EPA 815-Z-06-003
Tuesday,
July 18, 2006
Part HI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 141
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-
term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications; Proposed Rule
-------
40828
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8196-5]
RIN2040-AE83
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing seven
targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and
copper. This proposal strengthens the
implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) in the following areas:
monitoring, treatment processes,
customer awareness, and lead service
line replacement. These changes will
provide more effective protection of
public health by reducing exposure to
lead in drinking water. The proposed
changes do not affect the basic
requirements of the LCR, the lead or
copper maximum contaminant level
goals, or the lead and copper action
levels.
DATES: Comments must be received on-.
or before September 18, 2006. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
must be received by OMB on or before
August 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ED No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2005-0034, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
ivww.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-maii: OW-Docket@epa.gov,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-
0034.
• Agency Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington. DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. OW-2005-0034. Please
include a total of three copies. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
..• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102,1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. -
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0034! EPA's policy is that all comments
received wUl be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whbse disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov
Web site is an "anonymous access"
systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
.part of the comment that is placed in the
'.public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA's public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section l.B
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulotions.gov or in hard copy at
the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West. Room D102-, 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. For regulatory inquiries,
contact Eric Burneson at the same
address; telephone number: (202) 564-
5250.
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 proposed
rulemaking are public water systems
(PWSs) that are classified as either
community water systems (CWSs) or
non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated
categories and entities include:
Category
Industry '
State, Tribal, and
local governments.
Examples of
regulated entities
Privately-owned
CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
Publicly-owned CWSs
and NTNCWSs.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities regulated
by 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 §§ 141.3
and I4l.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. What Should I Consider as 1 Prepare
My Comments for EPA ?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through EDOCKET,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40829
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you.claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to
submitting one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading. Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions—The agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Abbreviations Used in This Document
ALE: Action Level Exceedance
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
CCK: Consumer Confidence Report
CCT: Corrosion Control Treatment
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
DDBP: Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FTE: Full-Time Equivalents
ICR: Information Collection Request
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions
LSL: Lead Service Line
LSI.R: Lead Service Line Replacement
LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory
Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation
NSF: NSF International
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
SDW1S/FED: Safe Drinking Water
Information System, Federal Version
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WQP: Water Quality Parameter monitoring
Table of Contents
1. Summary
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rulemaking
B. Regulatory History
C. Impacts of This Proposal
111. Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the
Lead and Copper Rule
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this clarification?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
B. Definitions For Compliance And
Monitoring Periods
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the propose j/tnange differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirement for Water Systems That
Intend To Make Any Change in Water
Treatment or Add A New Source of
Water That Could Affect the System's
Optimal Corrosion Control
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed
change does EPA request comment on?
G. Reevaluation Of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ
from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed.
change does EPA request comment on?
H. Request For Comment On Other Issues
Related To The LCR
1. Plumbing component replacement
2. Point of use and point of entry treatment
3. Site selection in areas with water
softeners and POU treatment units
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
I. 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?
J. Limitations To Public Comment on the
Lead and Copper Rule
K. Proposed Effective Dates
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 II1.B
E. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory
Change ffl.C
F. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory
Change I1I.D
G. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory
Change II1.E
"•• H. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory
Change ID.F
I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory
Change IH.G
J. Summary of National Average Annual
Direct Costs
K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and
Implement Regulatory Changes
L. Indirect Costs
M. Benefits
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
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
VI. References
-------
40830
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rvlemaking
The purpose of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCRJ is to protect populations
from exposure to lead and copper in
drinking water and reduce potential
health risks. Recent high profile
incidences of elevated drinking water
lead levels in the District of Columbia
prompted EPA to initiate a
comprehensive national review of the
LCR to evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the rule. EPA began the
review to determine the following: were
drinking water lead levels elevated
nationally; did a large percentage of the
population receive water that exceeded
the Lead Action Level; did a significant
number of systems fail to meet the
action level; how .well has the existing
LCR worked to reduce drinking water
lead levels; and has the rule
implementation been effective
especially with respect to monitoring
and public education requirements. EPA
gathered the information for the review
through a series of stakeholder
workshops in late 2004; an evaluation of
monitoring data; and an evaluation of
LCR implementation by States and
water utilities.
As a result of the national review and
workshops, EPA released a Drinking
Water Lead Reduction Plan in March
2005 which identified'nine actions to
improve implementation of the rule.
EPA has consolidated several of the
Plan's actions into the seven proposed
changes described in section III of this
proposal. These changes to the rule are
intended to strengthen in the short-term
the implementation of the LCR in the
areas of monitoring, treatment
processes, customer awareness, and lead
service line replacement. Some of the
regulatory changes identified in EPA's
review clarify the intent of the original
LCR for provisions that may not have
been sufficiently clear, while others
revise LCR requirements in light of the
recent experiences in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere. The changes
proposed are expected to enhance
protection of public health through a
reduction in lead exposure.
EPA has also identified a number of
issues that will be considered for future
revisions to the rule. These issues
require additional data collection.
research, analysis and/or stakeholder
involvement to support decisions. The
issues include, but are not limited to,
requirements for consecutive systems,
monitoring, and lead service line
replacement requirements. This
proposal 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.
B. Regulatory History
EPA promulgated maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and
NPDWRs for lead and copper in 1991
(56 FR 26460, June 7,199ld). 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 in their distribution
systems and conduct periodic
monitoring.
The rule requires systems to optimize
' corrosion control to prevent lead and
copper from leaching into drinking
water. Large systems serving more than
50,000 people were required to conduct
studies of corrosion control and install
state-approved optimal corrosion
control treatment by January 1,1997.
Small and medium systems are required
to optimize corrosion control when
monitoring at the consumer taps shows
action is necessary.
To assure corrosion control treatment
technique requirements are effective in
protecting public health, the rule also
established an Action Level (AL) of 15
ppb for lead and 1300 ppb for copper in
drinking water. Systems are required to
monitor a specific number of customer
taps, based on the size of the system. If
lead concentrations exceed 15 ppb in
more than 10% of the taps sampled, the
system must undertake a number of
additional actions to control corrosion
and inform the public about steps they
should take to protect their health.
The LCR has four main functions: (l)
Require water suppliers to optimize
their treatment system to control
corrosion in customers' plumbing; (2)
determine tap water levels of lead and
copper for customers who have lead
service lines or lead-based solder in
their plumbing system; (3) rule out the
source water as a source of significant
lead levels; and (4) if action levels are
exceeded, require the suppliers to
educate their customers about lead and
suggest actions they can take to reduce
their exposure to lead through public
notices and public education programs.
If a water system, after installing and
optimizing corrosion control treatment,
fails to meet the Lead Action Level, it
must begin replacing the lead service
lines under its ownership.
EPA proposed minor revisions to the
LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR 16348,
U.S. EPA, 1996b) and finalized these
minor revisions on January 12, 2000 (65
FR 1950, U.S. EPA, 2000a). These minor
revisions streamlined the requirements
of the LCR to promote consistent
national implementation and reduce the
reporting burden on affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed
the areas of optimal corrosion control
demonstrations, 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 levels, MCLGs. or the
rule's basic requirements.
C. Impacts of This Proposal
This proposal will further strengthen
protection of the public from exposure
to lead and copper via drinking water by
enhancing the implementation of the
LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service
line replacement. This action also
clarifies the intent of some unclear
provisions in the LCR. The regulatory
revisions proposed today impose costs
associated with State and system review
of the regulatory changes, State review
of system-level changes to treatment
plans, system reporting and monitoring,
and public education. EPA has
estimated the economic impacts for
each of the regulatory changes, which
will have direct and indirect costs
associated with them. A detailed
description of these impacts is provided
in Section IV, Economic Analysis, of
this proposal and in the Economic
Analysis support document.
m. Proposed Regulatory Revisions lo
the Lead and Copper Rule
This section describes the proposed
clarifications and revisions to the Lead
and Copper Rule. This section also
describes issues and potential changes
the Agency is requesting comment
upon. Sections A through G describe
changes proposed and alternatives for
which the Agency is requesting
comment. Section H describes several
potential changes for which the Agency
is soliciting comment.
A. Minimum Number of Samples
Required
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA proposes to clarify the number
and location of samples required for the
smallest systems in §141.86(c) of the
LCR. The 1991 LCR established a
minimum number of sites required for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40831
lead and copper tap monitoring based
on system population size. EPA's
proposal maintains five samples per
monitoring period as the minimum
number of samples required for systems
serving fewer than 100 people.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This
Clarification?
EPA is proposing this clarification to
reduce confusion with respect to this
provision of the rule. EPA considered
the issue of sample size extensively in
the 1991 rule. EPA considered all
concerns regarding the number of
samples that should be taken and
explained the rationale for the number
of samples in the Preamble to the 1991
Final Rule. Due to the high variability
in lead and copper levels, EPA
explained that it was necessary to take
more samples than required in other
rules in which the variability is not as
high. In the 1991 preamble, EPA also
recognized the fact that sampling all
households was not feasible and sought
to balance this concern with the need
for more samples to capture variability
among lead levels. Specifically, the
preamble stated: "EPA believes that the
number of samples required in the final
rule sufficiently accounts for the
variability in lead and copper levels,
and reflects system-wide contaminant
level distributions." (56 FR 26460 at
26523, U.S. EPA, 1991b); "The
requirements of the final rule seek to
strike-a balance between the competing
needs Of ensuring the representativeness
of sampling results and ensuring that
the sampling requirements are
reasonable and implementable by public
water systems." (56 FR 26460 at 26524,
U.S. EPA, 1991b).
In the preamble to the 1991 Rule, EPA
also addressed concerns about the high
costs to small systems of implementing
the minimum number of samples
requirement as follows: "EPA
understands commenter's concerns with
the potentially high costs of sampling
for small systems but believes the
increased number of samples is
necessary to ensure that lead and copper
levels are reasonably well represented."
(56 FR 26460 at 26524, U.S. EPA,
199ld): "For most systems, collecting
more samples will be far less expensive
than undertaking corrosion control or
source water treatment, which they
could otherwise be required to install
based on an inappropriately small
sample size." (56 FR 26460 at 26524,
U.S. EPA, 199ld).
In the preamble to the 2000 minor
revisions, EPA revisited the question of
the appropriate number of samples. The
2000 preamble clarified that even if a
system did not have enough high-risk
sites to meet the minimum number of
samples, the system must take the
required minimum number of samples.
The 2000 Preamble again explains
EPA's rationale for choosing the
minimum number of samples, stated as
follows: "The number of samples
specified for initial monitoring, follow-
up monitoring and reduced monitoring
was established to sufficiently account
for variability of lead and copper at taps
while at the same time being reasonable
for a system to implement." (65 FR 1950
at 1970, U.S. EPA, 2000a).
Even with the explanations in the
1991 and 2000 preamble, there
continues to be some confusion about
the minimum number of samples
required. EPA hopes to clarify this issue .
further with these revisions. In the 1991
rule, the term "site" is used to refer to
the number of samples collected.
However, there has been confusion as to
whether site refers to taps or samples.
EPA is proposing additional regulatory
language to clarify that water systems
with fewer than five taps must sample
all taps at least once and repeat
sampling at some taps in order to collect
the minimum number of samples
required. EPA believes this approach
will provide an accurate representation
of the lead level. Because lead levels
may change over time, EPA believes this
sampling approach will give a system
the most accurate picture of its water
quality. EPA further defines the taps in
this clarification to be "taps used for
human consumption" in order to ensure
that samples are taken from taps which
would pose the highest risk for exposure
to lead, rather than from a tap which is
not used for drinking, suelj,-as an
outside hose bib or utility sink.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
The proposal does not alter current
requirements. This is a clarification of
the minimum number of samples
requirement and does not represent a
change in rule requirements or EPA
policy.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
While EPA is proposing to retain the
five-sample minimum, EPA is also
soliciting comment on an alternative
which would specify that NTNCWSs
with fewer than five taps used for
human consumption would only be
required to collect one sample per
available tap used for human
consumption. Under this alternative, the
highest sample value would be
compared to the action level, rather than
an average of the two highest results.
EPA is requesting comment: (1) On
whether this alternative provides equal
or greater protection than the proposed
change, (2) on whether the alternative
sampling requirement should be
allowed only when the State determines
that the system's historical monitoring
data demonstrate the system is reliably
and consistently below the action level.
EPA consulted with representatives of
five State drinking water programs in
the development of this proposal. The
representatives of the State drinking
water programs disagreed with the
proposed clarification to the regulations
described in Section III.A2 above. The
State representatives proposed this
alternative change to the regulatory
language. State drinking water program
representative^ have argued that, while
it may make sense to collect a minimum
number of samples for larger
community water systems (CWSs) so
that there would be relative confidence
in the results being representative of the
system as a whole (due to variability),
this does not apply to a system where
100 percent of the available taps are
being tested. These State drinking water
program representatives provided the
following four reasons for their support
of the alternative approach in lieu of
this proposed clarification.
First, sampling at 100 percent of
available taps will provide a high level
of confidence that the sample results are
representative of levels in the system,
since the whole universe of available
sampling sites is being sampled during
each monitoring period.
•"Second, in the event that a system
with fewer than five taps has only one
single tap that exceeds the action level,
taking a total of five samples can easily
result in the system not having an
Action Level (AL) exceedance (and
therefore not needing to solve a lead
problem), because the 90th percentile is
calculated by averaging the two highest
samples when there are five samples.
When a system takes fewer than five
samples, a single sample above the AL
would be considered an AL exceedance
under the alternative to this proposal.
Third, sampling each tap at systems
that have fewer than five better
represents variation over time in these
systems than does the sampling for
largef systems, since the same sites are
sampled repeatedly (every monitoring
period). Larger CWSs frequently have to
change monitoring locations because
consumers do not allow the system
employees access to their homes on a
repeated basis. Monitoring at 100
percent of the same sites over time (at
NTNCWSs) would catch any changes in
plumbing materials introduced over
-------
40832
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
time, as well as account for any
variability at these sites over time.
Fourth, the alternative option would
continue to provide robust protection
for the most vulnerable populations,
such as schools and childcare facilities,
since all taps would be sampled. For
example, if a preschool has a tap that
exceeds the Lead Action Level, teachers
would know not to use that tap to
provide water to children for
consumption, and the system would be
required to address that issue
immediately.
EPA requests comment upon the
alternative option including the four
reasons described above arid any other
information that should be considered
in evaluating this alternative to the
proposed change.
B. Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing a number of
clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and
monitoring periods begin and end.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing clarifications
regarding monitoring and compliance
periods in-order to clarify the meaning
of these terms and to address two issues.
The term "compliance period" is
defined in § 141.2 as a three-year
calendar year period within a nine-year
compliance cycle. The term "monitoring
period" refers to the specific period
within the compliance period in which
a water system must perform the
required monitoring (e.g., June-
September),
The first issue concerns the timing of
actions following a lead or copper
action level exceedance. For systems on
reduced monitoring, they must monitor
either once during each calendar year or
once during each three-year compliance
period. The monitoring period is from
June to September or some other four-
month period during normal operation
when the highest lead levels are most
likely to occur. Under the current
regulations, some systems have been
uncertain about when a system is
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).
