4198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300; FRL–10019–23– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF15 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is publishing final 

regulatory revisions to the National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

(NPDWR) for lead and copper under the 

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA). These revised requirements 

provide greater and more effective 

protection of public health by reducing 

exposure to lead and copper in drinking 

water. The rule will better identify high 

levels of lead, improve the reliability of 

lead tap sampling results, strengthen 

corrosion control treatment 

requirements, expand consumer 

awareness and improve risk 

communication. This final rule requires, 

for the first time, community water 

systems to conduct lead-in-drinkingwater testing and public education in 

schools and child care facilities. In 

addition, the rule will accelerate lead 

service line replacements by closing 

existing regulatory loopholes, propelling 

early action, and strengthening 

replacement requirements. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This final rule is 

effective as of March 16, 2021. For 

judicial review purposes, this final rule 

is promulgated as of January 15, 2021. 

Compliance dates: The compliance 

date for the revisions to 40 CFR part 

141, subpart I, is set forth in § 141.80(a). 

The compliance date for the revisions to 

40 CFR 141.2 is January 16, 2024, and 

the compliance date for 40 CFR 141.31 

is January 16, 2024. The compliance 

date for changes made to 40 CFR part 

141, subpart O (40 CFR 141.153(d)(4)(vi) 

and (xi) and 141.154(d)(1)), is January 

16, 2024. The compliance date for 

changes made to 40 CFR part 141, 

subpart Q (§ 141.202 and appendices A 

and B), is January 16, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Kempic, Standards and Risk 

Management Division, Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 

4607M, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 564–4880 (TTY 

800–877–8339); email address: 

Kempic.Jeffrey@EPA.gov. For more 

information visit https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What are EPA’s final revisions? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

II. Background 

A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper 

B. Statutory Authority 

C. Regulatory History 

III. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I, 

Control of Lead and Copper 

A. Lead Trigger Level 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

B. Corrosion Control Treatment 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

C. Lead Service Line Inventory 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

D. Lead Service Line Replacement 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead 

Action Level Exceedance for Small 

Community Water Systems and NonTransient, Non-Community Water 

Systems 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

F. Public Education 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

G. Tap Water Sampling 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

I. Source Water Monitoring 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

J. Public Education and Sampling at 

Schools and Child Care Facilities 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

K. Find-and-Fix 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

L. Water System Reporting Requirements 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

IV. Other Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141 

A. Consumer Confidence Report 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

B. Public Notification 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

C. Definitions 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement 

A. What are State recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements? 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

B. What are the special primacy 

requirements? 

1. Proposed Revisions 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

VI. Economic Analysis 

A. Public Comments on the Economic 

Analysis of the Proposed Rule and EPA 

Response 

B. Affected Entities and Major Data 

Sources Used To Characterize the 

Sample Universe 

C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model 

D. Cost Analysis 

1. Drinking Water System Implementation 

and Administrative Costs 

2. Sampling Costs 

3. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs 

4. Lead Service Line Inventory and 

Replacement Costs 

5. Point-of-Use Costs 

6. Public Education and Outreach Costs 

7. Annualized Per Household Costs 

8. Primacy Agency Costs 

9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated 

With Additional Phosphate Usage 

10. Summary of Rule Costs 

E. Benefits Analysis 

1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead 

Concentrations 

2. Impacts on Childhood IQ 

3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels 

4. Total Monetized Benefits 

F. Cost-Benefit Comparison 

1. Non-Monetized Costs 

2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits 

G. Other Regulatory Options Considered 

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at 

Schools and Child Care Facilities 

2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for 

Water Systems With Lead Service Lines 

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information 

4. Small System Flexibility 

VII. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4199 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Cost 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the 

Office of Mission Support’s Information 

Collection Request Center) (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Fairness Act (RFA) 

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Consultations With the Science 

Advisory Board and the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council 

M. Consultation With the Department of 

Health and Human Services Under 

SDWA Section 1412(d) 

N. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

VIII. References 

I. General Information 

The United States has made 

tremendous progress in lowering 

children’s blood lead levels. As a result 

of multiple Federal laws and 

regulations, including the 1973 phaseout of lead in automobile gasoline (40 

CFR part 80, subpart B), the 1978 

Federal regulation banning lead paint 

for residential and consumer use (16 

CFR part 1303), the 1991 LCR (40 CFR 

part 141, subpart I), and the 1995 ban on 

lead in solder in food cans (21 CFR 

189.240), the median concentration of 

lead in the blood of children aged 1 to 

5 years dropped from 15 micrograms 

(mg) per deciliter in 1976–1980 to 0.7 mg 

per deciliter in 2015–2016, a decrease of 

95 percent (USEPA, 2019a). 

