
by the ICR will vary based on the timing
of State implementation of the final
rule. The rule is structured to allow for
early implementation by States within
180 days of rule publication.
Alternatively, States have up to 2 years
to implement rule provisions as
described in section III.I of this notice.
Because there is some uncertainty in
predicting which States will adopt early
implementation versus those that will
take 2 years, EPA estimates an upper
and lower bound on ICR burden and
cost estimates. The upper bound
estimate assumes all States will adopt
early implementation while the lower
bound estimate assumes States will take
2 years to implement the rule.
The total annual average respondent
burden associated with this ICR is
estimated to be 206,997-297,122 burden
hours. The corresponding total annual
average respondent costs are estimated
to be $6.4 to $9.5 million.
EPA estimates the annual respondent
burden for PWSs to be 189,369-271,997
hours. Annual respondent costs for
PWSs are estimated to be $5.6 to $8.4
million. The Agency estimates that the
annual respondent burden for States is
17,628-25,125 hours. The
corresponding annual average
respondent costs for States are estimated
to be $0.8 to $1.1 million. Table V.I
presents a summary of total burden and
costs for this ICR.
TABLE V.1.BOTTOM LINE AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN AND COSTS UPPER AND LOWER BOUND ESTIMATES (2006
DOLLARS)
Number of Respondents
Total Annual Responses
Number of Responses per PWS ..
Number of Responses per State ..
Total Annual Respondent Burden
Hours.
Hours per System for Public
Water Systems.
Hours per State for States
Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual Respondent Cost
Cost Per Response
Total Annual Hours (respond-
ent plus Agency).
Total Annual Cost (respond-
ent plus Agency).
Lower bound
72,270 - 72,213 + 57
186 524 - 171 849 + 14 675
2.4= 171,849/72,213
257= 14,675/57
206,997 = 189,369 + 17,628
2.6= 189,369/72,213
309 - 17,628/57
$118 717 - $117 886 + $831
$6,353,532 = $5,584,289 +
$769,243
$32
$52
206,997 = 206,997 + 0
$6,353,532 = $6,353,532 + $0
Upper bound
72,270 = 72,213 + 57
426 483 - 391 671 + 34,812
5.4 = 391,671/72,213
611 = 34,812/57
297,122 = 271,997 + 25,125
3.8 = 271,997/72,213
441 - 25,125/57
$295 205 - $293 920 + $1 284
$9,520,866 = $8,423,108 +
$1,097,758
$21
$32
297,122 = 297,122 + 0
$9,520,866 = $9,520,866 + $0
Public water systems.
States.
Public water system responses.
State responses.
Total annual PWS responses from
above.
Total public water systems from
above.
Total annual State responses from
above.
Total States from above.
Public water system hours.
State hours.
Total PWS annual hours from
above.
Total PWS from above.
Total State annual hours from
above.
Total States from above.
Public water system O&M costs
State OM costs.
Public water system costs.
State costs.
Public water system cost
State cost.
Total respondent hours.
Total EPA hours.
Total respondent cost.
Total EPA cost.
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. EPA burden and cost estimated under PWSS program.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57809
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 in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of 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 governmental
jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions
for each type of small entity. Small
entities are defined under the RFA as:
(1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any "not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field." However, the
RFA 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 the alternative definition(s) in
the Federal Register and taking
comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In
addition, to establish an alternative
small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, EPA
defined small entities as public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. As required by the RFA, EPA
proposed using this alternative
definition in the Federal Register (63 FR
7606, February 13, 1998), requested
public comment, consulted with the
Small Business Administration (SBA),
and finalized the alternative definition
in the Consumer Confidence Reports
regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). EPA stated in that Final Rule that
it would apply the alternative definition
to future drinking water regulations
(including this one) as well.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is based on EPA's
established definition of small entities
as public water systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons. The small entities
directly regulated by this final rule are
small public water systems serving
10,000 or fewer people on an annual
basis. We have determined that 68,286
small systems may be affected by the
changes to the LCR. Table V.2 provides
a summary of these small systems, by
size category and system type.
TABLE V.2.THE NUMBER OF SMALL SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE CHANGES
Size
<-100
101-500
501-1,000
1 001-3300
3301-10000
Total
CWS
13 766
16240
5,914
8 298
4 707
48 925
NTNCWS
9 548
6 997
1 925
795
96
19 361
Total
small
23314
23237
7 839
9 093
4 803
68 286
However, not all of these small
entities will incur direct costs for all of
the final regulatory changes. In many
cases, only a relatively small subset of
these systems will have to change
practices to comply with the regulatory
changes. Table V.3 provides an estimate
of the number of small systems that will
incur direct costs for each of the
regulatory changes.
TABLE V.3.THE NUMBER OF SMALL
SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY EACH REG-
ULATORY CHANGE
Regulatory change
Regulatory Change III.A
Regulatory Change III.B
Regulatory Change III.C
Regulatory Change III.D
Regulatory Change III.E
Regulatory Change III.F
Regulatory Change III.G
Small systems
impacted per
year
3,692
854
1,009
60,735
49,337
1
1 NoneClarifications of definitions with no
direct cost impact.
Activities and Costs Associated With
Rule Changes for Small Systems
EPA has estimated the burden and
costs associated with the regulatory
changes, as described in the Economic
Analysis for this final rule. The basis for
many of these input values and
assumptions are described in detail in
the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The
following summarizes the costs
estimated for small systems.
1. One-Time Activities
All small systems subject to the Lead
and Copper Rule will be expected to
incur some costs to read the rule
changes and communicate requirements
as necessary. The level of effort
associated with these activities could
range from 5-8 hours for each small
system. The average cost per system for
these activities is estimated at $138, for
a total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286
small systems. This assumes an hourly
fully loaded labor cost for small system
employees ranging from $23.86 to
$33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic
Analysis).
2. Activities for Regulatory Change III.A
Under Regulatory Change III.A, small
systems with fewer than 5 taps in States
that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare
and submit to the State a one-time letter
verifying the applicable number of taps
and requesting the use of the alternative
sampling. Eleven States supported the
alternative sampling in their comments
on the proposed rule. However, two
States did not support the alternative
sampling. For purposes of estimating
costs, EPA assumed that the States that
did not support the alternative and
States that did not comment on the rule
provision would not allow systems to
implement the alternative since the
default requirement in the rule is that
systems take a minimum of 5 samples.