This change would clarify that the
system would be determined to be
exceeding the action level as of the date
on which the monitoring period ended
(e.g., on September 30). This
clarification is intended to ensure that
the system and the State begin actions
to reduce exposure, such as corrosion
control, public education for lead and/
or lead service line replacement, as soon
as possible. The deadlines for
completing these follow-up activities
would be calculated from the date the
system is determined to be exceeding
the action level (end of the monitoring
period).
The second issue concerns the timing
of samples that should be taken during
the three-year compliance period for
systems on triennial monitoring. This
proposal would require samples to be
taken during four consecutive months
within the compliance period, not over
multiple years. This requirement would
assure that States and systems have an
accurate assessment of the effectiveness
of corrosion control. Under this
requirement, samples will need to be
taken during four consecutive months,
during the three-year period. 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 four-
month period, all samples must be taken
during that four-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
would collecting the same'nujnber of
samples over a three year period.
We are also proposing that systems on
triennial monitoring be required to
conduct their monitoring every three
years. Systems would therefore not be
allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the
first compliance period and during Year
3 of the second compliance period
because that would mean five years
would have passed between monitoring
rounds. A similar change is also
proposed for small systems with
monitoring waivers to ensure that they
monitor every nine years.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
EPA is proposing clarifications of the
terms, "monitoring period" and
"compliance period." EPA also
proposes to revise a number of sections
in the LCR to more precisely specify
when the "start date" for the
compliance calendar occurs. These
changes clarify existing language rather
than changing any requirements of the
rule. These clarifications will ensure
that corrosion control, public education,
and/or lead service line replacement are
started in a timely fashion in order to
reduce exposure to lead. EPA also
proposes revisions that will make it
clear when systems may begin reduced
monitoring as well as when they need
to resume more frequent monitoring.
Again, EPA is not changing
requirements but rather making sure the
current requirements are clear and are
consistently implemented.
EPA is also proposing that systems on
triennial monitoring must monitor
during one four-month period (called
the "monitoring period"). EPA is further
proposing that systems on triennial
monitoring monitor every three years, so
that the start of the next round of
monitoring is based on the previous
round of monitoring. Systems would not
be allowed to monitor in Year 1 of one
round of one three-year compliance
period and Year 3 of the next three-year
period, since that would allow five
years between rounds, of monitoring.
This same approach would also be
applied to the nine-year cycles for
systems with a monitoring waiver.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
EPA is requesting comment on the
clarifications throughout the rule
regarding the terms monitoring period
and compliance period. EPA also
requests comments on other sections of
the LCR that may need modification to
clarify when actions are required to
begin or be completed. In addition, EPA
requests comment on the
appropriateness of requiring systems on
reduced monitoring to take all of their
required samples during one four-month
period in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the corrosion control
treatment.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to disallow water
systems that exceed 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
monitoring. This proposed change
would modify the reduced monitoring
provisions in § 141.86(d)(4), specifically
subsections (ii) , fiii) 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. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing this change because
the Agency believes that reduced
monitoring should only be permitted in
instances in which it has been
demonstrated that corrosion control
-------
Federal Register/Vol 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40833
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. One reason is that it will assist
systems in evaluating the effectiveness
of corrosion control treatment. The 1991
LCR intended to allow 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 this data may assist this
system in finding a better alternative
treatment. 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.
Secondly, primacy agencies may gain
a more accurate picture of what lead
levels in drinking water currently exist
in thoir 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 exceeds
action levels will also allow States and
systems to belter inform consumers and,
thereby, create greater confidence in
their efforts to reduce lead levels.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
In addition to monitoring lead and
copper levels at households, systems
that exceed the lead and copper action
level are required to monitor for water
quality parameters established by the
State. These water quality parameters
include pH, alkalinity, and other
parameters that reflect the method used
to control the corrosivity of the water
(e.g., phosphate levels). States establish
acceptable ranges for these parameters
for individual systems that-must be
maintained to assure compliance with
the rule. Currently a system that meets
the water quality parameter
requirements is eligible to reduce the
frequency of its lead and copper
monitoring even if the system is
currently exceeding the action levels.
The proposed revision would limit the
eligibility of reduced monitoring to only
those systems meeting the Lead Action
Level.
Currently, paragraph (4) of § 141.86(d)
contains provisions for when water
systems may reduce the monitoring
frequency and the number of required
lead and copper samples for systems of
various sizes under both standard and
reduced monitoring. Under
subparagraph (ii) of this section, any
water system that meets the water
quality parameters specified by the State
under § 141.82(f) for two consecutive
six-month monitoring periods may
reduce their monitoring to once per year
and reduce the number of samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of
§ 141.86 with written approval from the
State. Under subparagraph (in) of this
section, any water system that meets
these water quality parameters for three
consecutive years of annual monitoring
may reduce the monitoring frequency to
once every three years with written
approval from the State. The Agency is
proposing to require that these systems
must also meet the Lead Action Level
over the specified time period as a
criterion for reduced monitoring.' For
example, under subparagraph (ii) a
system would have to meet the Lead
Action Level and the State water quality
parameters for two consecutive six-
month monitoring periods in order to be
eligible, with written approval from the
State, to reduce its monitoring
frequency to once per year and reduce
the number of samples required in
accordance with § 141.86(c). This
proposed change will also require
systems currently on reduced
monitoring schedules that exceed the
Lead Action Level during any four
consecutive month monitoring period to
resume sampling the standard
monitoring number of sites under
§ 141.86(c) each consecutive six-month
monitoring period.
It should be noted that subparagraph
(i) of § 141.86(d)(4) allows small- or
medium-size water systems to reduce
monitoring to once per year after
meeting both the lead and copper action
levels for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods. Subparagraph (iii)
of the same section allows small- and
medium-size systems to reduce
monitoring from annually to once every
three years after meeting both the lead
and copper action levels for three
consecutive years. The Agency is not
proposing to change either of these
requirements. Small- and medium-size
systems that meet both the lead and
copper action levels may still reduce
monitoring in the manner described in
these sections without State approval.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA requests comment on the
proposal to disallow water systems that
are above the Lead Action Level from
initiating or maintaining a reduced
monitoring schedule based solely on the
results of their water quality parameter
monitoring.
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
(i.e., 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
sabparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of
§ 141.86(d)(4), 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.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval
Requirement for Water Systems That
Intend To Make Any Change in Water
Treatment or Add a New Source of
Water That Could Affect the System's
Optima} Corrosion Control
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend
§ 141.8lfb)(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 primacy agency to
add a new source of water or change a
treatment process prior to
implementation. The proposed
regulatory language allows as much
time as needed for water systems and
States to consult before making those
-------
40834
Federal Rcgister/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
changes. In addition to allowing this
type of State discretion, EPA is
currently developing a revised
simultaneous compliance guidance
document that can be used by the State
to identify those situations where
optimal corrosion control can be
affected by changes in treatment or
source water.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
In the 2000 revisions to the LCR, EPA
published in the Federal Register a
requirement that water systems notify
the State primacy agency of the addition
of a new source or treatment change no
later than 60 days after implementing
the change (65 FR 1950 at 1977, U.S.
EPA, 2000a). When water systems make
changes in their source water or
treatment processes there could be
unintentional effects on the water
system's optimal Corrosion control. The
goal of this provision was to ensure that
a water system maintained optimal
corrosion control following changes in
water quality resulting from a change in
source or treatment process by
providing the primacy authority an
opportunity to review the change and its
possible impacts on corrosion control.
An example of change in treatment
would be a switch in disinfectant.
EPA now believes that this provision
may not be adequate to ensure
continued optimal corrosion control
because the primacy agency review
comes too late in the process. If a water
system notifies the State primacy agency
of changes that have already been made
that could result in leaching of lead
from plumbing components such as
service lines, there may be little
opportunity to minimize any
anticipated problems with corrosion or
prevent leaching from occurring. For
this reason, EPA believes that such
changes in treatment should be
reviewed and approved by the State
before they are implemented. Also, EPA
believes that this proposed requirement
would fit well into the existing State
program plan review and approval
requirements that are part of the State's
primary enforcement responsibilities
described in § 142.11 (a)(2)(v).
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
Under the current requirement, water
systems must simply provide written
notification to the State within 60 days
after the change in treatment or source
has been made. This proposed
regulatory revision requires that the
notice of change be given in advance,
and the State must approve the change.
This gives water systems the
opportunity to consult with their States
and identify any measures that may be
necessary to avoid or minimize
potential problems with corrosion
control. It also allows the State to design
a monitoring program upfront, for those
situations where it is necessary to
ensure that corrosion control is being
maintained adequately after the change
has been made.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
Although EPA believes the proposed
regulatory revision is the best approach
to address potential problems with
corrosion control when treatment/
source changes are made, EPA requests
comment on a number of issues related
to the proposal. First, EPA also
considered the alternative of simply
requiring advance notification to the
State at least 60 days before the change.
However, EPA decided to propose both
prior notice and approval for two
reasons. The first reason is that EPA
could not determine a period for
advance notice that would be
appropriate for all changes; in some
cases 60 days would be unnecessary
(e.g., emergency changes to chemical
feed systems) and in some cases it
would be grossly insufficient (e.g., major
system improvements such as
installation of ion-exchange treatment).
The second reason is that several States
pointed out that they already require
approval of such changes and thought.
such approval was necessary to ensure
that optimal corrosion control would be
maintained. EPA requests comment on
the advanced notice (without approval)
alternative and if commenters favor the
alternative, EPA requests that
commenters address the issue of how
much time to provide (e.g., 60 days or
another time period).
The second issue on which the
Agency would like public comment is
what the phrase "addition of a new
source" should mean for systems that
mix water sources. For example, a water
system can mix source water by going
from 100% surface water to 50% ground
water and 50% surface water on either
a permanent or temporary (e.g.,
seasonal) basis. In this case, the mixing
of source waters might or might not be
considered an addition of a new source
under the regulation. Similarly, a
system may change the proportion of
two sources such as moving from 75%
ground water and 25% surface water to
25% ground water and 75% surface
water. These changes could also affect
the water chemistry in a way that could
impact corrosion control. From time to
time, water systems may switch entirely
from one source to another, such as
going from 100% surface water to 100%
ground water. EPA requests comment
on (1) whether and when such changes
should require prior approval and, (2) if
approval should not be required for all
such changes, what criteria should be
used to distinguish these kinds of
changes in source water from the source
water changes that might affect
corrosion control and need prior
approval. Specifically, EPA requests
public comment on whether the words
"source change" should replace
"addition of a new source" to describe
a broader range of scenarios where
source waters are changed in some way
(e.g., mixing of source waters in
different proportions) or if EPA should
describe in more detail in rule-or
preamble language or guidance which
types of changes require prior State
approval.
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy
Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for
Lead
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend the public
education requirements described in ;
§ 141.90 (g) and add a new notification
requirement at § 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 testing results
wh'en'their drinking water is tested for
lead.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
Although some utilities may provide
customers with the results of analyses
conducted to meet requirements of the
regulations, utilities are not currently
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.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
There are currently no provisions in
the regulation that require water utilities
to notify occupants of results of routine
monitoring conducted to comply with
the LCR. Community water systems
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40835
must collect samples from between five
and 100 households to evaluate lead
and.copper concentrations. Non-
transient, non-community water
systems (including some schools that
operate their own water system) must
also collect samples. This proposed rule
change "would require systems to
provide written notification to
occupants of the households no later
than 30 days after the utility learns the
results for the samples collected from
that household and to post or otherwise
notify occupants of non-residential
buildings of the results of the lead
testing. This would include staff and
parents of students for schools that are
tested as non-transient non-community
water systems.
While there are no current
requirements associated with
notification of results of routine
monitoring in the LCR, there are
requirements for utilities to provide
notice to homeowners when their water
is tested in carrying out partial lead
service line replacement. Section
141.84(d)(l) requires that utilities test
water within 72 hours after the
completion of partial replacement of a
lead service line. The utility must report
the results of the analysis to the owner
and the resident(s) served by the line
within 3 business days of receiving the
results. Utilities must provide the
information by mail or by other methods
approved by the State. In instances .
where multi-family dwellings are served •
by the line, the water system has the
option to post the information at a
conspicuous location. This provision is
not affected by the proposed rule
change.
The proposed language would require
utilities to provide consumers (owners
or occupants) at locations that were
tested during routine tap monitoring
pursuant to § 141.86 with a consumer
notice of the tap monitoring results as
soon as practical, but no later than 30
days after the utility learns of the
results. The notice must contain an
explanation of the health effects of lead,
list steps consumers can take to reduce
exposure to lead in drinking water,
provide contact information for the
utility, include the Maximum
Contaminant Level Goal (0 (ng/L), the
action level (15 (jig/L) and an
explanation of what these values mean.
The results must be provided by mail or
other methods approved by the State.
EPA selected thirty days as the
timeframe for notifying consumers of
results because it is consistent with the
notification time frame for a Tier 2
Public Notice and because it would
better allow utilities sufficient time to
generate a large number of notices for
mailing at one time. The purpose for
including the MCLG and the action
level is to give consumers context as to
their level of exposure in comparison to
the goal and standard established for
lead in drinking water. The MCLG is the
level at which no known adverse health
effects occur (with an adequate margin
of safety) and the action level is the
concentration of lead that States and
systems us_e to determine if systems
must install corrosion control treatment
if they have not already, done so, or if
they must begin public education and
lead service line replacement.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment
On?
EPA seeks comment on several
specific elements associated with the
proposed requirements. Is 30 days
sufficient time to provide notification,
or is a shorter or longer time frame
appropriate? Is it appropriate to include
the MCLG and the action level and a
brief explanation of their significance,
or is there some other information that
systems should or could be asked to
provide that would be more useful to
consumers in determining whether their
tap monitoring results warrant further
action to protect household members,
especially children, from lead exposure
through drinking water?
Additionally, during development of
the proposal, it was suggested that this
provision would cause an undue burden
on non-transient non-community water
systems. EPA believes it is important to
include non-transient non-community
systems because many of them are
schools or childcare facilities, which
provide water to the population more
susceptible to lead exposure. Given the
flexibilities included in the proposal
related to means of delivery, EPA seeks
comment on whether this provision
would cause an undue burden to non-
transient non-community water
systems.
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to change the public
education requirements of the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) in the Code of
Federal Regulations at § 141.85. The
proposal would still require water
systems to deliver public education
materials after a Lead Action Level
exceedance. EPA is proposing to
change, however, the content of the
message to be provided to consumers,
how the materials are delivered to
consumers, and the timeframe in which
materials must be delivered. The
changes to the delivery requirements
include additional organizations that
systems must partner with to
disseminate the message to at-risk
populations as well as changes to the
media used to disseminate information
to ensure that it reaches consumers
when there is an action level
exceedance.