Although childhood blood lead levels 

have been substantially reduced as a 

result of these actions, exposure to lead 

in the environment continues to be a 

concern, especially for vulnerable 

populations such as children and 

pregnant women. Data evaluated by the 

National Toxicology Program (NTP, 

2012) demonstrates that there is 

sufficient evidence to conclude that 

there are adverse health effects 

associated with low-level lead exposure. 

Moreover, no safe blood lead level in 

children has been identified (https://

www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/ 

default.htm). Sources of lead include 

lead-based paint, drinking water, and 

soil contaminated by historical sources. 

The Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) 

to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures 

and Associated Health Impacts, issued 

in December 2018, provides a blueprint 

for reducing further lead exposure and 

associated harm through collaboration 

among Federal agencies and with a 

range of stakeholders, including states, 

tribes, and local communities, along 

with businesses, property owners, and 

parents. The Action Plan is the product 

of the President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children (Task Force). The Task 

Force is comprised of 17 Federal 

departments and offices including the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the U.S Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

which co-chaired the development of 

the Action Plan with EPA. 

Through this plan, EPA committed to 

reducing lead exposures from multiple 

sources including paint, ambient air, 

and soil and dust contamination, 

especially to children who are among 

the most vulnerable to the effects of 

lead. 

On June 21, 2019, EPA announced 

new, tighter standards for lead in dust 

on floors and windowsills to protect 

children from the harmful effects of lead 

exposure. The standards were lowered 

from 40 mg of lead in dust per square 

foot (ft2) on floors and 250 mg of lead in 

dust per ft2 on interior windowsills, to 

10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2, respectively. 

The lead hazard standards help property 

owners, lead paint professionals, and 

government agencies identify lead 

hazards in residential paint, dust and 

soil. On June 19, 2020 EPA released a 

proposal to lower the clearance levels 

for lead in dust on floors and 

windowsills after lead removal activities 

from 40 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2 for floor dust 

and from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ft2 for 

windowsill dust (85 FR 37810). The 

dust lead clearance levels are used to 

demonstrate that abatement activities 

effectively and permanently eliminate 

those hazards. They apply in most pre1978 housing and child-occupied 

facilities. The proposed, tighter 

standards would increase the 

effectiveness of abatement in pre-1978 

homes and child care facilities. 

To address lead in soil, EPA will 

continue to remove, remediate, and take 

corrective actions at contaminated sites, 

including Superfund, Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Corrective Action, and other cleanup 

sites. EPA will also continue to work 

with state and tribal air agencies to help 

nonattainment areas meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA is 

also focused on conducting critical 

research and improving public 

awareness by consolidating and 

streamlining Federal messaging. 

Lead and copper enter drinking water 

mainly from the corrosion of plumbing 

materials containing lead and copper. 

Lead was widely used in plumbing 

materials until Congress prohibited the 

use or introduction into commerce of 

pipes and pipe fittings and fixtures that 

contained more than eight percent lead 

and solder or flux that contained more 

than 0.2 percent lead in 1986. On 

September 1, 2020, EPA published the 

final rule: Use of Lead Free Pipes, 

Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and Flux for 

Drinking Water. The Lead-Free final 

rule significantly limits the lead content 

allowed in plumbing materials (e.g., 

pipes, fittings, and fixtures) used in new 

construction and replacement of 

existing plumbing. Specifically, the 

Lead-Free rule reduces the percentage of 

lead content allowed in these materials 

from eight percent to 0.25 percent in 

accordance with the 2011 Reduction of 

Lead in Drinking Water Act. 

Many buildings were constructed 

prior to the restrictions on the use of 

plumbing materials that contained lead. 

There are currently an estimated 6.3 to 

9.3 million homes served by lead 

service lines (LSLs) in thousands of 

communities nationwide, in addition to 

millions of older buildings with lead 

solder and faucets that contain lead. To 

reduce exposure to lead through 

drinking water, the Action Plan 

highlights several key actions, including 

EPA’s commitment to making regulatory 

changes to implement the statutory 

definition of lead-free plumbing 

products and assisting schools and child 

care centers with the 3Ts approach 

(Training, Testing, and Taking Action) 

for lead in drinking water. The Action 

Plan also highlights EPA’s support to 

states and communities by identifying 

funding opportunities through the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

and the Water Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act loan program for 

updating and replacing drinking water 

infrastructure. In addition, the Action 

Plan highlights three newly authorized 

grant programs under the Water 

Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation (WIIN) Act, for which Congress 

appropriated $50 million in fiscal year 

(FY) 2018, to fund grants to small and 

disadvantaged communities for 

developing and maintaining 

infrastructure, for lead reduction 

projects, and to support the voluntary 

testing of drinking water in schools and 

child care centers. The Action Plan also 

highlights the importance of preventing 

lead exposure from drinking water by 

working with states, tribes, and local 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

stakeholders to share best practices and 

tools to better implement the NPDWR 

for Lead and Copper. For more 

information about the Federal Lead 

Action Plan see https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2018-12/ 

documents/fedactionplan_lead_

final.pdf. 