Based on data from SDWIS/FED on
these 11 States, EPA estimates that there
are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5
taps. Preparing the one-time request
letter results in a one time cost of $28
-------
57810 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
per system. Total costs for all small
systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III. A are estimated at
$104,000 per year.
3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C
Under Regulatory Change III.C, all
systems that exceed the lead action level
are triggered into regularly scheduled
lead tap monitoring. Additional costs
are associated with taking lead samples
more frequently and reporting the
results to States. EPA estimates that 854
small systems exceed the lead action
level each year. Changing from reduced
tap monitoring to regularly scheduled
tap monitoring would result in an
average cost increase of $2,258 per year
per system. Total costs for all small
systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.C are estimated at
$1,929,000 per year.
4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D
Small systems that are changing
treatment or adding a source would
incur additional costs under Regulatory
Change III.D to prepare data in support
of treatment changes or source addition,
to submit the data to the State for
review, and to coordinate with the State
during the review. These activities are
estimated to take an additional 7.5
hours per system for each treatment
change or source addition. The cost for
each small system that is changing
treatment or adding a source is
estimated at $196. The total cost for all
small systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.D is estimated at
$198,000 per year.
5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E
Most small systems are expected to
incur additional costs under Regulatory
Change III.E when they are required to
notify consumers of tap monitoring
results. The activities associated with
notifying customers vary based on the
type and size of the system and include
the effort to prepare a self-certification
letter to the State. The average cost for
small systems to notify customers is
estimated at approximately $17
annually. This estimate assumes one
labor hour to prepare a customer
notification letter per system, 0.12 hours
to prepare the self-certification letter,
and $0.43 in material costs per sample
for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour
plus 0.12 hours for NTNCWSs, with
negligible material costs. It is important
to note that the majority of small
systems are assumed to meet the lead
action level and are assumed to be on
triennial monitoring. Therefore, this
requirement will only affect them once
every three years. The total cost to all
small systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.E is estimated at
$1,060,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F
Different provisions of Regulatory
Change III.F apply to different subsets of
systems. All small community water
systems will incur costs to include a
statement on lead in the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR), at an average
cost of $7 per system, based on the
assumption of 0.25 hours to add an
informational statement on lead to the
CCR. Small community water systems
that exceed the lead action level will
incur costs from a variety of public
education activities, at an average cost
per system of $265. The total cost for all
small systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.F is estimated at
$569,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G
Regulatory Change III.G applies to
systems that had "tested out" lead
service lines as part of a lead service
line replacement program and then re-
exceeded the action level. For the
purposes of subsequent lead service line
replacement efforts, the previously
"tested-out" lines would go back into
the inventory for possible re-testing
and/or replacement. Only a handful of
systems are expected to be in this
situation, estimated at 1 system per
year. This analysis assumes that the 1
system is not a small system. There is
no evidence that small systems would
be triggered into this regulatory change
cost any more frequently than other
systems.
8. Total Small System Costs
Table V.4 summarizes the estimated
annual costs associated with all
regulatory changes. Table V.5
summarizes the one-time costs to small
systems.
TABLE V.4.TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN
10,000 PEOPLE
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change
Total
Ill A
IH.B
Ill C ...
III.D
Ill E
III.F .. .
Ill G
Annual
labor
0
0
1 783 000
198,000
946 000
566 000
0
3.492.000
Annual
materials
0
0
146000
0
1 1 4 000
4000
0
264.000
Total
annual
0
0
1 ,929,000
198,000
1 060 000
569,000
0
3.755.000
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. Because this table represents annual costs, some fields include zero
values. While there are regulatory costs associated with Regulatory Change III.A, these costs are one-time in nature and thus do not include any
annual costs.
TABLE V.5.TOTAL ESTIMATED ONE-
TIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006
DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING
LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE
Regulatory Change I
Implementation
I.A
TABLE V.5.TOTAL ESTIMATED ONE-
TIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006
DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING
LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLECon-
tinued
One-time
costs
$104,000
9,404,000
Total
One-time
costs
9 508 000
9. Average Costs Per Small System
The estimated average compliance
cost for all small systems covered by the
LCR for the final rule changes is
minimal: $55 per system in annual
costs. However, there is a fairly wide
range in the costs that a system could
face. EPA expects that all systems will
incur the $138 one-time implementation
cost. The additional annual costs could
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57811
be as low as $0 for small NTNCWSs that
already notify customers of tap
monitoring results. Systems that do not
already notify customers of results
could incur $17 per year. EPA estimates
that small CWSs will incur $7 per year
to include a statement on the CCR. The
roughly 2 percent of systems that are
making a treatment change or source
addition are estimated to incur an
additional $196 in the year they make
the change.
At the high end, if a system incurred
all estimated annual costs, the total
would be $2,743 per year. As EPA
estimates that only 854 small systems
will exceed the lead action level, at
most only 854 small systems or 1.3
percent of all small systems could
potentially incur all estimated annual
costs. Those systems that do not exceed
the lead action level face a maximum
potential annual cost of $220.
10. Measuring Significant Economic
Impact of Rule Costs
The costs to small systems are
compared against average revenues for
small systems from all revenue sources.
Small systems can be one of three types
of small entitiessmall businesses,
small governments, or small non-profits.
The revenue estimate used for assessing
impacts to small systems in this rule is
derived from two sources: (1) EPA's
2000 Community Water System Survey
(CWSS) and (2) the 2002 Census of
Governments. Data from these two
sources are used to calculate an average
revenue estimate for all small systems
serving less than 10,000 customers and
for each of 3 size categories: Those
serving 25-500 customers, those serving
501-3300 customers, and those serving
3301-10,000 customers. Analyzing
impacts separately for these 3 categories
of small systems allows EPA to better
identify potential impacts to the
smallest systems, which tend to have
the lowest revenues. Estimates of total
revenue are shown in Table V.6 and
reflect updates to EPA's revenue
analysis in the proposed rule. For more
information on EPA's revenue estimates
for the small system size subcategories,
please see the Economic Analysis for
the final rule.