In addition to the changes to § 141.85
for the LCR, EPA is also proposing a
change to § 141.154(d) for the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) rule, which
requires 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 (63 FR
44512, August 19,1998, U.S. EPA
1998a). EPA is proposing to change the
CCR rule to require all community water
systems that detect lead in their
compliance monitoring samples to
include information about the risks of
lead in drinking water in the report on
a regular basis.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing to change the public
education requirements of the LCR in
order to improve compliance and ensure
that consumers'receive the information
they need to appropriately, limit their
exposure to lead in drinking water.
Because the sources of lead are
frequently within the home and
reduction of lead in drinking water is
the responsibility of both the public
water systems and the consumer, EPA
wants to ensure that information is
delivered and that it is meaningful and
useful to the consumer.
'EPA identified compliance as an
important issue during its review of LCR
implementation. Based on EPA's review
of state files, over 40 percent of water
utilities did not conduct the required
public education; therefore the at-risk
population did not get information they
needed to reduce their exposure from
lead in drinking water (Lead and Copper
Rule State File Review: National Report,
EPA, March 2006a) EPA believes-the
changes in this proposal better ensure
that at-risk populations receive
information quickly and are able to act
to reduce their exposure. EPA also
believes water systems will be better
able to comply with these proposed
requirements.
During EPA's national review of the
LCR, many stakeholders stated that the
public education requirements needed
improvement. In September 2004, EPA
held an expert workshop to discuss the
public education requirements of the
rule. A number of concerns were raised
at this workshop about the effectiveness
of the existing public education
language and requirements. Workshop
-------
40836
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
participants stated that the mandatory
language in the rule is too long,
cumbersome, and complex to convey to
the general public an understanding of
the risk posed by lead in drinking water
and an appropriate course of action.
Public education must put the risk in
context and convey to the public the
appropriate sense of urgency for
consumers to act to reduce exposure. In
addition, workshop members called for
public education messages to be tailored
to those who are at highest risk for lead
exposure. Many participants stated that
the mandatory language and delivery
requirements in the current rule were
ineffective in providing useful and
timely information to the public.
(Summary from Public Education
Workshop, U.S. EPA, 2004a).
In order to address these concerns, the
National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC), EPA's advisory body
on the Safe Drinking Water Act, formed
a working group to consider possible
revisions to the public education
requirements. The charge for the
NDWAC Working Group was to (l)
review the current public education
requirements for lead in drinking water
to make recommendations for
improvements; (2) develop
recommended revised language for
communicating to the public the risk of
lead in drinking water ,and how affected
persons should respond; and (3) review
and make recommendations for changes
to the means of delivery of lead
information to the public (70 PR 54375,
U.S. EPA, 2005).
The NDWAC Working Group met in
person four times between October 2005
and April 2006. The Working Group
was comprised of 16 individuals
representing an array of backgrounds
and perspectives. Collectively, these
individuals brought into the discussion
the perspectives of State drinking water
agencies, environmental and consumer
groups, drinking water utilities, small
system advocates, State health officials,
and risk communication experts.
The NDWAC Working Group raised a
number of concerns with the public
education requirements of the LCR that
are consistent with the concerns
expressed at the 2004 workshop. The
NDWAC Working Group recommended
that the rule be modified to better
ensure that information reaches the
most vulnerable populations (e.g.,
pregnant women, infants and young
children) or their caregivers. They also
recommended changes to ensure that
these consumers received information
in a more timely manner and continued
to receive information throughout any
exceedance. They also recommended
changes to ensure that the information
is easy to understand and effective in
informing affected consumers and
encouraging parents or other caregivers
to take actions to reduce exposure of
infants and children to lead. In addition,
the NDWAC Working Group
recommended changes to make sure
critical information reaches not only bill
paying customers, but those consumers
who live in apartments and other
housing where residents do not receive
bills.
Finally, the NDWAC Working group
was also concerned about the amount of
time it may take to test water, get back
the results, calculate the 90th percentile,
and finally send out public education
materials. They were concerned that an
individual could be drinking water with
high lead levels for months before
knowing 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 CCR rule and the Public
Notification Rule (65 FR 25982, U.S,
EPA, 2000b). The NDWAC
recommendations form the basis for the
changes to § 141.85 proposed in this
rulemaking.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
The public education requirements in
this proposal differ in a number of ways
from the current requirements of the
LCR. This proposal still requires water
systems to complete the public
education requirement after a Lead
Action Level exceedance, but changes
the mandatory content of written
materials, delivery requirements, and
timing of when systems must complete
all required activities. This proposal
also changes the requirements for the '
language or content of written materials,
giving water systems more flexibility to
tailor the public education message to
their community and situation. EPA
believes these changes will make the
public education program more
effective. In addition, this proposal
changes the delivery requirements in a
number of ways. Water systems will be
required to send written materials to
additional organizations in an attempt
to better reach atrisk populations. This
proposal also requires the systems to do
several additional activities but allows
them to pick from a list of activities in
order to do what is most effective for
their community. This proposal requires
that water systems maintain
communication with consumers
throughout the Lead Action Level
exceedance by including information
with every water bill; provide two press
releases a year; and for larger systems,
include information on their Web site.
This proposal allows primacy agencies
to give water systems more time to
complete the additional activities and
deliver water bills. Finally, this
proposal includes changes to the
Consumer Confidence Report to ensure
consumers are aware of concerns about
lead in drinking water.
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the
Written Materials
This proposal requires the system to
continue to deliver written materials to
all customers as well as a number of key
organizations. However, EPA is
proposing to change the content of the
required written materials. Currently,
§141.85 requires written materials to
include mandatory language consisting
of over 1,800 words describing health
effects, lead in drinking water, steps to
reduce exposure, and how to obtain
additional information. Under this
proposal, the mandatory language
would be much shorter and easier to
understand. The mandatory language
would address essential topics such as
the opening statement and health effects
language. Community Water Systems
and Non-Transient Non-Community
Water Systems would still be required
to provide information on other topics,
but the system may either use EPA's
suggested language'or their own words
to explain these topics. EPA believes
that this format will result in more
effective public education materials.
•-EPA does recognize that small
systems do not have the resources to
create their own language for the
required topics, so EPA will provide
language in guidance that systems can
use to explain all of the required topics
in the regulation. For example. EPA is
giving systems more flexibility in the
language they use for flushing
instructions, yet for systems that do not
have data to identify clear flushing
instructions, EPA will suggest flushing
times to share with customers.
b. Changes To Better Reach At-Risk
Populations
EPA is proposing to add organizations
to the list of recipients of the public
education materials in order to increase
the likelihood that the most vulnerable
populations or their caregivers will
receive the information they need to
reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking~Vvater. EPA is proposing to add
licensed childcare centers, preschools,
Obstetricians-Gynecologists and
Midwives to the current list of
organizations to which a system must
deliver information. In addition, EPA is
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40837
proposing a new requirement that
systems include a cover letter with the
printed materials that they send to these
organizations to explain the importance
of sharing this information with their
customers/patients. This proposal is
designed to help ensure that the
information reaches non-bill paying
customers; these customers may be
reached through these organizations if
the organizations are provided with the
necessary information and encouraged
to share the task of improving public
awareness.
While it is important for this
information to get to all of these
organizations, 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. In order to make
sure the local health agencies know
about the Lead Action Level
exceedance, EPA is proposing to require
systems to directly contact (e.g., phone,
in person, etc.) the local health agency
rather than simply delivering brochures
to this organization. By directly
contacting the local health agency,
utilities can enlist the health agency's
support in disseminating information on
lead in drinking water and the steps that
vulnerable populations can take to
reduce their exposure.
In addition to using organizations to
disseminate information to at-risk
populations, EPA is also proposing that
systems complete additional activities
from a list of options. The list of
additional activities that systems can
choose from includes:
• Public Service Announcements
• Paid advertisements such as
newspaper or transit ads
• Information displays in public areas
such as grocery stores
• Using the internet or email to
disseminate information
• Public meetings
• Delivery to every household (not
just bill paying customers)
• Individual contact with customers
such as door hangers
• Provide materials directly to multi-
family homes and institutions
• Other methods approved by the
primacy agency
This proposal requires that systems
serving 3,300 people or above be
required to do three additional public
education activities from the list of
possible items and systems serving
3,300 or fewer individuals must do one
additional activity from this list. The
system must work in consultation with
the primacy agency to ensure the
content of each of these additional
activities is appropriate. EPA is
proposing that a system can choose
three items from one, two, or three of
these general categories. For instance, a
system can do a series of paid
advertisements if that is the most
effective way to reach the target
populations in their community. .
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 community. In order to make
the public education as effective as
possible, EPA is proposing to give
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 public meetings.
In the current regulation, small
systems are able to limit their
distribution to only those facilities and
organizations frequented by the most .
vulnerable populations. While systems
serving less than 500 people may do this
without approval from the state, systems
serving 501-3,300 may limit their
distribution if they receive written
approval from the state. This proposal
changes this" so'that all small systems
serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit
their distribution to only those places
frequented by the most vulnerable
populations without written approval
from the state.
c. Changes To Help Systems Maintain
Communication With Consumers
Throughout the Exceedance
In order to ensure continued contact
with consumers, EPA is also proposing
that systems include information in or
on the water bill as long as there is an
exceedance of the Lead Action Level.
EPA recognizes that this requirement
can be difficult for some systems that
are unable to print messages on their
bills, so there is a provision to allow
systems to work with their primacy
agency to deliver this information in a
different way.
Another way that this proposal
encourages continuous communication
with consumers is by requiring systems
with a population greater than 100,000
to put the public education information
on their Web site. Under the proposal,
this information must remain on the
Web site until the system tests below
the Lead Action Level.
Currently, systems that exceed the
Lead Action Level must issue a press
release. EPA is proposing to require that
systems distribute two press releases per
year in order to ensure systems are
maintaining communication with their
customers. The systems must send the
press releases to the major newspapers
and TV and radio stations which serve
the population served by the water
system. This is another way to reach
consumers who do not receive water
bills. In response to concerns about
small systems' ability to complete this
requirement, in this proposal, primacy
agencies can waive the press release
requirement if there are no media
outlets that specifically target the
population served by the system. In
addition, this proposal removes the
requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two Public Service
Announcements (PSA) per year.
d. Changes to the Required Timing of
Completion of Public Education
Requirements
While this proposal would still
require systems to complete most of
their public education in 60 days, there
is increased flexibility for the primacy
agency to allow longer periods of time
for completion of water bill delivery and
the additional activities from the list of
options. This proposal would allow
more time so that a system could align
its billing cycle with the public
education requirements. EPA
understands that many systems have a
billing cycle which may begin within
the 60 days time frame but not all
customers would be billed at the same
time. The primacy agency may allow the
system to include information with their
regular billing cycle even if this means
some customers receive this part of the
public education program a bit later
than the 60-day window. In addition,
EPA is proposing to alloxv the system to
work with the primacy agency on a
schedule to complete the additional
items such as PSAs or advertisements.
This is intended to encourage systems to
pick the items from this list that will be
most effective and will reach the most
vulnerable populations rather than the
items that are easiest and quickest to
complete. In order to make sure that the
public education program is effective,
the primacy agency may allow the
system to take a bit longer to complete
these more complicated items. The
system must still complete all other
aspects of the public education program,
such as delivering materials to
organizations that work with at-risk
populations, posting information on
their Web site and submitting press
releases within the 60 days. This will
-------
40838
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
ensure that customers receive some
information as quickly as possible.
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence
Reports
The NDWAC suggested changes to the
CCR rule to address the concern that
materials may.not be delivered
immediately and therefore vulnerable
populations may drink water with high
levels of lead for months before
knowing of the risk. Under current
regulations, all water systems that detect
lead above the action level in more than
five percent of the homes sampled must
include a short informational statement
about lead in drinking water in their
CCR. In this action, EPA is proposing
that all Community Water Systems who
detect lead above the method detection
limit of 0.001 mg/L in their compliance
monitoring samples provide information
in their annual CCR on lead in drinking
water. This approach is consistent with
the CCR rule requirements for the other
inorganic contaminants in § 141.151,
which is also based on the method
detection limit. This short statement
will help to ensure that all vulnerable
populations or their caregiyers receive
information on how to reduce their risk
to lead in drinking water at least once
a year. In addition, the NDWAC
recommended changes to the language
in the informational statement to make
the risk of lead iri drinking water clear
as well as to include basic steps on how
to reduce exposure to lead in drinking
water and where to go for more
information. EPA is proposing these
changes in this rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA is asking for comment on the
proposed revisions to the public
education requirements under the Lead
and Copper Rule. In particular, EPA
requests comment upon revisions to the
mandatory language for written
materials. EPA requests comment on the
flexibility provided in the requirements
for the content of written public
education materials. EPA also requests
comment on the shortened mandatory
language and suggested language for
other required topics. Do commenters
believe this revised language is clearer
and will be easier for consumers to
understand? Is the proposed health
effects language and information on
steps consumers can take to reduce lead
exposure useful to consumers? Should
the language also indicate that
exceedence of the action level at the
90th percentile tap reading does not
mean that all consumers are exposed to
elevated levels of lead? Do commenters
have any concerns about compliance
with the proposed content
requirements? Should EPA require
systems to submit their written
materials to primacy agencies before
distributing them? EPA also requests
comment on whether or not systems
should be required to modify their
public education materials if the
primacy agency determines it is not
consistent with the mandatory language.
The mandatory language includes a
section on contacts for more
information. This section includes a
requirement for the system to include
how to contact both the system and
EPA. EPA requests comment on whether
there should be a mandatory
requirement to include the contact
information for the State drinking water
primacy agency. EPA is aware that a
number of States adopt EPA drinking
water regulations by reference and these
States would not be able to insert a
requirement for systems to provide State
contact information. Would States who
adopt by reference face a challenge
encouraging customers to contact their
office under the current proposal?
EPA also seeks comment on the
delivery requirements for the public
education message. Will the changes to
the delivery requirements make the
public education program more effective
at reaching the most vulnerable
populations? Are there other delivery
mechanisms EPA should consider? EPA
is also interested in any studies or
information commenters have on ways
to reach the populations of concern.
The delivery requirements in this
proposal expand on the requirement
that systems deliver public education
materials to certain organizations such
as schools, pediatricians, childcare
centers, etc. EPA requests comment as
to how a system that exceeds the Lead
Action Level should determine to which
of these organizations it must deliver
materials. Should the system deliver
materials to only organizations that are
served by that system, all organizations
in the county or other local government
jurisdiction, or all organizations that
provide service to the population served
by the water system?
EPA is proposing that Community
Water Systems consult with the primacy
agency to ensure the information they
disseminate as part of the additional
activities under § 141.85[b)(2)(vi) is
appropriate. EPA is interested in
whether commenters believe this is too
great a burden on the primacy agency.
Should EPA determine the required
content for these additional activities? If
EPA should make this determination, do
commenters have suggestions for what
the content should be?
EPA is interested in whether
commenters agree that some water
systems will need more than 60 days to
complete delivery of water bills which
include the public education
information and the additional activities
from the list (e.g., PSAs, paid
advertisements, etc.)