Since the implementation of the Lead 

and Copper Rule (LCR), drinking water 

exposures have declined significantly, 

resulting in major improvements in 

public health. For example, the number 

of the nation’s large drinking water 

systems that have exceeded the LCR 

action level of 15 parts per billion has 

decreased by over 90 percent. Between 

2017 and 2019, fewer than 5 percent of 

all water systems reported an action 

level exceedance (EPA–815–F–19–007). 

Despite this progress, there is a 

compelling need to modernize and 

improve the rule by strengthening its 

public health protections and clarifying 

its implementation requirements to 

make it more effective and more readily 

enforceable. 

The LCR is a complicated rule due, in 

part, to the need to control corrosivity 

of drinking water as it travels through 

often antiquated distribution and 

plumbing systems on the way to the 

consumer’s tap. States and public water 

systems need expertise and resources to 

identify the sampling locations and to 

work with customers to collect samples 

for analysis. Even greater expertise is 

needed for systems and states to identify 

the optimal corrosion control treatment 

and water quality parameter monitoring 

to assure that lead and copper levels are 

reduced to the extent feasible. The 

determination of the optimal corrosion 

control treatment is specific to each 

water system because it is based on the 

specific chemistry of the system’s 

source water, and must be designed and 

implemented to take into account 

treatments used to comply with other 

applicable drinking water standards (56 

FR 26487). 

Water systems cannot unilaterally 

implement all of the actions that are 

needed to reduce levels of lead in 

drinking water. Homeowners must also 

be engaged to assure successful LSL 

replacement because, in most 

communities, a portion of the LSL is 

owned by the water system and the 

remaining portion is the property of the 

homeowner. Water systems must also 

engage with consumers to encourage 

actions such as flushing of taps before 

use to reduce their exposure to lead in 

drinking water, where necessary. The 

ability of water systems to successfully 

engage with consumers is critical to 

reducing drinking water lead exposure. 

EPA sought input over an extended 

period on ways in which the Agency 

could address the challenges to further 

reducing drinking water lead exposure. 

Section VII of this preamble describes 

the engagements the Agency has had 

with small water systems, state and 

local officials, the Science Advisory 

Board, and the National Drinking Water 

Advisory Council (NDWAC). The 

Science Advisory Board provided 

recommendations in 2012 (SAB, 2012) 

and provided recommendations on the 

proposed Lead and Copper Rule 

revisions (LCRR) in 2020 (SAB, 2020). 

The NDWAC also provided 

recommendations on potential LCR 

revisions to EPA. The NDWAC provided 

written recommendations in December 

2015 (NDWAC, 2015) and provided 

input to the Agency as part of 

consultation on the proposed LCRR in 

December 2019. 

This final rule includes a suite of 

actions to address lead contamination in 

drinking water that, taken together, will 

improve the LCR and further reduce 

lead exposure from the previous LCR, 

resulting in an enduring positive public 

health impact. This approach focuses on 

six key areas: 

a. Identifying areas most impacted. To 

help identify areas with the greatest 

potential for lead contamination of 

drinking water and most in need of 

remediation, EPA’s final rule requires 

that all water systems complete and 

maintain a LSL inventory and collect 

tap samples from homes with LSLs if 

lead is present in the distribution 

system. To reduce elevated levels of 

lead in certain locations, EPA’s final 

rule also requires water systems to 

engage in a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ process to 

identify the causes of these elevated 

levels as well as take potential actions 

to reduce lead levels. 

b. Strengthening treatment 

requirements. EPA is finalizing 

expanded requirements for corrosion 

control treatment (CCT) based on tap 

sampling results. The final rule also 

establishes a new trigger level of 10 mg/ 

L. At this trigger level, systems that 

currently treat for corrosion are required 

to re-optimize their existing treatment. 

Systems that do not currently treat for 

corrosion will be required to conduct a 

corrosion control study so that the 

system is prepared to respond quickly if 

necessary. Flexibility is important for 

small systems so that they can protect 

public health by taking the treatment 

actions that make sense for their 

communities. The LCRR provides new 

alternatives to CCT for small systems 

including Point-of-Use (POU) treatment 

and replacement of lead bearing 

plumbing materials. 

c. Systematically replacing lead 

service lines. The final LCRR requires 

water systems with high lead levels to 

initiate LSL removal, permanently 

reducing a significant source of lead in 

many communities. All water systems 

with LSLs or lead status unknown 

service lines must create an LSLR plan 

by the rule compliance date. The more 

stringent sampling requirements in the 

final rule will better identify elevated 

lead levels, which will result in more 

systems replacing LSLs. Systems that 

are above the trigger level but at or 

below the lead action level must 

conduct replacements at a goal rate 

approved by the state, and, systems that 

are above the action level, must 

annually replace a minimum of three 

percent per year, based upon a 2 year 

rolling average of the number of known 

or potential LSLs in the inventory at the 

time the action level exceedance occurs. 