Using average revenues and the
average cost of the regulatory changes
for all small systems, the one-time costs
represent roughly 0.006 percent of
annual revenues from all revenue
sources. The estimated $55 average
annual compliance costs per system
represent 0.003 percent of average
annual revenues from all revenue
sources. EPA estimates that roughly 1.3
percent of the systems serving 10,000 or
less customers would incur all annual
costs of $2,743, which is approximately
0.127 percent of annual revenues from
all sources.
Costs as a percentage of revenues for
the 3 size categories separately are
shown in Table V.6. This table
compares the average costs of the
regulatory changes to the average
revenues. As shown in Table V.6,
average economic impacts to small
systems from these regulatory revisions
are all less than one percent of average
revenue for each of the small system
size subcategories. However, as
discussed in section V.C.I of this notice,
substantial data limitations exist in our
revenue data which may limit our
ability to accurately describe the
revenues available to small water
systems.
TABLE V.6.AVERAGE COSTS PER SYSTEM AND PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE
[All revenue sources (2006$)]
System size
25-500
501-3300
3301-10K
Aaareaate: 25-10K
Number of
systems
46,551
16 932
4803
68.286
Average
annual cost
per system
$41
67
153
55
Revenues
per system*
"$550,000
1 448 000
1 2 643 000
2.167.000
Average an-
nual cost as
percentage
of revenue
0.007
0 005
0 001
0.003
Notes: 'Includes water revenues and non-water related revenues (e.g., revenues related to the primary business for private entities that oper-
ate a water system to support their business or municipal general revenue for publicly owned and operated systems). "Estimated Total Average
Revenue per system for systems serving 25-100 is $220,000.
In summary, the average costs for
each of the small size subcategories
below 10,000 represent less than 1
percent of average revenue from all
sources. To provide additional
information on the potential economic
impacts of the LCR on small entities,
EPA also examined the range of
potential costs relative to revenues for
the smallest system size category (those
serving 25-500 people). Average total
annual revenue for this system size is
estimated to be $550,000. As stated
above, the maximum number of small
systems (serving less than 10,000
people) that could possibly incur all
annual total costs of $2,743 is 854, those
that exceed the lead action level. This
maximum cost represents
approximately 0.5 percent of average
revenues from all sources for systems in
the smallest size subcategory. However,
because of our limited data on small
system revenues, we do not have the
ability to develop a distribution of
revenues in this subcategory for
comparison. For those systems that do
not exceed the lead action level, the
maximum potential cost that could be
incurred by systems in the smallest size
category is $220, or 0.04 percent of
revenue from all sources. This analysis
further supports our conclusion that this
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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. For
Regulatory Change III.A, EPA added a
provision that gives States the discretion
to allow water systems with fewer than
5 taps for human consumption to collect
one sample per tap. Under this
alternative sampling schedule, the
sample with the highest test result will
be compared to the action level to
determine compliance. Taking fewer
than 5 samples for each monitoring
event will reduce the monitoring burden
for small systems while still being
protective of public health. Comparing
the single highest sample value does not
allow water systems to ignore a
potential problem by taking repeat
samples at taps that have low lead
results when they get a high sample
result.
Regulatory Change III.C requires
systems that exceed the lead action level
to resume tap monitoring for lead on a
regular basis, rather than on a reduced
schedule. Originally EPA considered
extending this requirement to both lead
-------
57812 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
and copper monitoring. Based on
guidance from the work group on
minimizing impacts to small systems,
EPA limited the requirement to only
include lead action level exceedances.
Regulatory Change III.E requires
systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The regulatory
development work group considered
including copper monitoring results in
the consumer notice, but decided to
defer that suggestion for consideration
in future regulatory revisions, thereby
limiting the increase in burden to small
systems.
11. What Were the Key Issues Raised by
Commenters on the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and EPA's Response
to These Issues?
EPA received one comment on its
Regulatory Flexibility analysis
supporting the proposed rule. The
commenter agreed with EPA's
certification that the LCR will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, but
recommended that EPA provide more
detailed information concerning the
economic impacts of these regulatory
changes to subcategories of small
entities. In response to this commenter,
EPA provided additional information in
the final rule on the potential impacts
to systems in the three smallest size
subcategories (those serving 25-500,
501-3,300, and 3,301 to 10,000 people)
and has considered this information in
evaluating impacts to small systems.
In certifying that these regulatory
changes will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA assessed
the economic impacts of this final rule
on small water systems by calculating
an average revenue estimate for systems
serving less than 10,000 customers and
comparing it to an average cost estimate
for systems serving less than 10,000.
EPA then evaluated data on the costs
and revenues per system for three small
size subcategories as defined in the
SDWA for affordability determinations
for small systems. EPA believes that for
this rule this is a reasonable way to
stratify the small system universe by
size for purposes of its RFA screening
analysis as well. EPA is continuing to
examine issues associated with the
significant variety of entities that
operate small water systems and how
best to analyze them under the RFA,
and may further refine its analytical
approach for future rule makings.
EPA is also working to improve its
estimation of small system revenues.
The new CWSS, estimated for
completion in early 2009, is expected to
better enable EPA to assess the impacts
of future regulatory actions on small
systems. In the new CWSS, we are
taking steps to improve response rate,
particularly with respect to water
system revenue estimates. Examples of
these steps include linking municipal
government revenues to the system
surveyed in that municipality, rather
than reliance on the Census of
Governments data; decreasing item non-
response on revenue source through
system site visits; and gaining a better
understanding of how a water system
pays for its system operations in
systems that report no revenue, through
an additional survey question. These
improvements to the new CWSS will
help EPA to gain a better understanding
of the revenue sources available to small
water systems and improve our ability
to accurately understand the revenue
streams available to these systems.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
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 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
total upfront costs of this action to
States and public water systems are
estimated at $12.7 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and
public water systems ranging from $5.9
to $6.3 million. Systems and State/
Primacy agencies incur one-time
upfront costs associated with reviewing
and implementing the overall LCR
regulatory changes. For systems,
activities include reviewing the rule
changes and training staff. For States/
Primacy agencies, activities include
regulation adoption, program
development, and miscellaneous
training. Systems and States also incur
annual costs consisting of the costs to
implement the regulation. Annual costs
to systems include the costs of
reporting, monitoring, and public
education. Annual costs to States
consist of the costs of reviewing water
system information. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The rule is
consistent with, and only makes
revisions to, the requirements under the
current NPDWR for lead and copper.