EPA also requests comment on
whether this proposal adequately
addresses the concerns of small systems.
Many small systems have limited
resources arid limited technical
capabilities. Will these systems be able
to complete the requirements, and if so,
will this make for an effective public
education program in their
communities?
EPA also requests comment on the
proposed modifications to the CCR rule
requirements for lead. First, EPA
requests comment on requiring systems
that detect any lead to include language
in their consumer confidence report.
This requirement would be triggered for
systems detecting lead above the
method detection limit of 0.001 mg/L.
EPA is interested in whether
commenters think the criterion should
be detecting lead above the practical
quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L, or
above some other level that may be
more relevant for consumers in
determining whether they should take
any further action?
Second, EPA requests comment as'to :
whether the CCR is an effective way to "
reach the targeted populations before
there is a major problem in a water
system. Are there other vehicles for
reaching these individuals that EPA
should consider?
Third, EPA requests comment upon
the content of the informational
statement to be included in the CCR for
systems that detect lead or exceed the
Lead Action Level. EPA requests
comment on whether this language
would be effective in raising the
targeted populations' awareness of the
effects of lead in drinking water and
steps they can take to minimize
exposure to lead. In particular, EPA
notes that the proposed language is
essentially the same whether the system
has exceeded the action level or not.
Should EPA develop language that
communicates a greater urgency about
taking further action in situations where
the action level has been exceeded than
in situations where it has not? EPA also
notes that the language focuses on the
household plumbing as the potential
sources of lead in drinking water. EPA
requests comment as to whether other
potential sources of lead (e.g., service
lines) should be identified for the
consumer.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40839
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to require water
systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as "replaced" through testing
if they resume lead service line
replacement programs. This would only
apply to a system that had (l) 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 would 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 proposed
change would add a subsection to the
lead service line replacement
requirements in § 141.84(b) to include
provisions for systems resuming lead
service line replacement programs.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
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 high 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 proposing
that these systems 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. How Does the Proposed Change Differ
From the Current Requirement?
A system that exceeds the action level
must replace at least seven percent of its
lead service lines each year until it is
under the action level for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods. Currently, a system is not
required to replace an individual lead
service line if the lead concentration in
all service line samples from that line
are less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L. The
proposed revision would continue to
allow systems to determine if a lead
service line does not require
replacement in this manner. However,
the proposal would not allow systems to
consider such lines as permanently
removed from the replacement program.
This rule change would apply to a,
system that (1) exceeds the action level,
(2) tests out one or more service lines,
(3) brings lead levels below the action
level for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods and discontinues
replacing lead service lines, and (4) later
exceeds the action level again. That
system would have to reinitiate lead
service line replacement considering all
lead service lines including those that
had previously tested out of the
replacement program under § 141.84 (c).
The system would divide the updated
number of remaining lead service lines
by the number of remaining years in the
initial lead service line replacement
program to determine the number of
lines that must be replaced per year.
Systems resuming lead service line
replacement programs as detailed above
would not have 15 years from the date
of recommencement and, thus, would
not be able to restart the "clock" for
their lead service line replacement
program. Such systems would have to
consider the number of years remaining
as 15 minus the number of years they
had completed in their initial
replacement program (i.e., a system
resuming after conducting two years of
replacement has 13 years in which to
complete the program). In 1991, EPA
established the maximum replacement
schedule of 15 years for all systems.
This was because the Agency believed
that if systems were allowed to replace
lead service lines as part oTnormal
maintenance, it may take as long as 50
years before all of the problematic lead
lines were replaced in some systems.
EPA believed that it was necessary to
accelerate the rate at which systems
would otherwise replace lead service
lines in order to ensure that public
health is adequately protected (56 FR
26460 at 26507-26508, U.S. EPA,
1991d). Therefore, the Agency believes
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 current
rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed
Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA requests comment on the
proposal to require water systems to
reevaluate lead service lines classified
as "replaced" through testing if they
resume lead service line replacement
programs.
H. Request for Comment on Other Issues
Related to the Lead and Copper Rule
The following subsection describes
additional issues related to the Lead and
Copper Rule for which the Agency is
considering changes to regulations.
1. Plumbing Component Replacement
Some water systems may choose to
replace plumbing fixtures, pipes, and
components to greatly reduce the
amount of lead or copper in tap water
to a level below the action level.
Generally this approach only applies to
water systems that have 100%
ownership over the plumbing
infrastructure; some schools and other
institutions can fall into this category.
The Agency believes that this type of
strategy can be cost-efficient and a more
effective way to address corrosion of
lead and copper. EPA is requesting
comment as to whether plumbing
replacement should be specifically
defined as a corrosion control
technique, or explicitly identified as an
alternative to corrosion control
optimization for small and medium
systems.
Small water systems can use fixture
replacement with existing provisions of
the lead and copper rule to become
optimized. Under § 141.81 (b)(l), a small
or medium-size system is deemed to
have optimized corrosion control if the
system meets the lead and copper action
levels during each of two consecutive
six-month monitoring periods
conducted in accordance with § 141.86.
Thus, non-transient, non-community
Water systems, where 100% of the
plumbing fixtures and components are
directly .controlled by the system, could
replace them and be optimized once the
system met the action level for two
consecutive six-month monitoring
periods.
Although water systems (typically
non-transient non-community water
systems) can replace pipes, fixtures and
plumbing components to meet the lead
or copper action level, this method of
compliance is not specified in the LCR
as a corrosion control technique. When
a system exceeds the action level, it
must initiate the treatment steps under
§ 141.81(e) that require the evaluation of
corrosion control options and the
recommendation of optimal corrosion
control treatment. The current
regulations could be read to require a
small or medium system to perform
evaluations of the corrosion control
techniques listed in § 141.82(c)(l), even
when the system is planning to replace
plumbing components and is thus
unlikely to install such corrosion
control treatment. However, EPA
-------
40840
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
believes that there is sufficient
flexibility under the current rule for
systems that replace plumbing to qualify
as optimized under § 141.81(b)(l)
without having to undertake an
unnecessary evaluation of corrosion
control options. Under Section
141.8l(e)(2), after an initial action level
exceedance, the system has 12 months
(or two monitoring periods) before the
State makes a determination about
requiring a corrosion control study. The
plumbing replacement option, as a
practical matter, is limited to small or
medium non-transient, non-community
water systems; under Section
141.81(e)(2)(ii), where the State does not
require a system to conduct a corrosion
control study, a system has 24 months
after the action level exceedance (or four
monitoring periods) before the State
specifies optimal corrosion control
treatment. As a result, very small water
systems could replace the plumbing and
conduct monitoring to demonstrate that
the system is below the action level for
two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods within this 24-month period,
although to do this, they would have to
complete the plumbing replacement
within 12 months of exceeding the
action level. The Agency is requesting
comment on whether there is enough
existing flexibility under the current
rule for very small systems to optimize
using plumbing replacement or whether
EPA should consider defining plumbing
replacement as a corrosion control
technique or as.an alternative to
corrosion controlfor small and medium
systems. In particular, the Agency
requests comment on whether 12
months is sufficient time for a small or
medium system to replace plumbing
components. If EPA were to allow States
to specify plumbing replacement as a
treatment option for small and medium
systems, the systems would then have
24 months to complete the replacement,
rather than the 12 months that they
effectively have under the current rules.
EPA believes that there are a number
of questions that would need to be
resolved before listing plumbing
component replacement as a corrosion
control technique or an alternative to
corrosion control. What materials
should be used for replacement
materials, since "lead-free" products
still contain lead? What components
would be replaced—just end-point
devices such as faucets or. would it also
include in-line devices, such as valves
and water meters? What would be the
enforceable water quality parameters for
this alternative to corrosion control?
How-would excursions from the optimal
water quality parameters be measured?
If these techniques are listed under
§ 141.81(c)(l) as corrosion control
techniques, would all systems need to
evaluate them as part of the corrosion
control study? For systems that fail to
meet the action level, would the State
still need to specify the minimum pH
values, even though the system may not
be adjusting pH? .
2. Point of Use and Point of Entry
Treatment
Another strategy for reducing the lead
or copper levels below the action level
would be the use of point of use (POU)
or point of entry (PQE) devices. As with
plumbing replacement, EPA is
requesting comment as to whether use
of POU or POE devices should be
specifically defined as a corrosion
control technique, or explicitly
identified as an alternative to corrosion
control optimization for small systems.
Both POU and POE devices are
identified in the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) as potential compliance
technologies for small systems. In
addition, the SDWA also lists a number .
of requirements for PQU and POE
devices if they are used as compliance
technologies. These include: (1) POU
and POE devices shall be owned,
controlled and maintained by the public
water system or by a person under
contract to a public water system to
ensure proper operation arid
maintenance and compliance with the
treatment technique; (2) POU and POE
devices must be equipped with
mechanical warnings to ensure that
customers are automatically notified of
operational problems; and (3) if the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) has issued product standards
applicable to a specific type of POU of
POE treatment unit, individual units of
that type shall not be accepted for
compliance with a treatment technique
requirement unless they are
independently certified in accordance
with such standards. The NSF/ANSI
drinking water treatment unit standards
do cover lead removal, so devices would
need to be certified against one of the
following standards: NSF/ANSI 53
Reduction Claims for Drinking Water
Treatment Units—Health Effects, NSF/
ANSI 58 Reduction Claims for Reverse
Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment
Systems, or NSF/ANSI 62 Reduction
Claims for Drinking Water Distillation
Systems.
One limitation with POE devices is
that there can still be lead-containing
plumbing after the POE device. Faucets,
solder joints, etc. could still contribute
high lead levels, so this approach may
not be successful if the water is
corrosive.
EPA believes that small systems can
use POU devices, if they meet the
SDWA requirements discussed above
for their use, to comply with the lead
and copper rule under existing
provisions of the rule. Under
§ 141.81(b)(l), a small or medium-size
system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the system meets the
lead and copper action levels during .
each of two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods conducted in
accordance .with § 141.86. Thus, small
water systems where POU devices are
installed and meet the SDWA
requirements could be optimized once
the system met the action level for two
consecutive six:mqnth monitoring
periods after their installation at all
sites.
Although small water systems can use
POU devices to meet the lead or copper
action level, this method of compliance
is not specified in the current LCR as a
corrosion control technique. As a result,
the same issue arises as discussed above
with respect to plumbing replacement.
The current regulations could be read to
require a small system to perform
evaluations of the corrosion control
techniques listed in § 141.82(c)(l) even
when the system is planning to install
POU devices (in accordance with all
applicable requirements of the SDWA)
and is thus unlikely to install such
corrosion control treatment.
EPA believes that there may be
sufficient flexibility under the current
rule for systems that use POU devices to
qualify as optimized under
§'141.8l(b)(l) without having to
undertake an unnecessary evaluation of
corrosion control options. However,
EPA recognizes that the same timing
issue as discussed above for plumbing
replacement may be a concern.
Specifically, systems would effectively
have only 12 months to install the POU
devices at all required taps in order to
be able to demonstrate two consecutive
six-month monitoring periods where the
action level was not exceeded, before
the end of the 24-month deadline for
installing corrosion control treatment.
The Agency is requesting comment on
whether there is enough existing
flexibility under the current rule for
small systems to optimize using POU
devices or whether EPA should define
POU devices as a corrosion control
technique, or as an acceptable
alternative to corrosion control for small
systems, which would have the effect of
giving systems 24 months rather than 12
months to install such treatment.
EPA believes that there are a number
of questions that would need to be
resolved before listing POU as an
alternative to corrosion control. What
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40841
would be the enforceable water quality
parameters for this alternative to
corrosion control? How would
excursions from the optimal water
quality parameters be measured? If these
techniques are listed under
§ 141.8l(c)(l) as corrosion control
techniques, would all systems need to
evaluate them as part of the corrosion
control study? For systems that fail to
meet the action level, would the State
still need to specify the minimum pH
values, even though the system may not
be adjusting pH?
3. Site Selection in Areas With Water
Softeners and POU Treatment Units
The previous section discussed the
use of POU or POE devices on a system-
wide basis to remove lead and/or
copper. However, many homes have
whole house (point-of-entry) water
softeners or treatment units at the
kitchen tap (point-of-use), even though
the system is not installing and
maintaining these units. Section
141.86(a)(l) states that sampling sites
may not include faucets that have point-
of-use or point-of-entry treatment
devices designated to remove inorganic
contaminants. EPA requests comment
upon whether the LCR should be
amended to allow lead and copper tap
samples to be collected at taps that have
POU/POE devices under certain
conditions.
Households may have reverse osmosis
POU units that are capable of removing
a number of contaminants, including
lead and copper. These devices are
typically installed with a separate tap at
the kitchen sink. In systems where POU
devices are not owned, controlled and
maintained by the water systems, these
sites could be included and still meet
the requirements of § 141.86(a)(l)
because samples could be taken from
the regular untreated tap at the kitchen
or a sample could be taken from an
untreated bathroom tap. Since POU
devices have not been installed system-
wide, samples should not be taken from
a POU treated tap at these sites.
Some areas of the country may find
that the prevalence of POE water
softeners restricts the ability of the
water system to find homes where these
units are not installed. This scenario is
discussed in EPA's "Lead and Copper
Rule Guidance Manual Volume 1:
Monitoring" that was published in
September 1991. Figure 3-2 in that
manual described preferred sampling
pool categories for targeted sampling
sites. Category F.2 was listed as an
exception case for water systems that
only have sites where water softeners
have been installed. This situation has
been observed in the mid-western
United States. The guidance states that
these systems should select the highest
risk sites (newest lead solder or lead
service lines) and monitor at those
locations even though the water softener
is present
The Agency is requesting public
comment on 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 high prevalence of
water softeners), and if so, how high risk
sites in these locations should be
identified. EPA specifically requests
comment on whether the Agency should
codify the guidance provision discussed
above.
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
The Agency requests comment on
requiring systems to synchronize
required water quality parameter
sampling with lead and copper tap
sampling. This would allow systems the
ability to associate changes in water
quality parameter levels with lead and
copper levels and help systems monitor
the effectiveness of their corrosion
control program. EPA is aware of one
State that has been instructing water
systems with corrosion control
treatment programs to collect water
quality parameter samples during the
same week the systems collect lead and
copper tap samples. This State has
observed that elevated lead levels have
been frequently associated with low
corrosion inhibitor or orthophosphate
residuals in the distribution systems,
and occasionally with low pH.
Under the current rule,, systems that
have installed and pperafe'corrosion
control treatment per Section
141.82(c)(l) and 141.82(g) must monitor
water quality parameters per Section
141.87(d). The number of water quality
parameter tap samples depends on the
population size served by the water
system as detailed in 141.87(a)(2) and
141.87(e)(l): The frequency of water
quality parameter monitoring at taps in
the distribution system ranges from
twice every six months to twice every
three years as described in 141.87(e).
Systems required to monitor for water
quality parameters must also collect one
sample for each applicable water quality
parameter at each entry point to the
distribution system every two weeks.