Systems cannot end their replacement 

program until they demonstrate lead 

levels less than the action level for two 

years. Only full LSL replacements will 

be counted towards the required rate, 

not partials and not ‘‘in lieu of’’ 

samples. The final rule requires water 

systems to provide awareness to homes 

with LSLs annually, and replace the 

water system-owned portion of an LSL 

when a customer chooses to replace 

their customer-owned portion of the 

line within 45 days with the ability to 

have up to 180 days with notification to 

the state. 

d. Increasing sampling reliability. 

EPA is changing the criteria for selecting 

homes at which to collect tap samples 

and the way in which those samples are 

collected. EPA is requiring tap sample 

site selection to focus on sites with LSLs 

(where present) and is requiring a new 

way to collect tap samples at these sites. 

Systems must collect fifth liter samples 

that are representative of water that has 

been in the LSL for several hours, which 

will provide better information on the 

highest concentration of lead in 

drinking water. The final LCR revisions 

prohibit tap sampling instructions that 

call for pre-stagnation flushing or, the 

cleaning or removing of faucet aerators, 

and include a requirement that tap 

samples be collected in bottles with a 

wide-mouth configuration. Collectively, 

these new, more stringent sampling 

requirements will better identify 

elevated lead levels and result in more 

water systems taking required lead 

mitigation actions. 

e. Improving risk communication. 

EPA is requiring systems to notify 

consumers of a system-wide action level 

exceedance within 24 hours. For 

individual tap samples that exceed 15 

mg/L, EPA is requiring systems to notify 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4201 

the individual consumer within three 

days. EPA is also requiring the 

consistent use of clear and concise 

language in public notifications and all 

public education materials including 

the LCR Public Education (PE) and 

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) on 

the health effects of exposure to lead in 

drinking water. The final rule increases 

the number, forms, and 

comprehensiveness of public education 

materials on lead in drinking water that 

are provided to the public. It also 

requires systems to conduct regular 

outreach to customers with LSLs. 

Systems must make their LSL inventory 

publicly available and must notify 

occupants of homes with LSL every year 

about their LSL, drinking water 

exposure risks, and mitigation options, 

including removal. The final rule’s 

requirements to provide understandable 

and consistent information about the 

levels of lead in drinking water, the 

sources of lead in a system, and the 

risks of lead in drinking water, will 

increase public actions to limit exposure 

to lead in drinking water. 

f. Protecting children in schools. Since 

children are at most risk of significant 

harm from lead exposure, EPA is 

requiring that community water systems 

(CWS) test for lead in drinking water in 

schools and child care facilities. 

Systems must conduct drinking water 

sampling at each elementary school and 

each child care facility they serve over 

no more than five years, testing 20 

percent of the facilities they serve each 

year. The system will be required to 

provide sampling results to the school 

or child care facility and information on 

actions that can be taken by the school 

or child care facility to reduce lead in 

the drinking water. The system will also 

be required to provide information to 

the school or child care facility on 

methods to communicate results to 

users of the facility and parents. CWSs 

are also required to provide testing to 

secondary schools on request during the 

5 years of mandatory elementary and 

child care facility testing, and also to 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities on request after the first round 

of mandatory testing. These 

requirements will provide schools and 

child care facilities with an 

understanding of how to create and 

manage a drinking water testing 

program that is customizable to their 

needs and an appreciation of the 

benefits of such a program. 

Through strengthened treatment 

procedures, expanded sampling, and 

improved protocols for identifying lead 

in drinking water, EPA’s LCR revisions 

will require more water systems to 

progressively take more actions to 

reduce lead levels at the tap. 

Additionally, by improving 

transparency and communication, the 

rule is expected to increase community 

awareness and accelerate the 

replacement of LSLs. By taking these 

collective actions EPA, states, and water 

systems will implement a proactive, 

holistic approach to more aggressively 

manage lead in drinking water. 

A. What are EPA’s final revisions? 

EPA is promulgating revisions to the 

LCR that strengthen public health 

protection and improve implementation 

of the regulation in the following areas: 

Lead tap sampling; CCT; LSLR; 

consumer awareness; and public 

education (PE). This final rule adopts a 

regulatory framework recommended, in 

part, by state co-regulators through the 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA) and 

incorporates many recommendations 

provided to EPA by the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council 