The existing rule imposes requirements
on PWSs to ensure that water delivered
to users is minimally corrosive; the rule
requires removal of lead service lines
and the provision of public education
where necessary to ensure public health
protection. This final rule does not
make any significant changes to these
requirements, but makes revisions and
clarifications to the rule's requirements
to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of current rule
requirements.
Nevertheless, in developing this rule,
EPA consulted with State and local
officials (including small entity
representatives) early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation to
permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. EPA
held five workshops in 2004-2005 to
elicit concerns and suggestions from
stakeholders on various issues related to
lead in drinking water. These
workshops covered the topic areas of
simultaneous compliance, sampling
protocols, public education, lead service
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57813
line replacement, and lead in plumbing.
Expert participants from utilities,
academia, state governments, consumer
and environmental groups, and other
stakeholder groups participated in these
workshops to identify issues, propose
solutions, and offer suggestions for
modifications and improvements to the
LCR. These workshops are described in
greater detail in the Economic Analysis
for this final rule.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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."
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. The rule is
consistent with, and only makes
revisions to, the requirements under the
current NPDWR for lead and copper.
The existing rule imposes requirements
on PWSs to ensure that water delivered
to users is minimally corrosive; the rule
requires removal of lead service lines
and the provision of public education
where necessary to ensure public health
protection. This final rule does not
make any significant changes to these
requirements, but makes revisions and
clarifications to the rule's requirements
to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of current rule
requirements. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
Nevertheless, EPA did consult with
State and local officials in developing
this final rule as described in Section
V.D, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA specifically
solicited comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
"Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure "meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications." This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It 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
this final rule apply to all community
and non-transient non-community water
systems. Tribal governments may be
owners or operators of such systems;
however, nothing in this rule's
provisions uniquely affects them. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that;
(1) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive
Order 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.
While this final rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless
have reason to believe that the
environmental health or safety risk
addressed by this action has a
disproportionate effect on children. This
final rule does not change the core LCR
requirements in place to assure the
protection of children from the effects of
lead in drinking water; rather, these
changes improve the implementation of
these provisions. Moreover, EPA
believes that this final rule is consistent
with Executive Order 13045 because it
further strengthens the protection to
children from exposure to lead via
drinking water as it enhances the
implementation of the LCR in the areas
of monitoring, customer awareness, and
lead service line replacement. This final
rule also clarifies the intent of some
provisions in the LCR. These changes
are expected to ensure and enhance
more effective protection of public
health through the reduction in lead
exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a "significant energy
action" as defined in Executive Order
13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The rule provides clarifications and
modifications to the existing LCR
requirements only.
This final rule does not affect the
supply of energy as it does not regulate
power generation. The public and
private utilities that are affected by this
final regulation do not, as a rule,
generate power. The revisions to the
LCR do not regulate any aspect of
energy distribution as the utilities that
are regulated by the LCR already have
electrical service. Finally, these
regulatory revisions do not adversely
affect the use of energy as EPA does not
anticipate that a significant number of
drinking water utilities will add
treatment technologies that use
electrical power to comply with these
regulatory revisions. As such, EPA does
not anticipate that this rule will
adversely affect the use of energy.
/. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule,
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law 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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The'NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule may involve voluntary
consensus standards in that it requires
-------
57814 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
additional monitoring for lead and
copper in certain situations, and
monitoring and sample analysis
methodologies are often based on
voluntary consensus standards.
However, the final rule does not change
any methodological requirements for
monitoring or sample analysis, only, in
some cases, the required frequency and
number of samples. Also, EPA's
approved monitoring and sampling
protocols generally include voluntary
consensus standards developed by
agencies such as the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and other
such bodies wherever EPA deems these
methodologies appropriate for
compliance monitoring.
/. Congressional Review Act
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 action is not a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective December 10, 2007.
VI. References
U.S. EPA, I991a. Federal Register. Vol. 56,
No. 110. 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].
U.S. EPA, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis of National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper.
Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc.
(April 1991).
U.S. EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60,
No. 72. Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals and National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12, 1996),
16348-16371. (60 FR'l6348).
U.S. EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum. EPA 812-B-96-002, January
1996.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol. 63,
No. 160. Consumer Confidence Reports
(August 19, 1998) (63 FR 44526).
U.S. EPA, 2000a. Arsenic in Drinking Water
Rule Economic Analysis. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA
815-R-00-026, December 2000.
U.S. EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65.
No. 8. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule. (Wed, January 12, 2000), 1950-
2015 (65 FR 1950).
U.S. EPA, 2000c. Federal Register. Vol. 65,
No. 87. Public Notification of Drinking
Water Violations (May 4, 2000) (65 FR
26035).
U.S. EPA, 2004a. Information Collection
Request for Disinfection Byproducts,
Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules.
OMB Control Number: 2040-0204. EPA
Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H,
page H-43, table entitled "Tap
Monitoring for Lead & Copper
Monitoring, Burden, and Cost
Assumptions." September, 2004.
tJ.S. EPA, 2004b. State Implementation of the
Lead and Copper Rule. July. 2004.
U.S. EPA, 2005H. Economic Analysis for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhances Surface
Water Treatment Rule. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-
06-001, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis for the
Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA
815-R-05-010, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2006a. Federal Register. Vol. 71,
No. 137. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18,
2006), 40828-40863 (71 FR 40828).
U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA Air Quality Criteria for
Lead (Final). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF, October, 2006.
U.S. EPA, 2007a. Economic and Supporting
Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory
Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, EPA-815-RO-7022, September
2007.