Water quality parameters are
designated by the State primacy agency
under 141.82(d). They typically include
pH, alkalinity, and corrosion inhibitor
residual. These parameters will vary
based on the type of corrosion control
a system installs and the State may
designate additional parameters.
EPA is requesting comment upon a
modification that would not increase
the number of samples a system would
be required to take, but would
synchronize sampling they are required
to do under the current rule. Large
systems would be required to take then-
required lead and copper samples at the
same time they take their required water
quality parameter samples. Small and
medium systems would be required to
take their water quality parameter
samples at the same time as their lead
and copper samples required by Section
141.81(c) during the compliance period
following the monitoring period in
which they exceeded the lead or copper
action level and all subsequent
monitoring periods in which they are
scheduled to take both water quality
parameter and lead and copper tap
samples.
Currently, if a small or medium
system has an action level exceedance,
they are required to take water quality
parameter samples within the same six-
month period according to Section
141.87(d). EPA is not requesting
comment on whether to require these
systems synchronize water quality
monitoring with lead and copper
monitoring under this circumstance.
The Agency is only requesting comment
on whether to require these small and
medium systems to synchronize water
quality monitoring and lead and copper
monitoring during the compliance
period.'following the circumstance
described in Section 141.87(d) and all
subsequent monitoring periods in which
they are scheduled to take both water
quality parameter and lead and copper
tap samples.
The Agency requests comment on
including this potential modification in
the final rale. EPA requests comment on
what, if any, added burden it may
present to water systems. The Agency
also requests comment on the
appropriate time frame for
synchronizing water quality parameter
monitoring with lead and copper
monitoring. Should systems be required
to take water quality parameter and lead
and copper samples on the same day or
within the same week within a
monitoring period? What are the
practical constraints associated with
different time frames?
/. 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 issued after the
rule is final will list all the provisions
-------
40842
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/ Proposed Rules
that States must adopt to retain primacy.
Table 111.1 summarizes the revisions
being proposed today and identifies
those that the Agency believes to be
more stringent requirements.
TABLE III. 1.—REVISIONS IN THIS PROPOSAL
CFH citation
§ 141,80 (a)(2) -. . . .:
5141 80(q) ...
§141 81{b)(3)(ifi) §141 86(d)(4)(vii) §141 86(g)(4X"i),
§141.90(a){3)..
§141 81(e)(1) . ... .. ..: ......
§141 81(e)(2) . ..... ..
§141 81(e)(2)(i), §141 81(e)(2)(ii) .
§14183(a)(1) ...
§14184(bj(1) . ..
§141 84(W(2)
6141 90(e)(2)fli) , ..
§141 85 '.
§141 88 (b) §141 90
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40843
information as necessary for a specific
State submittal on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, the Agency plans to waive
the Attorney General's statement
required in § 142.12(c)(l)(iii), as allowed
by § 141.12(c)(2), The Agency requests
comment on whether the Attorney
General's statement or any other
documentation is necessary to approve
revisions to State programs resulting
from the rule.
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 proposal, when final. A State must
submit a request for approver 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.
/. Limitations to Public Comment on the
Lead and Copper Rule
EPA requests comment on the seven
specific regulatory changes proposed
today to revise the national primary
drinking water regulations for lead and
copper, as well as several related issues.
Please note that the Agency is not
proposing to revise the Lead Action
Level or any major component of lead
drinking water regulations. EPA is not
reopening the entire Lead and Copper
Rule, but rather is requesting comment
on the rule changes and related issues
specifically discussed in this proposal.
In this rulemaking, the Agency will not
consider comments that address other
aspects of drinking water regulations for
lead and copper.
K. Proposed Effective Dates
Section 1412 (b)(10) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, requires that a
proposed national primary drinking
water regulation (and any amendments)
take effect cm the date that is three years
after the date of promulgation, unless
the Administrator determines that an
earlier date is practicable. EPA is
proposing that the revisions take effect
three years after the promulgation of the
final rule. Because several of the
provisions in this rule would likely not
require three years for implementation
the Agency is considering whether to
make some of these regulatory changes
effective in less than three years after
the date of publication of the final rule.
Specifically, EPA requests comment on
whether it would be practicable to
implement the following changes and
clarifications in this proposal to the
Lead and Copper Rule within 60 days of
the date of publication of the final rule:
• Section III.A. Minimum Number Of
Samples Required
• Section IH.B. Definitions For
Compliance And Monitoring Periods
• Section III.E. Requirement To
Provide A Consumer Notice Of Lead
Tap Water Monitoring Results To
Consumers Who Occupy-Homes Or
Buildings That Are TestedFor Lead
• Section III.F. Public Education
Requirements
The requirements described in
Section 1II.A (minimum number of
samples clarification) is merely a
clarification of existing regulatory text
and does not change the stringency of
the rule. In Section III.B (compliance
and monitoring period clarification)
there are changes that clarify existing
text of the rule as well. The
requirements described in Section III.E
(the consumer notice) and Section I1LF
(public education requirements) are
some of the most important in this
proposal. Those requirements are
critical to the explanation of lead
exposure from drinking water and
communication of health effects to the
public; and while they add
requirements to the rule, systems are not
likely to need three full years to
implement the new requirements.
The Agency requests comment on
whether these regulatory revisions
should have effective dates of sixty days
after the publication of the final rule
and if not, what timeframes are
practicable. The Agency also requests
comment on whether any of the other
proposed revisions in this rule should
have an effective date earlier than three
years after publication of the final rule.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section describes the estimates of
annual costs for the seven proposed
regulatory changes to utilities and
States, including costs associated with
administrative, monitoring, sampling,
reporting, and notification activities.
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. A
second type of cost 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 proposal and in Chapter 5 of the
Economic Analysis (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead a»d
Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2006b). Table
IV.l summarizes the expected direct
and indirect cost impacts for the seven
regulatory changes.
TABLE IV.l.—SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF THE LCR SHORT TERM RULE CHANGES
Rule change
Rnrjulatpry Change 111 A (Number nt samptp":) , ±
Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Period) . .
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Monitoring Criteria)
Regulatory Change lll.b (Advanced Notification and Approval) _
Regulatory Change tll.E (Consumer Nolice ot Lead Results)
Regulatory Change III.F (Public Education) ..... .
Regulatory Chanqe III.G (Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines)
Direct cost
implications
Minimal unquantified
Minimal, unquantified
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes .
Yes
Indirect cost and
health risk
implications
Yes
None.
Yes
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
-------
40844
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
A. Direct Costs
The proposed revisions will result in
direct costs to utilities and States from
activities that are specified by the rule
change, 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 Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and
Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA 2004b).
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: monitoring 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 LSL monitoring,
notification, and replacement. In the
2004 ICR, for the LCR requirements to
CWSs and NTNCWSs, the average
annual respondent cost was estimated to
be $57.9 million 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 lead and
copper regulation were estimated to be
$6.8 million and 0.21 million hours,
respectively.
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and
Assumptions
As part of its comprehensive review
of the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA
collected and analyzed new data on
various aspects of LCR implementation.
When available and appropriate, this
new information is used in estimating
costs. If new information was not
available about a cost item or
assumption, previous analyses of LCR
requirements were reviewed to
determine if a suitable estimate was
available. The 1991 RlA,.the 1996 RIA
Addendum, and the various Information
Collection Requests were all used as
sources of information and assumptions.
For the rule revisions that clarify rule
language, if the costs associated with
those activities were included in the
original LCR cost estimates as presented
in the 1991 RIA, those costs are not
included in this analysis.
C. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change Wj$
Regulatory change III.A clarifies
EPA's intent that a minimum of 5
samples must be taken when conducting
compliance monitoring. If a system has
fewer than the minimum number of
sites required for sampling, then those
systems will have to collect multiple
samples on different days from the same
site so that the total number of samples
per monitoring period is 5.
Although some systems may have to
increase the number of samples taken in
response to this clarification, 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 costs
associated with Regulatory Change 1II.A.
In EPA's best judgment, these costs
would be minimal.
D. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change Jfl.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 triennial
monitoring. Based on the rule change, if
a system exceeds the 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 the rule change,
activities triggered by an action level
exceedance could begin three months
earlier (i.e., 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 a
negligible, if any, impact on costs.
Regulatory Change Hl.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 previous LCR regulatory
language, a system could collect
compliance samples over multiple
calendar years, as long as they were
taken during the June-September time
frame and during the three-year
compliance period. 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 minimal.
E. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change HI.C .
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
As a result of Regulatory Change II1.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. ]n 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 $2.4 million annually including
$2.2 million in labor costs and $0.2
million in materials costs. Detailed
estimates are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix C (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix C, U.S. EPA
20O6b).
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 995 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 3300 people.
EPA used this data to estimate that 1.4
percent of systems (including system
serving fewer than 3300 people) will
exceed the action level each year.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40845
TABLE IV.2.—SYSTEMS OVER THE ACTION LEVEL SINCE 2003
Number erf systems above Action Level since 2003
Total number of systems .. . .
Percent oi svstems with monftorino results since 2003 over AL
1<3,300
884
64,382
1.4
3,300<50,000
97
7,388
1.3
>50,000
14
819
1.7
Total
995
72,589
1.4
1 The Estimate tor 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://wvfw.epa.gov/
safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html;fai
small systems, Summary, Lead Action
Level exceedances for public water
systems subject to the Lead and Copper
Rule (For data through September 13,
2004).
The number of systems on reduced
monitoring was estimated using state
responses to the EPA survey on LCR
implementation (State Implementation
of the Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA
2004d). 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 action level, and are on
reduced monitoring, are likely to exceed
at the same rate as all systems.
Therefore, we assume that 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.
This assumption is conservative,
because systems that are likely to have
exceedances are 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 5 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, a
conservative 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 5
monitoring events over a 3 year period
(6 monitoring events in three years
under regular monitoring instead of 1
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 5 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
State/Primacy agencies to review utility
monitoring reports as a result of
resuming standard monitoring
schedules. The direct costs to State/
Primacy agencies is estimated to be
$77,000 annually including $76,000 in
labor costs and $1000 in materials costs,
as summarized in Table IV. 3. Detailed
estimates are included in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix C (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term • •
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix C, U.S. EPA,
2006b).
TABLE IV.3.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATE/PRIMACY AGENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH
REGULATORY CHANGE III.C
Costs to Systems:
Reporting . ....
Tap Monitoring
Total System Costs
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs . .
Total State Costs . .
Annual
labor
$56,000
2,157,000
2213000
76000
76000
Annual mate-
rials
$1000
214,000
215000
1000
1000
Total
annual
$57,000
2,371,000
2,428,000
77,000
77,000
F. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change 1HD
\. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Regulatory Change IH.D requires
water systems to obtain prior approval
by the State primacy agency to add a
new source of water or change a
treatment process prior to
implementation. The current
requirement is that systems notify States
about changes in treatment or additions
of new sources within 60 days of a
change or addition. The proposed
regulatory language allows as much
time as needed for.water systems and
States to consult before a proposed
change is approved.
New system activities will include the
preparation of the corrosiveness
implications of treatment or source
changes prior to the change and a letter
to the state. New State/Primacy agency
activities will include review of the
system data on the corrosiveness
-------
40846
Federal Regisler/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
implications of a treatment or source
change prior to a change, preparation of
conclusions and coordination with
utilities. The estimated costs to the
affected systems and State/primacy
agencies are summarized in Table TV.4;
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities range from
$474,000 to $733,000.annually. These
direct costs are strictly labor costs;
materials costs are expected to be
negligible. Estimates are summarized in
Table IV.4. Detailed estimates are
provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of
the Economic Analysis (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix D, U.S. EPA,
2006b).. .
In order to estimate the cost of this
provision to utilities, information is
needed on the number of systems that
will change a treatment or add a source
annually, 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.
Many States already have a review
and approval process for treatment or
source changes. In 2004, as part of a
review of the implementation of LCR
requirements by States, EPA asked State
programs a number of questions about
how they implement different aspects of
the LGR. Included were the following
. questions: "How do systems notify the
State of treatment changes? Does the
State require that systems provide
information about potential effects of
"treatment changes on corrosion
control?"
14 States indicated that they currently
have a review and approval process for
treatment changes. Another nine States
have a process that requires a permit for
treatment changes and an additional
eight States review submissions of
engineering plans for proposed changes.
Although not a review and approval
process focused specifically on the
impact of a change on corrosion control,
the permitting and plan review
processes are comprehensive enough
that they should include corrosion
issues. For the purposes of this analysis,
two estimates were used of the number
of States that already have a review and
approval process that would include
information on corrosion 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) 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 is also needed of the
number of systems that will change a
treatment or add a source annually, in
order to estimate the cost of this
provision to utilities. Treatment changes
over the next several years are likely, as
systems will be faced with new
regulatory requirements, including
changes to comply with the already
promulgated Arsenic Rule and the
upcoming Long Term 2 Surface Water
Treatment Rule and the Stage 2
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Rule. EPA estimated the number of
systems that would undertake treatment
changes for the following new
regulatory requirements:
• Arsenic—4,100 systems (Data
source: Arsenic in Drinking Water EA,
pp. 6-25, 6-27;
• LT2—2,968 systems (Data source:
June 2003 draft EA, pp. 6r-23, 4-23);
• Stage2D/DBP—1,824 systems
(Data source: July 2003 draft EA, pp. 6-
35,6-30).
Together, these regulatory
requirements are estimated to cause
8,892 systems to institute a treatment
change, although not all of these
treatment changes will affect corrosion
control. Also the compliance periods for
these regulations varies. For example,
the Stage 2 and LT2 treatment changes
are projected to take place within a 6
year compliance period for large
systems (with the possibility of 2-year
extension) and 8 years for small systems
(with the possibility of 2-year
extension). To account for these
expected treatment changes, and to
account for treatment changes unrelated
to the arsenic, LT2. and Stage 2 rules,
EPA assumed (based on the projected
rule-related treatment changes and
expert judgment) that approximately
20% of the systems affected by the LCR
will institute a treatment change in the
next ten years. It is assumed that these
changes occur uniformly over that 10-
year period, so that approximately one-
tenth of these systems (or 2 percent of
the total) institute a treatment change
each year.
Using the 2 percent estimate, 1,067
(53,372 x .02) systems each year would
report a treatment change or source
addition and incur costs in that year in
States currently not covered by an
explicit review and approval program.
The estimate for the number of systems
is 552 if States with a permitting or plan
approval process are also excluded.
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. The activities and
burden associated with the review and
approval process are expected to vary
based on the size and complexity of a
system, and the nature of the change or
source addition. In the absence of
information on the current prevalence of
these activities, EPA has used the 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 coordination 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
$201 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
jjrofessional-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 State/Primacy
agencies are estimated to range from
$153,000 to $328,000 annually. These
direct costs are strictly labor costs;
materials costs are expected to be
negligible. Estimates are summarized in
Table FV.4. Activities that States will
undertake include review of system
data, preparation of conclusions and
letter to systems, and coordination with
utilities. Because the level of effort
associated with these activities is
expected to vary based on the
complexity of the change and the type
of submittal (amount and type of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40847
information), EPA included a range on
State review from 4 to 8 hours.