(NDWAC). NDWAC is a Federal 

Advisory Committee established 

pursuant to section 1446 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that 

provides EPA with advice and 

recommendations related to the national 

drinking water program. EPA is 

finalizing revisions to the LCR that will 

require water systems to take actions at 

lower lead tap water levels than 

previously required; this will reduce 

lead in drinking water and better protect 

public health. The Agency is 

establishing a new lead ‘‘trigger level’’ 

of 10 mg/L in addition to the 15 mg/L 

lead action level. Public health 

improvements will be achieved as water 

systems are required to take a 

progressive set of actions to reduce lead 

levels at the tap. These actions are 

designed to reduce lead and copper 

exposure by ensuring effective CCT and 

re-optimization of CCT when the lead 

trigger level or action level is exceeded; 

enhancing water quality parameter 

(WQP) monitoring; establish a ‘‘findand-fix’’ process to evaluate and 

remediate elevated lead at a site where 

the individual tap sample exceeds 15 

mg/L; require water systems to create an 

LSL inventory to identify the full extent 

of LSLs in the system; ensure tap 

sampling pools are targeted to the sites 

with elevated lead; and make consumers 

aware of the presence of a LSL, if 

applicable, to facilitate replacement of 

LSLs. The LCR revisions will improve 

tap sampling by improving the tap 

sampling protocol, taking samples that 

are more representative of the highest 

levels of lead in drinking water taps and 

better targeting higher risk sites for lead 

contamination, i.e., sites with LSLs or 

lead containing plumbing materials. 

EPA’s revisions to the LCR Public 

Education (PE) and Consumer 

Confidence Report (CCR) requirements 

will improve communication with 

consumers. In addition, this final rule 

includes requirements for CWSs to 

conduct lead in drinking water testing 

and PE in schools and child care 

facilities. 

Together, these revisions to the 

existing framework and new 

requirements will result in greater 

public health protection at all sizes of 

CWSs and non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs). 

Implementation of the revisions will 

better identify when and where lead 

contamination occurs, or has the 

potential to occur, and require systems 

to take actions to address it more 

effectively and sooner than under the 

previous rule. 

The following table compares the 

major differences between the previous 

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) 

(promulgated in 1991 and last revised in 

2007), the 2019 proposed Lead and 

Copper Rule revisions (LCRR), and the 

final rule requirements. In general, 

requirements that are unchanged are not 

listed. 

Previous LCR Proposed LCRR Final LCRR 

Action Level (AL) and Trigger Level (TL) 

Æ 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/ 

L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires additional actions. 

Æ 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/ 

L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires more actions 

than the current rule. 

Æ Defines lead trigger level (TL) of 10 <P90> ≤15 μg/ 

L that triggers additional planning, monitoring, and 

treatment requirements. 

Æ 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/ 

L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires more actions 

than the previous rule. 

Æ Defines lead trigger level (TL) of 10 <P90 ≤15 μg/L 

that triggers additional planning, monitoring, and 

treatment requirements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Previous LCR Proposed LCRR Final LCRR 

Lead and Copper Tap Monitoring 

Sample Site Selection: 

Æ Prioritizes collection of samples from sites with 

sources of lead in contact with drinking water. 

Æ Highest priority given to sites served by copper 

pipes with lead solder installed after 1982 but 

before the state ban on lead pipes and/or 

LSLs. 

Æ Systems must collect 50% of samples from 

LSLs, if available. 

Sample Site Selection: 

Æ Changes priorities for collection of samples 

with a greater focus on LSLs. 

Æ Prioritizes collecting samples from sites 

served by LSLs –all samples must be collected from sites served by LSLs, if available. 

Æ No distinction in prioritization of copper pipes 

with lead solder by installation date. 

Sample Site Selection: 

Æ Changes priorities for collection of samples 

with a greater focus on LSLs. 

Æ Prioritizes collecting samples from sites 

served by LSLs –all samples must be collected from sites served by LSLs, if available. 

Æ No distinction in prioritization of copper pipes 

with lead solder by installation date. 

Æ Improved tap sample site selection tiering criteria. 

Collection Procedure: 

Æ Requires collection of the first liter sample after 

water has sat stagnant for a minimum of 6 

hours. 

Collection Procedure: 

Æ Adds requirement that samples must be collected in wide-mouth bottles. 

Æ Prohibits sampling instructions that include 

recommendations for aerator cleaning/removal 

and pre-stagnation flushing prior to sample 

collection. 

Collection Procedure: 

Æ Requires collection of the fifth-liter sample in 

homes with LSLs after water has sat stagnant 

for a minimum of 6 hours and maintains firstliter sampling protocol in homes without LSLs. 

Æ Adds requirement that samples must be collected in wide-mouth bottles. 

Æ Prohibits sampling instructions that include 

recommendations for aerator cleaning/removal 

and pre-stagnation flushing prior to sample 

collection. 

Monitoring Frequency: 

Æ Samples are analyzed for both lead and copper. 

Æ Systems must collect standard number of samples, based on population; semi-annually unless they qualify for reduced monitoring. 