U.S. EPA, 2007b. Simultaneous Compliance
Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2
and Stage 2 DBP Rules. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
815-R-07-017, March 2007.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and
142
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indianslands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: September 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 141NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300J-9, and 300J-11.
2. Section 141.80 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2),
by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§141.80 General requirements.
*****
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) For a public water system that has
been allowed by the State to collect
fewer than five samples in accordance
with § 141.86(c), the sample result with
the highest concentration is considered
the 90th percentile value.
*****
(g) Public education requirements.
Pursuant to § 141.85, all water systems
must provide a consumer notice of lead
tap water monitoring results to persons
served at the sites (taps) that are tested.
Any system exceeding the lead action
level shall implement the public
education requirements.
*****
3. Section 141.81 is amended as
follows by:
a. Removing the first sentence in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding in its
place the following two sentences;
b. Revising the last sentence in
paragraph (e)(l);
c. Revising the first sentence in
paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
§ 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control
treatment steps to small, medium-size and
large water systems.
*****
(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
upcoming long-term change in
treatment or addition of a new source as
described in that section. The State
must review and approve the addition
of a new source or long-term change in
water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.
(e) * * *
(1) * * * A system exceeding the lead
or copper action level shall recommend
optimal corrosion control treatment
(§ 141.82(a)) within six months after the
end of the monitoring period during
which it exceeds one of the action
levels.
(2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the
end of the monitoring period during
which a system exceeds the lead or
copper action level, the State may
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57815
require the system to perform corrosion
control studies {§ 141. 82(b)). * * *
(i) For medium-size systems, within
18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such
system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
(ii) For small systems, within 24
months after the end of the monitoring
period during which such system
exceeds the lead or copper action level.
* * * * *
4. Section 141.83(a)(l) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 1 41 .83 Source water treatment
requirements.
*****
(a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system
exceeding the lead or copper action
level shall complete lead and copper
source water monitoring (§ 141.88(b))
and make a treatment recommendation
to the State (§ 141.83(b)(l)) no later than
180 days after the end of the monitoring
period during which the lead or copper
action level was exceeded.
*****
5. Section 141.84 is amended as
follows by:
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as
b. Revising the last sentence in the
newly designated (b)(l) and adding two
sentences to the end of the paragraph;
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
d. In paragraph (f), revise "paragraph
(b)" to read "paragraph (b}(2)".
§ 1 41 .84 Lead service line replacement
requirements.
*****
(b)(l) * * * The first year of lead
service line replacement shall begin on
the first day following the end of the
monitoring period in which the action
level was exceeded under paragraph (a)
of this section. If monitoring is required
annually or less frequently, the end of
the monitoring period is September 30
of the calendar year in which the
sampling occurs. If the State has
established an alternate monitoring
period, then the end of the monitoring
period will be the last day of that
period.
(2) Any water system resuming a lead
service line replacement program after
the cessation of its lead service line
replacement program as allowed by
paragraph (f) of this section shall update
its inventory of lead service lines to
include those sites that were previously
determined not to require replacement
through the sampling provision under
paragraph (c) of this section. The system
will then divide the updated number of
remaining lead service lines by the
number of remaining ysars in the
program to determine the number of
lines that must be replaced per year (7
percent lead service line replacement is
based on a 15-year replacement
program, so, for example, systems
resuming lead service line replacement
after previously conducting two years of
replacement would divide the updated
inventory by 13). For those systems that
have completed a 15-year lead service
line replacement program, the State will
determine a schedule for replacing or
retesting lines that were previously
tested out under the replacement
program when the system re-exceeds the
action level.
*****
6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as
follows:
§141.85 Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
All water systems must deliver a
consumer notice of lead tap water
monitoring results to persons served by
the water system at sites that are tested,
as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section. A water system that exceeds the
lead action level based on tap water
samples collected in accordance with
§ 141.86 shall deliver the public
education materials contained in
paragraph (a) of this section in
accordance with the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section. Water
systems that exceed the lead action level
must sample the tap water of any
customer who requests it in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Content of written public
education materials. (1) Community
water systems and Non-transient non-
community water systems. Water
systems must include the following
elements in printed materials (e.g.,
brochures and pamphlets) in the same
order as listed below. In addition,
language in paragraphs (a)(l)(i) through
(ii) and (a)(l)(vi) of this section must be
included in the materials, exactly as
written, except for the text in brackets
in these paragraphs for which the water
system must include system-specific
information. Any additional information
presented by a water system must be
consistent with the information below
and be in plain language that can be
understood by the general public. Water
systems must submit all written public
education materials to the State prior to
delivery. The State may require the
system to obtain approval of the content
of written public materials prior to
delivery.
(i) IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING
WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER
SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead
in drinking water in some homes/
buildings. Lead can cause serious health
problems, especially for pregnant
women and young children. Please read
this information closely to see what you
can do to reduce lead in your drinking
water.
(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can
cause serious health problems if too
much enters your body from drinking
water or other sources. It can cause
damage to the brain and kidneys, and
can interfere with the production of red
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts
of your body. The greatest risk of lead
exposure is to infants, young children,
and pregnant women. Scientists have
linked the effects of lead on the brain
with lowered IQ in children. Adults
with kidney problems and high blood
pressure can be affected by low levels of
lead more than healthy adults. Lead is
stored in the bones, and it can be
released later in life. During pregnancy,
the child receives lead from the
mother's bones, which may affect brain
development.
(iii) Sources of Lead.
(A) Explain what lead is.
(B) Explain possible sources of lead in
drinking water and how lead enters
drinking water. Include information on
home/building plumbing materials and
service lines that may contain lead.
(C) Discuss other important sources of
lead exposure in addition to drinking
water (e.g., paint).
(iv) Discuss the steps the consumer
can take to reduce their exposure to lead
in drinking water.
(A) Encourage running the water to
flush out the lead.
(B) Explain concerns with using hot
water from the tap and specifically
caution against the use of hot water for
preparing baby formula.
(C) Explain that boiling water does
not reduce lead levels.
(D) Discuss other options consumers
can take to reduce exposure to lead in
drinking water, such as alternative
sources or treatment of water.