Those States incurring additional
costs due to regulatory change III.D are
those that do not already have a review
and approval process which considers
the corrosion control implications of
treatment changes. All States currently
review treatment or source changes
within 60 days after the change.
However, some States are already
reviewing and issuing approval before
such changes are made. Based on the
State program responses to the EPA
questions on the implementation of LCR
requirements (on existing review and
approval processes), the analysis
assumes either that 14 States have
existing explicit review and approval
processes or that 31 States have existing
review and approval processes (if
permit and plan review processes are
also counted). The remaining States
under each alternative will incur costs
under this regulatory change as they
review and approve changes before th«y
are made, rather than simple review
after the change has been made.
For the States that will incur new
costs, new State/Primacy agency
activities will include review of the
system data on the corrosiveness
implications of a 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 lll.D
Costs to Systems:
Total System Costs . .. . ."
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Total State Costs ;
Annual cost—
tow estimate 1
$474000
474,000
153,000
153.000
Annual cost —
high estimate2
$733000
733,000
328,000
328,000
110 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 4 hours tor 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 JI1.B
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Regulatory Change III.E will require
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.
While State primacy agencies 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. Supporting
calculations and information regarding
costs to utilities and States associated
with this regulatory change are included
in the Economic Analyses, Appendix E
(Economic and Supporting Analysis
Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Load and Copper Rule, Appendix E,
U.S. EPA, 2006b).
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities for
compliance with Regulatory Change
ni.E are summarized in Exhibit 4 and
estimated to be $1,028,000 annually
including $894,000 in labor costs and
$134,000 in materials costs for
envelopes and postage. This is based on
310,510 notices being pr'ovJded to
customers each year, with estimated
associated labor. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis,
Appendix E—2 (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule. Appendix E, U.S. EPA,
2006b).
In order to estimate the additional
costs associated with regulatory change
HI.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
proposed regulatory change. This
analysis uses information from the State
survey (State Implementation of the
Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA, 2004)
to develop an estimate of the number of
systems that currently notify customers
of tap sampling results. Of 72,213 CWS
and NTNCWSs (per 2004 SDWIS/Fed
data) subject to the LCR, 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
No new costs to States are assumed.
States are not required to review the
notification letter or notice.
TABLE IV.5.—SUMMARY OF DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY CHANGE HI.E
Costs to Systems:
Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs
Total System Costs
Annual
labor
$894,000
894,000
Annual
materials
$134,000
134,000
Total annual
$1,028,000
1,028,000
-------
40848
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 20067 Proposed Rules
H. Direct Costs Associated With
Regulatory Change IIU*
Regulatory Change I1I.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
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.
In addition to the changes to § 141.85
of the LCR, revisions will be made to
§ 141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR
141, Subpart O) which requires
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. EPA is proposing to
change the CCR rule to require all
community water systems that detect
lead to include information about the
risks of lead in drinking water on a
regular basis.
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
(a) Changes to the mandatory text of
the written materials.
(a)(l) Customer Notification: Deliver
brochures to all bill-paying customers
within 60 days.
The brochure will include a section
on "What happened? What is being
done?" to.be developed by each water
system. Mandatory language will
address essential topics such as the
opening statement and health effects
language. The mandatory language will
be shorter and easier to understand than
the language that is currently used. EPA
will develop suggested language.
(b) Changes to-better reach at-risk
populations.
(b)(l) Brochures will be delivered to
additional organizations, with a cover
letter.
The organizations to bo added to the
list of required recipients of the
brochures will increase the likelihood
that the most vulnerable populations or
their caregivers will receive the
information they need to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water.
These organizations will include
licensed childcare centers, preschools
and Obstetricians-Gynecologists and
Midwives. Also, local public health
agencies will be contacted by phone.
(b)(2) Systems will perform additional
activities.
• Systems serving more than 3,300 will
be required to implement three or more
activities from a list of possible
activities. Systems serving fewer than
3,300 will be required to implement one
activity from the list. A list of nine
possible activities follows (including a
general "other methods" because the
primacy agency rnay also approve other
methods). An estimate of the annual
cost of each identified activity is given
in Table IV.6. :
(iypublic Service Announcement:
Production of a radio PSA includes
developing a script for the spot and then
producing ah audio of the spot.
(ii) Paid advertisement.
(iii) Information display in public
areas: Posting a notice at a local grocery
store or laundromat.
(iv) Internet: Email contact with all
customers.
(v) Public Meetings: For systems
serving fewer than 3,300, system
representatives would bring up the issue
for discussion at an existing town
meeting. For systems serving over 3,300,
a separate public meeting would be
held. This activity includes making
logistical arrangements, preparing a 30-
45 minute presentation, attending the
meeting, and doing follow-up activities
such as meeting notes.
(vi) Delivery to every household:
Delivery to every postal address, either
through mail or distribution of flyers.
(vii) Targeted individual contact with
customers: Especially vulnerable
customers, such as pregnant women and
children, would be individually
contacted.
(viii) Materials to be provided directly
to multi-family homes and institutions.
(ix) Other methods approved by the
primacy agency.
TABLE IV.6.—ANNUAL COST PER SYSTEM ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES TO BETTER REACH AT-RISK
POPULATIONS
System size category
25-100
101-500
501-3 300
3 3K-10K
10K-50K
50K-100K
>100K .
i. Public serv-
ice announce-
ments
S95
95
95
95
1 400
1,400
1 400
ii. Paid adver-
tisements
$105
105
180
180
850
5.000
5,000
)ii. Display in
public areas
S23
25
106
108
556
1,111
3,330
(v. Internet
notification
$23
24
26
384
526
526
912
v. Public
meetings
$45
45
45
800
2.200
2,900
5,000
vi. Delivery
to every
household
S7
30
166
435
1,114
2.448
3.874
vii. Tar-
geted
contact
$34
34
36
42
64
135
548
viii. Materials
directly to
multi-family &
institutions
$12
14
26
66
247
771
4.311
Average
per system
all activi-
ties
$43
47
85
264
870
1,786
3047
Details of how these unit costs were
calculated are provided in Appendices
H-6 through H-20 of the Economic
Analysis for the rule.
(b)(3) Review activities for States.
States will review the language in the
utility's notice to consumers to make
sure the utility is including the required
information. States will also 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.
(c) Changes to help systems maintain
communication with consumers
throughout the exceedance.
(c)(l) Every water bill will contain a
message about lead while a system is
exceeding the action level.
(c)(2) Post brochure on Web site if
system serves >100,000 people.
(c)(3) Public service announcements
and press releases.
The requirement to send public
service announcements (PSAs) to TV
stations and radio stations every six
months while a system has an Lead
Action Level exceedance will be cut to
once every year. The PSA must be sent
to five TV stations and five radio
stations. A press release will still have
to be submitted to newspapers, TV
stations and radio stations.
(d) Changes to the required timing.
No cost impact.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40849
(e) Changes to Consumer Confidence
Report.
(e)(l) Inclusion of an informational
statement on CCR for all systems.
Systems that detect lead in their
drinking water will have to include an
informational statement about lead in
their CCR. Currently, only those systems
with more than five percent of their
sites above the Lead Action Level must
include an informational statement in
their CCR.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities as a result
of Regulatory Change III.F are estimated
to be $780,500. The annual system labor
cost is estimated to be $759,500, with
the annual system materials cost
$21,000. Estimates of costs associated
with each activity are given in Table
IV. 7. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S. EPA,
2006b). The costs for the CCR
component may be overstated because
EPA does not have specific data to
determine the percentage of systems
that will not detect lead. Thus, we have
assumed that all systems will detect
lead in their water, which may lead to
an overstatement of the cost estimates
shown in Table IV.7. In addition, the
requirement to provide information
about lead in the CCR would be new
only for systems that currently detect
lead below the action level in 95% 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% 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. Thus, there are
two factors contributing to a possible
overestimate in the national cost for the
CCR statement. The first factor is that
assuming all systems will detect lead
overestimates the number of systems
that will actually detect lead, because
some systems do not detect any lead.
The second factor is that
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 additional
associated labor of 0.25 hours per
system per year.
TABLE .iv.7.—SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION PROPOSED CHANGES
Activity
Requirement
Annual
labor
Annual
materials
Total system
cost
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
III F(a)(1)
Customer Notification
$84900
$0
$84900
b. Changes to Better Reach At-Rlsk Populations
III.F(b)(1) ;
III.F(b)(2)
lll.F(b)(2)
Notify Additional Organizations
Additional Activities l-viii
Consult with State on Activities ...
18700
275100
14,400
21,400
0
0
40,100
275100
14,400
c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication With Consumers Throughout the Exceedance
IIIF(c)(1)
lll.F(c)(2)
III F(c)(3)
Customer Bills
Post on Web site .
PSAs arvd Press Releases '"""*
43300
100
-3000
0
0
-500
43300
100
-3500
d. Changes to the Required Timing
No cost impact
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report
tll.F(e)(1)
CCR Statement
-
325,900
0
325,900
Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F)
Total
759.500
$21.000
780.500
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
3. Costs to States
The direct costs to States as a result
of Regulatory Change III.F are estimated
to be $50,600. These costs are the
annual state labor costs; no materials
cost is expected. These costs are given
in Table IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs
to States are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S. EPA,
2006b).
-------
40850
Federal Register/Vol. 7\, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.8.—SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY COSTS TO STATES DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION PROPOSED CHANGES
III.F Costs to States:
Review and consultation . ,
Ill F Total State Costs
Annual
labor
$50,606
50,600
Annual
materials
$0
0
Total annual
$50,600
50600
/. Direct Costs Associated with
Regulatory Change 1H.G
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Cchange
Under this proposed change, utilities
that have 90th percentile LCR samples
that exceed the Lead Action Level will
need to identify all lead service lines
(LSL) that bad previously been
determined to be replaced via sampling.
If a LSL was previously "tested out" or
determined to be replaced by sampling,
the sample previously collected from
the LSL had a lead level less than the
Lead Action Level. These utilities
would be affected by Regulatory Change
ID.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 IH.G are estimated
to be $97,000 annually, which includes
587,000 in labor costs and $10,000 in
materials costs. Detailed estimates of
costs to utilities are provided in the
Economic Analysis, Appendix F
(Economic and Supporting Analysis
Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead, and Copper Rule, Appendix F,
U.S. EPA, 2006b). 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 (State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule U.S. EPA, 2004), 11 States
responded that at least one system in
then- state has been involved in a lead
service line replacement program. Six
States provided sufficient information to
derive a number of systems within that
State required to perform lead service
line replacement—a total of 28 systems.
Based on an average of five systems per
State for the six States that provided
data, we assume 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 not sufficient
information to determine how many of -:.
54 systems suspended their lead
replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an
exceedance, we 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, we
assume that 1.4 percent of the 54
systems or 1 system will exceed the
Action Level and 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 is
conservative 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
conservative 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 change.
Replacement of lines that were
previously tested out may also occur as
a result of this change. EPA cannot
quantify the costs associated with this
change for a number of reasons. As
noted above, EPA does not have
information on the number of systems
and the number of lines that have been
previously tested out and could be
impacted by this change. This difficulty
is further compounded by the fact that
some lines may. have been replaced as
part of the ongoing utility replacement
programs. In the 1991 final regulatory
impact analysis, EPA cited an AWWA
survey that produced an estimate of 1
percent of lead service lines being
replaced per year as part of ongoing .
utility replacement programs. After
promulgation of the rule, many systems
modified their ongoing utility
replacement programs to replace lead
lines at a higher rate.
Where lines.would have to be
replaced, the unit cost of replacement is
measured in $ per foot of line being
replaced. The 1991 final regulatory
impact analysis provided a range of $26
to $51 per foot, depending upon system
size, as the unit cost for lead service line
replacement. Using the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index,
updated estimates would range from.
$41 per foot for small systems to $80 per
foot for large systems. The length of the
lead service line owned by systems will
also vary, which will affect costs.
The derivation of the number of lead
service lines per system and the number
of lines to be retested are based on
several assumptions. Since EPA does
not know the number of years that the
system was on the lead service line
replacement program before meeting the
AL, a conservative assumption was
made that all lines were either tested or
physically replaced. EPA estimated that
the one system impacted by this change
is a large system with 21,467 lead
service lines. The percent of lead service
lines tested out rather than replaced is
estimated at 76 percent based on one
year of data from DC WASA. It is likely
that the estimates of the proportion of
lines that are tested out rather than
replaced is high because the 76 percent
test out was during an initial year of
replacement when a system is more
likely to be able to test out lines rather
than replace them. The time required to
physically replace lines also leads to a
higher percentage of test outs in the first
year at DC WASA. We do not know the
remaining years in the lead service line
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40851
replacement program, therefore, we
assumed that 76 percent of lead service
lines will need to be retested over a 15
year period. The resulting number of
lead service lines that are assumed to be
retested each year is 1,088.
3. Costs to. States
No direct costs are expected for State/
Primacy agencies as a result of
Regulatory Change I1I.G. The State/
Primacy Agencies will review utility
Lead Service Line replacement program
annual reports but these costs were
captured previously in the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper, April 1991 (Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper, U.S. EPA, 199lb).
/. Summary of National Average Annual
Direct Costs
The estimates of annual direct costs
for the proposed regulatory changes are
presented in Table IV.9.
TABLE iv.9.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATES FROM ALL PROPOSED REGULATORY
CHANGES1
Regulatory change
III A
Ill B . .
Ill C
III D Low . .
Ill D High
III E . .
Ill F
III 6 ...
Total High
Annual direct costs to systems
Reporting
$56,000
474.000
733,000
530,000
789,000
Monitoring
$2,371,000
97,000
2,468,000
Consumer
notice
$1,027,000
780,000
1,807,000
Total
$2,428,000
474,000
733,000
1,027,000
780,000
97,000
4,805,000
5,064,000
Annual direct
costs to states
$77,000
153,000
328,000
51,000
281,000
456,000
Total annual
direct costs
$2,505,000
627,000
1,061.000
1,027,000
831,000
97,000
5,086,000
5,520,000
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to rounding.
K. Tola] Upfront Costs to Review and
Implement Regulatory Changes
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory
Change
Systems and State/Primacy Agencies
will 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.
2. Total Costs to Utilities
Direct costs to utilities are estimated
to be $8.1 million as summarized in
Table IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic
Analysis Appendix G (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short-Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix G, U.S. EPA,
2006b). 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 $0.7 million as summarized in
Table IV. 10 and detailed in Appendix G
of the Economic Analysis (Economic
and Supporting Analysis Short-Term .
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2005b,
Appendix A). Similar to one-time costs
for utilities, these direct costs are based
solely on upfront labor costs. Fifty-
seven state primacy agencies will
review and implement these LCR
revisions.
TABLE IV. 10.—SUMMARY OF ONE-TIME DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RULE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION
Costs to Systems:
Review & Communication
Total System Costs
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Regulation Adoption
Total State Costs „ :
Total Rule Implementation Costs .. ... .. ....