Æ Systems can qualify for annual or triennial 

monitoring at reduced number of sites. Schedule based on number of consecutive years 

meeting the following criteria: 

Æ Serves ≤50,000 people and ≤ lead & copper ALs. 

Æ Serves any population size, meets statespecified optimal water quality parameters 

(OWQPs), and ≤ lead AL. 

Monitoring Frequency: 

Æ Some samples may be analyzed for lead only 

when lead monitoring is conducted more frequently than copper. 

Æ Copper follows the same criteria as the current rule. 

Æ Lead monitoring schedule is based on P90 

level for all systems as follows: 

Æ P90 >15 μg/L: Semi-annually at the 

standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Annually at the 

standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 ≤10 μg/L: 

D Annually and triennially at reduced 

number of sites using same criteria 

as current rule except for large systems and the copper 90th percentile 

level is not considered. 

D Every 9 years based on current rule 

requirements for a 9-year monitoring 

waiver. 

Monitoring Frequency: 

Æ Some samples may be analyzed for only lead 

when lead monitoring is conducted more frequently than copper. 

Æ Copper follows the same criteria as the current rule. 

Æ Lead monitoring schedule is based on P90 

level for all systems as follows: 

Æ P90 >15 μg/L: Semi-annually at the 

standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Annually at the 

standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 ≤10 μg/L: 

D Annually at the standard number of 

sites and triennially at reduced number of sites using same criteria as 

previous rule except copper 90th percentile level is not considered. 

D Every 9 years based on current rule 

requirements for a 9-year monitoring 

waiver. 

Æ Triennial monitoring also applies to any system 

with lead and copper 90th percentile levels 

≤0.005 mg/L and ≤0.65 mg/L, respectively, for 

2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. 

Æ 9-year monitoring waiver available to systems 

serving ≤3,300. 

Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs) 

CCT: 

Æ Systems serving >50,000 people were required 

to install treatment by January 1, 1997 with 

limited exception. 

Æ Systems serving ≤50,000 that exceed lead 

and/or copper AL are subject to CCT requirements (e.g., CCT recommendation, study if required by primacy agency, CCT installation). 

They can discontinue CCT steps if no longer 

exceed both ALs for two consecutive 6-month 

monitoring periods. 

Æ Systems must operate CCT to meet any primacy agency-designated OWQPs that define 

optimal CCT. 

Æ There is no requirement for systems to re-optimize. 

CCT: 

Æ Specifies CCT requirements for systems with 

10 <P90 level ≤15 μg/L: 

Æ No CCT: must conduct a CCT study if required by primacy agency. 

Æ With CCT: must follow the steps for reoptimizing CCT, as specified in the rule. 

Æ Systems with P90 level >15 μg/L: 

Æ No CCT: must complete CCT installation 

regardless of their subsequent P90 levels. 

Æ With CCT: must re-optimize CCT. 

Æ CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and non-transient water systems (NTNCWSs) can select 

an option other than CCT to address lead. 

See Small System Flexibility. 

CCT: 

Æ Specifies CCT requirements for systems with 

10 <P90 level ≤15 μg/L: 

Æ No CCT: must conduct a CCT study if required by primacy agency. 

Æ With CCT: must follow the steps for reoptimizing CCT, as specified in the rule. 

Æ Systems with P90 level >15 μg/L: 

Æ No CCT: must complete CCT installation 

regardless of their subsequent P90 levels. 

Æ With CCT: must re-optimize CCT. 

Æ CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and non-transient water systems (NTNCWSs) can select 

an option other than CCT to address lead. 

See Small System Flexibility. 

CCT Options: Includes alkalinity and pH adjustment, 

calcium hardness adjustment, and phosphate or silicate-based corrosion inhibitor. 

CCT Options: Removes calcium hardness as an option and specifies any phosphate inhibitor must be 

orthophosphate. 

CCT Options: Removes calcium hardness as an option and specifies any phosphate inhibitor must be 

orthophosphate. 

Regulated WQPs: 

Æ No CCT: pH, alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, 

temperature, orthophosphate (if phosphatebased inhibitor is used), silica (if silica-based 

inhibitor is used). 

Regulated WQPs: 

Æ Eliminates WQPs related to calcium hardness 

(i.e., calcium, conductivity, and temperature). 

Regulated WQPs: 

Æ Eliminates WQPs related to calcium hardness 

(i.e., calcium, conductivity, and temperature). 

Æ With CCT: pH, alkalinity, and based on type of 

CCT either orthophosphate, silica, or calcium. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4203 

Previous LCR Proposed LCRR Final LCRR 

WQP Monitoring: 

Æ Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct 

regular WQP monitoring at entry points and 

within the distribution system. 

Æ Systems serving ≤50,000 people conduct monitoring only in those periods > lead or copper 

AL. 

Æ Contains provisions to sample at reduced 

number of sites in distribution system less frequency for all systems meeting their OWQPs. 