(E) Suggest that parents have their
child's blood tested for lead.
(v) Explain why there are elevated
levels of lead in the system's drinking
water (if known) and what the water
system is doing to reduce the lead levels
in homes/buildings in this area.
(vi) For more information, call us at
[INSERT YOUR NUMBER] [(IF
APPLICABLE), or visit our Web site at
I INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE]]. For
more information on reducing lead
exposure around your home/building
and the health effects of lead, visit
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
lead or contact your health care
provider.
-------
57816 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
(2) Community water systems. In
addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section, community water systems must:
(i) Tell consumers how to get their
water tested.
(ii) Discuss lead in plumbing
components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.
(b) Delivery of public education
materials. (I) For public water systems
serving a large proportion of non-
English speaking consumers, as
determined by the State, the public
education materials must contain
information in the appropriate
language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone
number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to
obtain a translated copy of the public
education materials or to request
assistance in the appropriate language.
(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 conducting public education
tasks under this section, must conduct
the public education tasks under this
section within 60 days after the end of
the monitoring period in which the
exceedance occurred:
(i) Deliver printed materials meeting
the content requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section to all bill paying
customers.
(ii)(A) Contact customers who are
most at risk by delivering education
materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to local public health agencies
even if they are not located within the
water system's service area, along with
an informational notice that encourages
distribution to all the organization's
potentially affected customers or
community water system's users. The
water system must contact the local
public health agencies directly by phone
or in person. The local public health
agencies may provide a specific list of
additional community based
organizations serving target populations,
which may include organizations
outside the service area of the water
system. If such lists are provided,
systems must deliver education
materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to all organizations on the
provided lists.
(B) Contact customers who are most at
risk by delivering materials that meet
the content requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section to the following
organizations listed in 1 through 6 that
are located within the water system's
service area, along with an
informational notice that encourages
distribution to all the organization's
potentially affected customers or
community water system's users:
(1) Public and private schools or
school boards.
(2) Women, Infants and Children
(WIC) and Head Start programs.
(3) Public and private hospitals and
medical clinics.
(4) Pediatricians.
(5) Family planning clinics.
(6) Local welfare agencies.
(C) Make a good faith effort to locate
the following organizations within the
service area and deliver materials that
meet the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to them,
along with an informational notice that
encourages distribution to all
potentially affected customers or users.
The good faith effort to contact at-risk
customers may include requesting a
specific contact list of these
organizations from the local public
health agencies, even if the agencies are
not located within the water system's
service area:
(1) Licensed childcare centers
(2) Public and private preschools.
(3) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and
Midwives.
(iii) No less often than quarterly,
provide information on or in each water
bill as long as the system exceeds the
action level for lead. The message on the
water bill must include the following
statement exactly as written except for
the text in brackets for which the water
system must include system-specific
information: [INSERT NAME OF
WATER SYSTEM] found high levels of
lead in drinking water in some homes.
Lead can cause serious health problems.
For more information please call
[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM]
[or visit (INSERT YOUR WEB SITE
HERE)]. The message or delivery
mechanism can be modified in
consultation with the State; specifically,
the State may allow a separate mailing
of public education materials to
customers if the water system cannot
place the information on water bills.
(iv) Post material meeting the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section on the water system's Web site
if the system serves a population greater
than 100,000.
(v) Submit a press release to
newspaper, television and radio
stations.
(vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section, systems must
implement at least three activities from
one or more categories listed below. The
educational content and selection of
these activities must be determined in
consultation with the State.
(A] Public Service Announcements.
(BJ Paid advertisements.
(C) Public Area Information Displays.
(D) E-mails to customers.
(E) Public Meetings.
(F) Household Deliveries.
(G) Targeted Individual Customer
Contact.
(H) Direct material distribution to all
multi-family homes and institutions.
(I) Other methods approved by the
State.
(vii) For systems that are required to
conduct monitoring annually or less
frequently, the end of the monitoring
period is September 30 of the calendar
year in which the sampling occurs, or,
if the State has established an alternate
monitoring period, the last day of that
period.
(3) As long as a community water
system exceeds the action level, it must
repeat the activities pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section as
described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) A community water system shall
repeat the tasks contained in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (ii) and (vi) of this section every
12 months.
(ii) A community water system shall
repeat tasks contained in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section with each
billing cycle.
(iii) A community water system
serving a population greater than
100,000 shall post and retain material
on a publicly accessible Web site
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this
section.
(iv) The community water system
shall repeat the task in paragraph
(b)(2)(v) of this section twice every 12
months on a schedule agreed upon with
the State. The State can allow activities
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to
extend beyond the 60-day requirement
if needed for implementation purposes
on a case-by-case basis; however, this
extension must be approved in writing
by the State in advance of the 60-day
deadline.
(4) Within 60 days after the end of the
monitoring period in which the
exceedance occurred (unless it already
is repeating public education tasks
pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this
section), a non-transient non-
community water system shall deliver
the public education materials specified
by paragraph (a) of this section as
follows:
(i) Post informational posters on lead
in drinking water in a public place or
common area in each of the buildings
served by the system; and
(ii) Distribute informational
pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in
drinking water to each person served by
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57817
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.
(iii) For systems that are required to
conduct monitoring annually or less
frequently, the end of the monitoring
period is September 30 of the calendar
year in which the sampling occurs, or,
if the State has established an alternate
monitoring period, the last day of that
period.
(5) A non-transient non-community
water system shall repeat the tasks
contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section at least once during each
calendar year in which the system
exceeds the lead action level. The State
can allow activities in (b)(4) of this
section to extend beyond the 60-day
requirement if needed for
implementation purposes on a case-by-
case basis; however, this extension must
be approved in writing by the State in
advance of the 60-day deadline.
(6) A water system may discontinue
delivery of public education materials if
the system has met the lead action level
during the most recent six-month
monitoring period conducted pursuant
to § 141.86. Such a system shall
recommence public education in
accordance with this section if it
subsequently exceeds the lead action
level during any monitoring period.