One time labor
costs
S8 076 000
8 076,000
730000
730,000
8,806,000
L. Indirect Costs
Previous sections focused on the
direct costs of the proposed 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
-------
40852
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
information-gathering activities not
required by the rule.
The proposed 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.
Jt 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 the 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
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 the rule.
M. Benefits
The intent of this proposed
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. The
proposed revisions do not affect the
action levels, corrosion control
requirements, 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 result in the
generation of 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 treatment changes be approved by
the primacy agency 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 proposed revisions on
the behavior of individuals and systems
is not known, EPA has not quantified
the changes in health benefits associated
with these proposed revisions. EPA
does expect that overall benefits from
the LCR will increase, as a result of the
indirect effect of the revisions on the
actions of individual consumers and
systems.
V, Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, {58
Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)) the Agency must determine
whether the regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
"significant regulatory action" as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA
that it considers this a "significant
regulatory action" within the meaning
of the Executive Order. EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations
are documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number XXXX.XX.
1. Need for the Information Collection
EPA requires current information on
lead and copper contamination to be
provided to consumers and States.
Recent 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 enhance
protection of public health through
additional information gathering and
public education. Consumers and States
will use the information collected as a
result of the short-term revisions to the
LCR to determine the appropriate action
they should undertake. The rule
revisions described in Section III of this
proposal 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 the SDWA
requires that regulations contain
"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 the
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 reasonably require
by regulation to assist the Administrator
in establishing regulations * * *,in
determining whether such person has
acted or is acting in compliance. * * *"
In addition, Section 1413(a)(3) of the
SDWA requires States to "keep such
records and make such reports * * * as
the Administrator may require by
regulation."
Section 1412(b) of the SDWA, as
amended in 1996, requires trie Agency
to publish maximum contaminant level
goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40853
contaminants that may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons, are
known to or anticipated to occur in
PWSs, and, 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 if
appropriate, revise existing drinking
water standards. Promulgation of the
LCR implements these statutory
requirements.
2. Burden Estimate
The universe of respondents for this
1CR is comprised of the 52,838 CWSs
and 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of
72,213 systems, and 57 State primacy
agencies. Table V.I presents a summary
of total burden and costs for the ICR
period of 2006-2008.
The annual system burden is
estimated at 107,924 hours in 2006,
107,924 hours in 2007, and 107,924
hours in 2008. The annual system costs
are projected at $2.7 million in 2006,
$2.7 million in 2007, and $2.7 million
in 2008.
The annual State burden is estimated
at 5,928 hours in 2006, 5,928 hours in
2007, and 5,928 hours in 2008. The
annual State costs are projected at
$243,226 in 2006, $243,226 in 2007, and
$243,226 in 2008. These annual costs
reflect the costs to systems and States
for the first three years after rule
promulgation and consist of the one-
time direct costs for rule review and
implementation. Upon the effective date
of the rule, three years after rule
promulgation, EPA estimates annual
costs to systems for all proposed
regulatory revisions ranging from $4.8 to
$5.1 million and annual costs to States
for all proposed regulatory revisions
ranging from $281,000 to $456,000. A
detailed discussion of these costs is
presented in Section IV of this notice.
3. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
The total burden and costs for the
three year compliance period of 2006 to
2008 is summarized in Table V.I. The
total burden and costs for each
regulatory change is explained in the
ICR document for this proposed action.
TABLE V.1.—SUMMARY OF THE BURDEN AND COSTS FROM 2006-2008 FOR THE PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES
Respondent
PWSs
State . . .
Total „.-
Number of
respondents
72,213
57
72,270
Burden
(hours) 2006-
2008
323,772
17784
341 556
Cost
(In Smilfions)
2006-2008
$8.1
073
8.8
The estimates of the annual burden
and costs from 2006 to 2008 are
summarized in Table V. 2.
TABLE V.2.— A SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL BURDEN AND COSTS FROM 2006-2008 FOR THE PROPOSED REGULATORY
CHANGES
Respondent
PWSs . ...
State
Total
2
Burden
(hours)
107924
5928
113,852
006
Cost
(in Smillions)
2>
024
2.94
2
Burden
(hours)
107,924
5928
113,852
007
• - Cost
(in Smillions)
2.7
024
2.94
2C
Burden
(hours)
107 924
5928
113,852
X>8
Cost
(in $millions)
27
024
2.94
Burden and costs are the same in all
three years as it is assumed that the one-
time costs to prepare for rule
implementation will be spread over the
three year period prior to compliance
with the regulatory changes.
4. Burden Statement
For the ICR period of 2006 through
2008 associated with the short-term
revisions to the LCR, the average burden
for systems to implement the proposed
requirements of the short-term LCR
revisions is estimated to be 1.49 hours
per system per year. The average annual
cost to systems is expected to be $37.28
per system per year. System burden
includes time to read and understand
the rule requirements and communicate
those requirements to system personnel
and management. The average burden
for State agencies is estimated to be 104
hours per State per year. This burden
includes the time to inform systems of
the requirements, and perform primacy
related activities. The estimated annual
State cost is estimated to be $4,267 per
State per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any-
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To
comment on the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the
-------
40854
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA
has established a public docket for this
rule, which includes this 1CR, under
Docket ID number 2005-0034. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this
proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this proposal for where to.submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to
OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after July 18, 2006, a comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by August 17,
2006. The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
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 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 proposal on small entities, EPA
considered small entities to be 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
7620, 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). As stated in that Final Rule, the
alternative definition is applied to this
regulation as well.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, EPA certifies that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly
regulated by this proposed rule are
small public water systems serving
10,000 or fewer people on an annual
basis. We have determined that 68,286
small systems will experience an impact
from .004 percent to .13 percent of their
revenues (see section V.C.10). Table V.4
provides a summary of these small
systems, by size category and system
type. . •
TABLE V.4.—THE NUMBER OF SMALL SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGES
Size
<1 00 -
101 500
501-1,000
1,001-3300 ... ...
3301-10000 .. v
Total J
CWS". :
13,766
16240
5,914
8,298
4707
48,925
NTNCWS
9,548
6 997
1,925
795
96
19,361
Total small
23,314
23237
7,839
9093
4803
68,286
However, not all of these small
entities will be affected and incur direct
costs for all of the proposed rule
changes. In many cases, only a relatively
small subset of these systems will have
to change practices to comply with the
rule changes. Table V.5 provides an
estimate of the number of small systems
that will incur direct costs for each of
the proposed rule changes.
TABLE V.5.—THE NUMBER OF SMALL SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY EACH REGULATORY CHANGE
Regulatory change
Regulatory Change # III A ...
Regulatory Change # III B _
Regulatory Change # III.C ,
Regulatory Change # III D -
Regulatory Change 8 111 E .....
Regulatory Change * 111 F . _
Regulatory Change 8 111 G . ~
Small systems impacted per year
Not Quantified.
None — Clarifications of definitions with no direct cost impact.
854.
1,009.
60,735.
49,337.
1.
1. Activities and Costs Associated With
Rule Changes for Small Systems
EPA has estimated the burden and
costs associated with the proposed rule
changes as described in the Economic
Analysis support document. 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.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
40855
2. One-Time Activities
All small systems subject to the Lead
and Copper Rule will be expected to
incur some costs to read the proposed
rule changes and communicate
requirements as necessary. The level of
effort associated with these activities
could range from 4-8 hours for all small
systems. The average cost per system for
these activities is estimated at $105, for
a total cost of $7,193,000 for all 68,286
small systems. This assumes an hourly
fully loaded labor cost for small system
employees ranging from $22.70 to
$26.83 (see Appendix B of the Economic
Analysis for derivation).
3. Activities for Regulatory Change HI.C
Under Regulatory Change HI.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 Action Level each year. Changing
from reduced tap monitoring to a
regular tap monitoring schedule would
result in an average cost increase of
$2,092 per year per system. Total costs
for all small systems are estimated at
$1,786,000 per year.
4. Activities for Regulatory Change ffl.D
Small systems that are changing
treatment or adding a source would
incur additional costs under Regulatory
Change HIX) to prepare data in support
of proposed treatment changes or source
addition, submit the data to the State for
review, and 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 $201. The total cost for
small systems is estimated at $203,000
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. The average
cost for small systems to notify
customers is estimated at approximately
$14 annually. This estimate assumes
one labor hour to prepare a customer
notification letter per system and $0.43
in material costs per sample for CWSs.
EPA assumed one labor hour 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 small systems is estimated
at $878,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change IH.F
Different provisions of Regulatory
Change III.F apply to different subsets of
systems. Most small Community Water
Systems will incur costs to include a
statement on lead on the CCR, at an
average cost of $6 per system, based on
the assumption of 0.25 hours to add an
informational statement on lead to the
CCR. Small Non-Transient Non-
Community Water Systems that exceed
the Lead Action Level will incur costs
to modify their public notification
language, at an average cpst per system
of $83. Small CommuniryWater
Systems that exceed the Lead Action
Level will incur costs from a variety of
public education activities, at an
average cost per system of $348. The
total cost for small systems is estimated
at $517,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change 1II.G
Regulatory Change III.G applies to
systems that have "tested out" lead
service lines as part of a lead service
line replacement program and then re-
exceed 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 one system per
year. There is no evidence that small
systems would be triggered into this
regulatory change cost any more
frequently than other systems. If this
system were a small system, a lower
number of lead service lines would be
replaced or tested out than was assumed
in the Economic Analysis. The average
number ofservice connections per
system for systems serving fewer than
10,000 is 289. For the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis we
assume that all 289 of these service
connections are lead service lines. The
resulting cost per system for the
retesting is estimated at $1,311 per year
for a small system based on the
approach described earlier in the
Economic Analysis for Regulatory
Change III.G. The percent assumed to be
tested out rather than replaced is
estimated at 76 percent based on one
year of data from DC WASA. This
means that 76 percent of the 289 service
connection lines would need to be
retested over a 15 year period.
8- Total Small System Costs
Table V.6 summarizes the estimated
annual costs associated with all
proposed regulatory changes after those
changes have been implemented. An
additional $7,193,000 in one-time rule
implementation costs will also be
incurred during the three year period
prior to implementation of the changes.
TABLE V.6:—TOTAL SMALL SYSTEM COSTS
Regulatory Change #III.A
Regulatory Change #11! B
Regulatory Change (till C . ....
Regulatory Change #111 D
Regulatory Change #111. E
Regulatory Change #111. F
Regulatory Change SlII.G ...
Total _ .
Annual
labor
$1 625 000
203000
779,000
513,000
1 178
3,121,000
Annual
materials
$162000
99,000
4,000
133
265,000
Total annual
$1,787,000
203,000
878,000
517,000
1,311
3,386,000
-------
40856
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
9. Average Costs Per Small System
The average compliance cost for all
small systems covered by the LCR for
the proposed rule change is minimal:
$50 per system in annual costs.
However, there is a fairly wide range in
the costs that a system could face. AH
systems will incur a $105 one-time cost,
but the additional annual costs could be
as low as $0 for small systems that
already notify customers of tap .
monitoring results and who do not
detect lead in their compliance
sampling. Systems that do not already
notify customers of results will incur a
cost of $14 per year. Systems that detect
any level of lead above the method
detection limit of 0.001 mg/L in their
compliance sample will incur a cost of
$6 per year to include a statement in
their CCR. The roughly 1.5 percent of
systems that are making a treatment
change or source addition would incur
an additional $201 in the year they
make the change.
At the high end, the roughly 1.4
percent of small systems that exceed the
Action Level would incur an additional
$2,440 per year. Under the assumptions
in the Economic Analysis, only .0015
percent of systems (1 per year) could
possibly incur both the additional tap
monitoring costs and lead service line
testing costs after an Action Level
exceedance, at a total cost of $1,311 per
year. If a system incurred all annual
costs, the total would be $3,972 per
year.
10. Measuring Significant Impact of
Rule Costs
The costs to small systems are first
compared against average revenues for
small systems from all revenue sources.
Small systems can be one of three types
of small entities—small businesses,
small governments, or small non-profits.
In the Economic Analysis for the final
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, EPA calculates the
average revenues from all revenue
sources for small systems serving fewer
than 10,000 for each of the small entity
types and then estimates a weighted
average revenue from all revenue
sources based on the proportion of small
systems in each type of entity (U.S. EPA
2005c). The weighted average revenue
from all revenue sources for small
systems is estimated at $3 million per
year.
Using the average cost of the
regulatory changes for small systems,
the one-time implementation costs
represent roughly 0.004 percent of
annual revenues from all revenue
sources. The $50 average annual costs
represent 0.002 percent of average
annual revenues from all revenue
sources. Roughly 1A percent of the
systems would incur annual costs of
$2,440, which is approximately .082
percent of revenues from all sources.
Only 1 system could face the maximum
annual costs of $3,972. This maximum
cost is approximately 0.13 percent of
annual revenues from all sources.
In summary, the costs for the average
small system due to the regulatory
changes are estimated to be less than 1
percent of revenues (0.002 percent). In
addition, fewer than 100 systems (1
system per year) are expected to
experience economic impacts of
approximately 0.13 percent of the
revenue-
Based on this analysis, EPA has
concluded that the proposed rule
changes will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Although this proposed 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 by
considering several alternatives to the
proposed regulatory changes that could
minimize impact to small systems while
still meeting the objectives of the rule.
11. Regulatory Changes HI.A
These changes clarify the original
intent of the LCR that very small
NTNCWSs serving 100 persons or fewer
take a minimum of five samples for each
sampling period, even if the system has
fewer than five sampling locations. EPA
is requesting comment on an option
suggested by a work group comprised of
representatives from EPA's regional
offices and several States that would
limit the number of samples these
systems would have to take to one for
each location (i.e.. tap). Taking fewer
than five samples for each monitoring
event would reduce the monitoring
burden for small systems. However, as
explained in the preamble to the
proposed regulatory changes, EPA
believes that taking fewer than five
samples for a system would likely
compromise the statistical objectives of
monitoring for lead and copper.
12. Regulatory Change HLC
Regulatory Change I1I.C requires
systems that have exceeded the Lead
Action Level to resume tap monitoring
for lead on a regular, rather than
reduced, schedule. Originally, EPA had
considered extending this requirement
to both lead and copper monitoring.
Based on suggestions from the work
group to minimize impacts on small
systems, EPA limited the requirement to
only Lead Action Level exceedances.
13. Regulatory Change III.E
Regulatory Change III.E requires
systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The work group
discussed including copper monitoring
results in the notification, but deferred
that suggestion for future consideration,
thereby limiting the increase in burden
.for small systems. Section H of this
proposal also provides some important
clarifications of alternatives to corrosion
control for small systems.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
-------
Federal Regisier/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40857
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 $8.8 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and
public water systems ranging from
approximately $5.1 to $5.5 million.
Systems and State/Primacy agencies
will 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 will 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 proposal
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 regulation
applies to all owners/operators of public
water systems, not uniquely to those
owners/operators that are small entities,
and, for most systems, requires minimal
expenditure of resources. Since these
regulatory revisions affect all system
sizes and the impact on the average
small system will be 0.13 percent of
revenues, the regulatory revisions to the
LCR are not subject to die requirements
of section 203 of UMRA.