WQP Monitoring: 

Æ Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP monitoring at entry points 

and within the distribution system. 

Æ Systems serving ≤50,000 people must continue WQP monitoring until they no longer > 

lead and/or copper AL for two consecutive 6- 

month monitoring periods. 

Æ To qualify for reduced WQP distribution monitoring, P90 must be ≤10 μg/L and the system 

must meet its OWQPs. 

WQP Monitoring: 

Æ Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP monitoring at entry points 

and within the distribution system. 

Æ Systems serving ≤50,000 people must continue WQP monitoring until they no longer > 

lead and/or copper AL for two consecutive 6- 

month monitoring periods. 

Æ To qualify for reduced WQP distribution monitoring, P90 must be ≤10 μg/L and the system 

must meet its OWQPs. 

Sanitary Survey Review: 

Æ Treatment must be reviewed during sanitary 

surveys; no specific requirement to assess 

CCT or WQPs. 

Sanitary Survey Review: 

Æ CCT and WQP data must be reviewed during 

sanitary surveys against most recent CCT 

guidance issued by EPA. 

Sanitary Survey Review: 

Æ CCT and WQP data must be reviewed during 

sanitary surveys against most recent CCT 

guidance issued by EPA. 

Find-and-Fix: No required follow-up samples or additional actions if an individual sample exceeds 15 

μg/L. 

Find-and-Fix: If individual tap sample >15 μg/L, systems must: 

Æ Collect a follow-up sample at each location 

>15 μg/L. 

Æ Conduct WQP monitoring at or near the site 

>15 μg/L. 

Æ Perform needed corrective action. 

Find-and-Fix: If individual tap samples >15 μg/L. 

Æ Find-and-fix steps: 

Æ Collect tap sample at the same tap sample site within 30 days. 

Æ For LSL, collect any liter or sample volume. 

Æ If LSL is not present, collect 1 liter first 

draw after stagnation. 

Æ For systems with CCT. 

Æ Conduct WQP monitoring at or near the 

site >15 μg/L. 

Æ Perform needed corrective action. 

Æ Document customer refusal or nonresponse after 2 attempts. 

Æ Provide information to local public health 

officials. 

LSL Inventory and LSLR Plan 

Initial LSL Program Activities: 

Æ Systems were required to complete a materials 

evaluation by the time of initial sampling. No 

requirement to update materials evaluation. 

Æ No LSLR plan is required. 

Initial LSL Program Activities: 

Æ All systems must develop an LSL inventory or 

demonstrate absence of LSLs within first 3 

years of final rule publication. 

Æ LSL inventory must be updated annually. 

Æ All systems with known or possible LSLs must 

develop an LSLR plan. 

Initial LSL Program Activities: 

Æ All systems must develop an LSL inventory or 

demonstrate absence of LSLs within 3 years 

of final rule publication. 

Æ LSL inventory must be updated annually or triennially, based on their tap sampling frequency. 

Æ All systems with known or possible LSLs must 

develop an LSLR plan. 

LSLR: 

Æ Systems with LSLs with P90 >15 μg/L after 

CCT installation must annually replace ≥7% of 

number of LSLs in their distribution system 

when the lead action level is first exceeded. 

Æ Systems must replace the LSL portion they 

own and offer to replace the private portion at 

the owner’s expense. 

Æ Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and LSLs with lead 

sample results ≤15 μg/L (‘‘test-outs’’) count toward the 7% replacement rate. 

Æ Systems can discontinue LSLR after 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods ≤ lead AL. 

LSLR: 

Æ Rule specifies replacement programs based 

on P90 level for CWSs serving >10,000 people: 

Æ If P90 >15 μg/L: Must fully replace 3% of 

LSLs per year (mandatory replacement) 

for 4 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. 

Æ If P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Implement an 

LSLR program with replacement goals in 

consultation with the primacy agency for 2 

consecutive 1-year monitoring periods. 

Æ Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select LSLR 

as their compliance option must complete 

LSLR within 15 years if P90 >15 μg/L See 

Small System Flexibility. 

Æ Annual LSLR rate is based on number of 

LSLs when the system first exceeds the action 

level plus the current number of lead status 

unknown service lines. 

Æ Only full LSLR (both customer-owned and 

system-owned portion) count toward mandatory rate or goal-based rate. 

LSLR: 

Æ Rule specifies replacement programs based 

on P90 level for CWSs serving >3,300 people: 

Æ If P90 >15 μg/L: Must fully replace 3% of 

LSLs per year based upon a 2 year rolling 

average (mandatory replacement) for at 

least 4 consecutive 6-month monitoring 

periods. 

Æ If P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Implement an 

LSLR program with replacement goals in 

consultation with the primacy agency for 2 

consecutive 1-year monitoring periods. 