(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 only the
text specified in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section in lieu of the text in paragraphs
(a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section and to
perform the tasks listed in paragraphs
(b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section in lieu of
the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(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) A community water system
serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit
certain aspects of their public education
programs as follows:
(i) With respect to the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section, a
system serving 3,300 or fewer must
implement at least one of the activities
listed in that paragraph.
(ii) With respect to the requirements
of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a
system serving 3,300 or fewer people
may limit the distribution of the public
education materials required under that
paragraph to facilities and organizations
served by the system that are most likely
to be visited regularly by pregnant
women and children.
(iii) With respect to the requirements
of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, the
State may waive this requirement for
systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons
as long as system distributes notices to
every household served by the system.
(c) Supplemental monitoring and
notification of results. A water system
that fails to meet the lead action level
on the basis of tap samples collected in
accordance with § 141.86 shall offer to
sample the tap water of any customer
who requests it. The system is not
required to pay for collecting or
analyzing the sample, nor is the system
required to collect and analyze the
sample itself.
(d) Notification of results. (1)
Reporting requirement. All water
systems must provide a notice of the
individual tap results from lead tap
water monitoring carried out under the
requirements of § 141.86 to the persons
served by the water system at the
specific sampling site from which the
sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of
the residence where the tap was tested).
(2) Timing of notification. A w.ater
system must provide the consumer
notice as soon as practical, but no later
than 30 days after the system learns of
the tap monitoring results.
(3) Content. The consumer notice
must include the results of lead tap
water monitoring for the tap that was
tested, an explanation of the health
effects of lead, list steps consumers can
take to reduce exposure to lead in
drinking water and contact information
for the water utility. The notice must
also provide the maximum contaminant
level goal and the action level for lead
and the definitions for these two terms
from §141.153(c).
(4) Delivery. The consumer notice
must be provided to persons served at
the tap that was tested, either by mail
or by another method approved by the
State. For example, upon approval by
the State, a non-transient non-
community water system could post the
results on a bulletin board in the facility
to allow users to review the information.
The system must provide the notice to
customers at sample taps tested,
including consumers who do not
receive water bills.
7. Section 141.86 is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(5) remove the
citation "§§141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)" and
add in its place "§ 141.85(b)(7)";
b. In paragraph (c) introductory text
by adding three sentences after the third
sentence;
c. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add three
sentences after the last sentence;
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);
e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);
g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)
introductory text;
h. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(l);
i. Removing the first sentence in
paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding in its
place the following two sentences;
j. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (g)(4)(i); and
k. Removing the first sentence in
paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding in its
place two new sentences:
§141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in tap water.
*****
(c) * * * A public water system that
has fewer than five drinking water taps,
that can be used for human
consumption meeting the sample site
criteria of paragraph (a) of this section
to reach the required number of sample
sites listed in paragraph (c) of this
section, must collect at least one sample
from each tap and then must collect
additional samples from those taps on
different days during the monitoring
period to meet the required number of
sites. Alternatively the State may allow
these public water systems to collect a
number of samples less than the number
of sites specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, provided that 100 percent of all
taps that can be used for human
consumption are sampled. The State
must approve this reduction of the
minimum number of samples in writing
based on a request from the system or
onsite verification by the State. * * *
* * *
(d)
(4)
(i) * * * A small or medium water
system collecting fewer than five
samples as specified in paragraph (c) of
this section, that meets the lead and
copper action levels during each of two
consecutive six-month monitoring
periods may reduce the frequency of
sampling to once per year. In no case
can the system reduce the number of
samples required below the minimum of
one sample per available tap. This
sampling shall begin during the
calendar year immediately following the
end of the second consecutive six-
month monitoring period.
(ii) Any water system that meets the
lead action level and maintains the
range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting optimal
-------
57818 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
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. This
sampling shall begin during the
calendar year immediately following the
end of the second consecutive six-
month monitoring period. 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
meets the lead action level and
maintains the range of values for the
water quality control parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment specified by the State under
§ 141.82(f) during three consecutive
years of monitoring may reduce the
frequency of monitoring from annually
to once every three years if it receives
written approval from the State.
Samples collected once every three
years shall be collected no later than
every third calendar year. 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) 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. This
sampling shall begin during the period
approved or designated by the State in
the calendar year immediately following
the end of the second consecutive six-
month monitoring period for systems
initiating annual monitoring and during
the three-year period following the end
of the third consecutive calendar year of
annual monitoring for systems initiating
triennial monitoring.
*****
(vi) * * *
(B) Any water system subject to the
reduced monitoring frequency that fails
to meet the lead action level during any
four-month monitoring period or 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). This standard tap water
sampling shall begin no later than the
six-month period beginning January 1 of
the calendar year following the lead
action level exceedance or water quality
parameter excursion. 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) * * * This sampling shall begin
during the calendar year immediately
following the end of the second
consecutive six-month monitoring
period.
*****
(vii) Any water system subject to a
reduced monitoring frequency under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall
notify the State in writing in accordance
with § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming
long-term change in treatment or
addition of a new source as described in
that section. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or
long-term change in water treatment
before it is implemented by the water
system.
* * *
(g)* * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * Samples collected every
nine years shall be collected no later
than every ninth calendar year.
*****
(iii) Any water system with a full or
partial waiver shall notify the State in
writing in accordance with
§ 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-
term change in treatment or addition of
a new source, as described in that
section. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or
long-term change in water treatment
before it is implemented by the water
system.* * *
*****
8. Section 141.87 is amended as
follows by:
a. Revising paragraph (d);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
c. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
§141.87 Monitoring requirements for
water quality parameters.
*****
(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 the first six-month period
to begin on either January 1 or July 1,
whichever comes first, after 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 start of the
applicable six-month monitoring period
under this paragraph shall coincide
with the start 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)(i) Any water system that maintains
the range of values for the water quality
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations 57819
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment specified by the State
under § 141.82(f) during three
consecutive years of monitoring may
reduce the frequency with which it
collects the number of tap samples for
applicable water quality parameters
specified in this paragraph (e)(l) of this
section from every six months to
annually. This sampling begins during
the calendar year immediately following
the end of the monitoring period in
which the third consecutive year of six-
month monitoring occurs. Any water
system that maintains the range of
values for the water quality parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment specified by the State under
§ 141.82(f), during three consecutive
years of annual monitoring under this
paragraph may reduce the frequency
with which it collects the number of tap
samples for applicable water quality
parameters specified in paragraph (e)(l)
of this section from annually to every
three years. This sampling begins no
later than the third calendar year
following the end of the monitoring
period in which the third consecutive
year of monitoring occurs.