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
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 proposed rule.
The Agency has developed fact sheets
that describe requirements of the short-
term regulatory revisions and
clarifications to the LCR. These fact
sheets are available by calling the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-
4791.
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" are 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 proposed 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 national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper. The
existing rule imposes requirements on
public water systems to ensure that
water delivered to users is minimally
corrosive, remove lead service lines and
provide public education where
necessary to ensure public health
protection. This proposed 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 requirements.
Nevertheless, EPA did consult with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation as described in section V.D,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Several States also participated in EPA's
workgroup that developed this proposal.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
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 proposed 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
the proposed rule apply to all
community and non-transient non-
community water systems, tribal
governments may be the owners or
operators of such systems, however,
nothing in this proposal's provisions
uniquely affects them. EPA therefore
concludes that this proposed rule does
not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from Tribal
officials.
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.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866. This proposed
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 the
proposed changes will improve the
implementation of these provisions.
Moreover, EPA believes that this
-------
40858
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
proposal is consistent with Executive
Order 13045 because it will further
strengthen protection to children from
exposure to lead and copper via
drinking water, as this proposal
enhances the implementation of the
LCR in the areas of monitoring, .
customer awareness, and lead service
line replacement. This proposal also
clarifies the intent of some unclear
provisions in the LCR. These changes
are expected to ensure and enhance
more effective protection of public
health through the reduction in lead
exposure.
Hi 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 rule
language only.
This proposed rule does not affect the
supply of energy as it does not regulate
power generation. The public and
private utilities that will be affected by
this proposed regulation do not, as a
rule, generate power. The proposed
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
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law
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 proposed rule may involve
voluntary consensus standards in that it
requires additional monitoring for lead
and copper in certain situations, and
monitoring and sample analysis
methodologies are often based on
voluntary consensus standards.
However, the proposed 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.
VI. References
The public docket is available as
described at the beginning of this
document. The following references are
referred to in this document and are
included in the public docket:
U.S. EPA. 1988. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
(Draft). Prepared by Wade Miller
Associates, Inc. (June 1,1988).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Variability of Household
Water Lead Levels In American Cities.
U.S. EPA 1991a. Final Information Collection
Request for National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper.
April, 1991.
U.S. EPA 199lb. Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis of National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper.
April. 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991C. Memorandum from Jeff
Cohen to the Record on Required
Number of Samples (May 6.1991).
U.S. EPA. 1991d. 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. 1996a. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum EPA 812-B-96-002, January
1996.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Federal Register. Vol 60,
No. 72 Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals and National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
(Apr. 12, 1996), 16348-16371. [72 FR
16348].
U.S. EPA. 1998a. Federal Register. Vol 63,
No. 160 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Consumer
Confidence Reports (Aug. 19,1998),
44512-44536.163 FR 44512).
U.S. EPA. 1999a. Information Collection
Request: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper.
June 1999. EPA ICR Number: 1912.01.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Federal Register. Vol 65,
No. 8 National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule (Wed. Jan. 12, 2000), 1950-2015.
[65 FR 1950].
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Federal Register. Vol 65
No. 87 National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Public Notification Rule
(Thurs. May 4, 2000), 25982-26049. [65
FR 25982].
U.S: EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring
and Reporting Guidance for Public Water
Systems. February, 2002.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Expert Panel Workshop
Public Education Under the Lead and
Copper Rule and Drinking Water Risk
Communication Summary. September
14-15, 2004. Hilton Philadelphia
Airport, Philadelphia, PA (http:// •
www.epa.gov/safewatKrflcTmr/
Iead_rwietr.html).
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Information Collection
Request for Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and
RadionuclJdes Rules, OMB Control
Number: 2040-0204, EPA Tracking
Number 1896.03. September, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004C. 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.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. State Implementation of the
Lead and Copper Rule. July, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Summary Lead Action
Level Exceedances for Public Water
Systems Subject to the Lead and Copper
Rule. September 13, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Federal Register. Vol. 70,
No. 177 National Drinking Water
Advisory Council's Working Group on
•" Public Education Requirements of the
Lead and Copper Rule Meeting
Announcement (Wed. Sept. 14, 2005),
54375. (70 FR 54375).
U.S. EPA. 2O06a. Lead and Copper Rule State
File Review: National Report. March,
2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Economic and Supporting
Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes
to the Lead and Copper Rule, May, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals.
Indians—lands. Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: July 6, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
A dministrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40, chapter 1. part 141 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141
continues to read as follows:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40859
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)
and by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
§141 .BO General Requirements
*****
(g) PuWj'c education requirements.
Any system exceeding the Lead Action
Level shall implement the 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 that are tested.
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);
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)* * *
(in) * * *
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 change in treatment or
addition of a new source. The State
must review and approve the addition
of a new source or change in water
treatment before it is implemented by
the water svstem.
period during which such system
exceeds the lead or copper action level."
4. Section 141.83(a)(l) is revised to
read as follows:
§141.83 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
6 months 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
(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
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
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 "(b)" to read
§ 141.84 Lead service line replacement
requirements.
(b)(l) * * * The first year of lead
service line replacement shall begin on
the date after 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 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 years in the program to
determine the number of lines that must
be replaced per year (7 percent
replacement is based on a 15-year
replacement program, so, for example,
systems resuming after conducting two
years of replacement would divide the
updated inventory by 13).
6. Section 141 .85 is revised to read as
follows:
§14135 Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
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 (h) 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. All
water systems must provide 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) Content of written public
education materials.—(1) Community
water systems and Non-transient non-
community wafer systems. Water
systems must include the following
elements in printed materials (such as
brochures and pamphlets) in the same
order as listed below. In addition,
paragraphs (a)(l)(i)-{ii) and (a)(l)(vi)
must be included 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 lay people.
(i) Opening Statement. IMPORTANT
INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN
YOUR DRINKING WATER. [INSERT
NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found
high levels of lead in drinking water in
some homes/buildings. Lead can cause
serious health problems, especially for
pregnant women and children 6 years
and under. Please read this notice
closely to see what you can do to reduce
lead in your drinking water.
(ij) Health effects of lead. Lead can
cause serious health problems if too
much enters your body. It can cause
damage to the brain and kidneys and
can decrease the number of red blood
cells (a risk factor for anemia). The
greatest risk is to infants, young
children, and pregnant women. Small
amounts slow down normal mental
development in growing children and
alter the development of other organs
and systems. The effects of lead on the
brain are associated with lowered 1Q in
children. Adults with kidney problems
and high blood pressure are more likely
to be affected by low levels of lead than
the general population. Lead is stored in
the bones allowing it to be released even
after exposure stops. The presence in
-------
40860
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
bone increases the concern for exposure
at all points of the life cycle.
(hi) Sources of Lead. (A) Explain what
lead is.
(B) Explain possible sources of lead
and how lead enters drinking water.
Include information on home/building
plumbing and service lines that may
contain lead. •
(C) Discuss other important sources of
lead exposure in addition to drinking
water (e.g., paint).
(iv) Steps you can take to reduce your
exposure to lead in drinking water. (A)
Encourage running the water to flush
out the lead.
(B) Explain concerns with using hot
water and specifically caution against
the use of hot water for 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.
(v) What happened and What is being
done?
(A) Explain why there are high levels
of lead in the system's drinking water (if
known).
(B) Discuss 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], or visit our
web site at [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE
HERE IF APPLICABLE]. For more
information on reducing lead exposure
around your home/building and the
health effects of lead, visit EPA's Web
site at www.epa.gov/lead, call the
National Lead Information Center at 1—
800—124-LEAD, or contact your health
care provider.
(2) Community water systems. In
addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section, community water systems must:
(A) Tell consumers how to get their
water tested.
(B)Discuss lead in plumbing
components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.
(b) Delivery of public education
materials. [1] In communities where a
significant proportion of the population
speaks a language other than English the
system must also provide the public
education materials in the appropriate
language(s).
(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, 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) Make a good faith effort to contact
all customers who are most at risk by
delivering materials that meet the
content requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section to the following
organizations along with a cover letter
that encourages distribution by the
organization to all its potentially
affected customers or users.
(A) Local Public Health Agencies—
The water system must deliver materials
that meet the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to the local
public health agencies and must directly
contact (by phone or in person) the local
public health agencies. The local public
health agencies may provide a specific
contact list of additional community
based organizations serving targeted
populations.
(B) Public and private schools or
school boards.
(C) Licensed childcare centers.
p) Public and private ore-schools.
(E) Women Infants and Children
(WIC) and Head Start programs.
(F) Public and private hospitals and
medical clinics.
(G) Pediatricians.
(H) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and
Midwives.
(I) Family planning clinics.
(J) Local welfare agencies.
(iii) 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
with the addition of the system's name
and Web site: [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.
(iv) Post material meeting the content
requirements of paragraph (a) on the
water system's Web site if the system
serves a population greater than
100,000.
{v) Submit press release to newspaper,
television and radio stations.
(vi) In addition to paragraphs
(b)(2)(i}-(v) of this section, systems must
implement at least 3 activities from one
or more categories listed below. The
content of these activities must be
determined in consultation with the
State.
(A) Public Service Announcements.
(B) Paid advertisements.
(C) Display Information in Public
Areas.
(D) Internet such as emails to
customers.
(E) Public Meetings.
(F) Delivery to every household.
(G) Individual contact with customers
(targeted contact).
(H) Provide materials directly 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 system exceeds the
action level, it must repeat the activities
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section as described in (b)(3)(i)-[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 material on a
publicly accessible internet site
pursuant to (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iv) The community water system
shall repeat the task in (b)(2)(v) of this
section twice every 12 months on a
schedule agreed upon with the state.
The State can allow activities in
(b)(2)(ii)) and (b)(2)(vi) of this section to
extend beyond the 6O-day requirement
if needed for implementation purposes;
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 aTready
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
the non-transient non-community water
system. The State may allow the system
to utilize electronic transmission in lieu
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40861
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.,
[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:
(ij With respect to the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section, a
system serving 3300 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 3300 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 3300 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 consumer notice
of lead tap water monitoring results
carried out to meet requirements under
§ 141.86 to all persons served by the
water system at the sampling sites in
§141.86(c).
(2) Timing of notification. A water
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§l41.l53(c)(l).
(4) Delivery. The consumer notice
must be provided to all persons served
at the site by mail or other methods
approved by the State. Th^ system must
provide the notice to all customers,
including consumers who do not get
water bills.
7. Section 141.86 is amended as
follows:
a. In the introductory paragraph of (c),
adding a sentence after the third
sentence;
b. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add as the last
sentence;
c. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);
f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B);
g. In paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(l) adding
as the last sentence;
h. Removing the first sentence in
paragraph (d)(4)(vii), arid adding in its
place the following two sentences;
i. In paragraph (g)(4)(i) adding as the
last sentence; and
j. Revising paragraph (g)(4)(iii).
§ 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead
and copper in tap water.
(c) * *- * A non-transient non-
community public water system that
serves 100 people or less and that does
not have enough drinking water taps
meeting the sample site criteria of
§ 141,86(a) to reach the required number
of sample sites listed in § 141.86(c) 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.
(4)* * *
(i) * * * 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
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
-------
40862
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
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 different period for conducting
the lead and copper tap sampling for
systems collecting a reduced number of
samples. This sampling shall begin no
later than the six-month period
beginning January 1 of the calendar year
following the reduced monitoring
exceedance. 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 tare
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 calendar year
immediately following the end of the
second consecutive six-month
monitoring period for systems resuming
annual monitoring and during the three-
year period following the end of the
third consecutive calendar year of
annual monitoring for systems resuming
triennial monitoring.
(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(1)
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 and collect the number of
samples specified for standard
monitoring for water quality parameters
within the distribution system in
accordance with §141.8?(d). This
standard tap water sampling shall begin
no later than the six-month period
beginning January 1 of the calendar year
following the 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:
(l) * * * 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
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
change in treatment or addition of a new
source. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or
change in water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.
W* * *
(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
§ i41.90(a)(3) of any upcoming change
in treatment or addition of a new
source. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or
change in water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system. The
State has the authority to require the
system to add or modify waiver
conditions (e.g., require recertification
that the system is free of lead-containing
and/or copper-containing materials,
require additional rounds(s) of
monitoring), if it deems such
modifications are necessary to address
treatment or source water changes at the
system. * * *
8. Section 141.87 is amended as
follows by:
a. Revising the first sentence in
paragraph (d);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
c. Adding as the last sentence of
§ 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). * * *
(e)* * *
(2J* * *_.
(i) 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 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.
§ 141.88 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
-------
Federal Register/VoL 71, No. 137/Tuesday, July 18, 2006/Proposed Rules
40863
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.
• (d) * * *
(D*'» *
(i) * * * Triennial samples shall be
collected every third calendar year.
(ii) A water system using surface
water (or a combination of surface and
groundwater) 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 arid 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:
*****
10. Section 141.90 is amended as
follows by:
a. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (a)(l);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
c. Revising paragraph (e)(l);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text;
e; Revising the last sentence of
paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
f. Revising paragraph (f)(l)
introductory text; and
g. Revising paragraph (0(l)(i).
§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
change in water treatment, a water
system deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under § 141.8l(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
§ 14l.86(g), shall send written
documentation to the State describing
the change. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or
change in water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.
(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 §^41.84(8), 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
equal at least 7 percent of the initial
number of lead lines identified under
paragraph (1) 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
11. Section 141.154 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) introductory text,
paragraph (d)(l) and (d)(2) to read as
follows:
§141.154 Required additional health
information.
(d) Systems that detect any level of
lead above the method detection limit of
0.001 mg/L in their drinking water
pursuant to monitoring under § 141.86
must do one of the following:
(1) Include a short informational
statement about the special effects of
lead on children if the system's 90th
percentile level is at or below the Lead
Action Level. The statement must
include the following information:
"While our system did not exceed the
Lead Action Level as shown in the table,
it is possible that there may be high lead
levels in your home as a result of
materials in your home plumbing. Lead
can cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and
children 6 and under. If you are
concerned about high lead levels in
your home's water, run your water for
30 seconds to 2 minutes before using tap
water and have your water tested.
Additional information is available from
the National Lead Information Center at
1-800-424-LEAD." The system may
write its own educational statement, but
only in consultation with the Primacy
Agency.
(2) Include a short informational
statement about the special effects of
lead on children if the 90th percentile
sample is above the Lead Action Level.
The statement must include the
following information: "Our system
exceeded the Lead Action Level. It is
possible that there may be high lead
levels in your home as a result of
materials in your home plumbing. Lead
can cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and
children 6 and under. If you are
concerned about high lead levels in
your home's water, run your water for
30 seconds to 2 minutes before using tap
water and have your water tested.
Additional information is available from
the National Lead Information Center at
1-800-424-LEAD." The system may
write its own educational statement, but
only in consultation with the Primacy
Agency.
[FR Doc. 06-6250 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 6560-5D-P
------- |