(ii) * * * Monitoring conducted
every three years shall be done no later
than every third calendar year.
*****
9. Section 141.88 is amended as
follows by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (d)(l)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(l)(ii);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(l)
introductory text; and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text.
§ 1 41 .88 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in source water.
*****
(b) Monitoring frequency after system
exceeds tap water action level. Any
system which exceeds the lead or
copper action level at the tap shall
collect one source water sample from
each entry point to the distribution
system no later than six months after the
end of the monitoring period during
which the lead or copper action level
was exceeded. For monitoring periods
that are annual or less frequent, the end
of the monitoring period is September
30 of the calendar year in which the
sampling occurs, or if the State has
established an alternate monitoring
period, the last day of that period.
(1) * * *
(i) * * * Triennial samples shall be
collected every third calendar year.
(ii) A water system using surface
water (or a combination of surface and
ground water) shall collect samples
once during each calendar year, the first
annual monitoring period to begin
during the year in which the applicable
State determination is made under
paragraph (d)(l) of this section.
*****
(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) provided that the
samples are collected no later than
every ninth calendar year and if the
system meets one of the following
criteria:
*****
(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) provided that the
samples are collected no later than
every ninth calendar year and if the
system meets one of the following
criteria:
§141.89 [Amended]
10. Section 141.89 is amended as
follows by:
a. In paragraph (a)(l)(iii) remove the
citation "§ 141.88(a)(l)(iii)" and add in
its place "§ 141.88(a)(l)(iv)";
b. In paragraph (a)(l)(iv) remove the
citation "(a)(2)" and add in its place
"(a)(l)".
11. Section 141.90 is amended as
follows by:
a. Removing the colon and adding a
period in its place at the end of
paragraph (a)(l) introductory text;
b. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (a)(l) introductory text;
c. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text
remove the citation "§§ 141.85(c)(7)(i)
and (ii)" and add in its place
"§141.85(b)(7)";
d. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
e. Revising paragraph (e)(l);
f. Revising paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text;
g. Revising the last sentence of
paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
h. Revising paragraph (f)(l)
introductory text;
i. Revising paragraph (f)(l)(i); and
j. Adding paragraph (f)(3).
§ 141.90 Reporting requirements.
*****
(a)* * * (1)* * * For monitoring
periods with a duration less than six
months, the end of the monitoring
period is the last date samples can be
collected during that period as specified
in §§141.86 and 141.87.
*****
(3) At a time specified by the State, or
if no specific time is designated by the
State, then as early as possible prior to
the addition of a new source or any
long-term change in water treatment, 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 submit written
documentation to the State describing
the change or addition. The State must
review and approve the addition of a
new source or long-term change in
treatment before it is implemented by
the water system. Examples of long-term
treatment changes include the addition
of a new treatment process or
modification of an existing treatment
process. Examples of modifications
include switching secondary
disinfectants, switching coagulants (e.g.,
alum to ferric chloride), and switching
corrosion inhibitor products (e.g.,
orthophosphate to blended phosphate).
Long-term changes can include dose
changes to existing chemicals if the
system is planning long-term changes to
its finished water pH or residual
inhibitor concentration. Long-term
treatment changes would not include
chemical dose fluctuations associated
with daily raw water quality changes.
(e)
* * *
(1) No later than 12 months after the
end of a monitoring period in which a
system exceeds the lead action level in
sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), the
system must submit written
documentation to the State of the
material evaluation conducted as
required in § 141.86(a), identify the
initial number of lead service lines in its
distribution system at the time the
system exceeds the lead action level,
and provide the system's schedule for
annually replacing at least 7 percent of
the initial number of lead service lines
in its distribution system.
(2) No later than 12 months after the
end of a monitoring period in which a
system exceeds the lead action level in
sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), and
every 12 months thereafter, the system
shall demonstrate to the State in writing
that the system has either:
*****
(ii) * * * In such cases, the total
number of lines replaced and/or which
meet the criteria in § 141.84(c) shall
-------
57820 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 195/Wednesday, October 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
equal at least 7 percent of the initial
number of lead lines identified under
paragraph (e)(l) of this section (or the
percentage specified by the State under
§141.84(e)).
*****
(f) * * * (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 in accordance with
§ 141.85(b), 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 the
delivery requirements in § 141.85 (b);
and
*****
(3) No later than 3 months following
the end of the monitoring period, each
system must mail a sample copy of the
consumer notification of tap results to
the State along with a certification that
the notification has been distributed in
a manner consistent with the
requirements of § 141.85(d).
*****
12. Section 141.154 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 141.154 Required additional health
information.
(d) Every report must include the
following lead-specific information:
(1) A short informational statement
about lead in drinking water and its
effects on children. The statement must
include the following information:
If present, elevated levels of lead can
cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and
young children. Lead in drinking water
is primarily from materials and
components associated with service
lines and home plumbing. [NAME OF
UTILITY] is responsible for providing
high quality drinking water, but cannot
control the variety of materials used in
plumbing components. When your
water has been sitting for several hours,
you can minimize the potential for lead
exposure by flushing your tap for 30
seconds to 2 minutes before using water
for drinking or cooking. If you are
concerned about lead in your water, you
may wish to have your water tested.
Information on lead in drinking water,
testing methods, and steps you can take
to minimize exposure is available from
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
(2) A system may write its own
educational statement, but only in
consultation with the State.
PART 142NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
13. 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, and300j-ll.
14. Section 142.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(8)(xi) to read as
follows:
§ 142.14 Records kept by States.
*****
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(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(b)(7)(i) and (iij of
this chapter, that operate 24 hours a
day;
*****
|FR Doc. E7-19432 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
-------
-------
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
that has been manufactured with Wind Power
------- |