Æ Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select LSLR 

as their compliance option must complete 

LSLR within 15 years if P90 >15 μg/L See 

Small System Flexibility. 

Æ Annual LSLR rate is based on number of 

LSLs and galvanized requiring replacement 

when the system first exceeds the action level 

plus the current number of lead status unknown service lines. 

Æ Only full LSLR (both customer-owned and 

system-owned portion) count toward mandatory rate or goal-based rate. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Previous LCR Proposed LCRR Final LCRR 

Æ All systems must replace their portion of an 

LSL if notified by consumer of private side replacement within 45 days of notification of the 

private replacement. 

Æ Following each LSLR, systems must: 

Æ Provide pitcher filters/cartridges to each 

customer for 3 months after replacement. 

Must be provided within 24 hours for full 

and partial LSLRs. 

Æ Collect a lead tap sample at locations 

served by replaced line within 3 to 6 

months after replacement. 

Æ Requires replacement of galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream of an LSL. 

Æ All systems replace their portion of an LSL if 

notified by consumer of private side replacement within 45 days of notification of the private replacement. If the system cannot replace 

the system’s portion within 45 days, it must 

notify the state and replace the system’s portion within 180 days. 

Æ Following each LSLR, systems must: 

Æ Provide pitcher filters/cartridges to each 

customer for 6 months after replacement. 

Provide pitcher filters/cartridges within 24 

hours for full and partial LSLRs. 

Æ Collect a lead tap sample at locations 

served by replaced line within 3 to 6 

months after replacement. 

Æ Requires replacement of galvanized service 

lines that are or ever were downstream of an 

LSL. 

LSL-Related Outreach: 

Æ When water system plans to replace the portion it owns, it must offer to replace customerowned portion at owner’s expense. 

Æ If system replaces its portion only: 

Æ Provide notification to affected residences 

within 45 days prior to replacement on 

possible elevated short-term lead levels 

and measures to minimize exposure. 

LSL-Related Outreach: 

Æ Inform consumers annually that they are 

served by LSL or service line of unknown lead 

status. 

Æ Systems subject to goal-based program must: 

Æ Conduct targeted outreach that encourages consumers with LSLs to participate 

in the LSLR program. 

Æ Conduct an additional outreach activity if 

they fail to meet their goal. 

Æ Systems subject to mandatory LSLR include 

information on LSLR program in public education (PE) materials that are provided in response to P90 > AL. 

LSL-Related Outreach: 

Æ Inform consumers annually that they are 

served by LSL or lead status unknown service 

line. 

Æ Systems subject to goal-based program must: 

Æ Conduct targeted outreach that encourages consumers with LSLs to participate 

in the LSLR program. 

Æ Conduct an additional outreach activity if 

they fail to meet their goal. 

Æ Systems subject to mandatory LSLR include information on LSLR program in 

public education (PE) materials that are 

provided in response to P90 > AL. 

Æ Include offer to collect lead tap sample 

within 72 hours of replacement. 

Æ Provide test results within 3 business days 

after receiving results. 

Small System Flexibility 

No provisions for systems to elect an alternative treatment approach but sets specific requirements for 

CCT and LSLR. 

Allows CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and all 

NTNCWSs with P90 >10 μg/L to elect their approach to address lead with primacy agency approval: 

Æ Systems can choose CCT, LSLR, or provision 

and maintenance of point-of-use devices. 

Æ NTNCWSs can also elect to replace all leadbearing materials. 

Allows CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and all 

NTNCWSs with P90 >10 μg/L to select their approach to address lead with primacy agency approval: 

Æ Systems can choose CCT, LSLR, provision 

and maintenance of point-of-use devices; or 

replace all lead-bearing plumbing materials. 

Public Education and Outreach 

Æ All CWSs must provide education material in the 

annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). 

Æ Systems with P90 >AL must provide PE to customers about lead sources, health effects, measures to reduce lead exposure, and additional information sources. 

Æ Systems must provide lead consumer notice to individuals served at tested taps within 30 days of 

learning results. 

Æ Customers can contact the CWS to get PE materials translated in other languages. 

Æ CWSs must provide updated health effects language in all PE materials and the CCR. 

Æ If P90 > AL: 

Æ Current PE requirements apply. 

Æ Systems must notify consumers of P90 > AL 

within 24 hours. 

Æ In addition, CWSs must: 

Æ Improve public access to lead information including LSL locations and respond to requests 

for LSL information. 

Æ Deliver notice and educational materials to 

consumers during water-related work that 

could disturb LSLs. 

Æ Provide increased information to local and 

state health agencies. 

Æ Provide lead consumer notice to consumers 

whose individual tap sample is >15 μg/L within 

24 hours. 

Æ Also see LSL-Related Outreach in LSLR section of 

table. 

Æ CWSs must provide updated health effects language in all PE materials and the CCR. 

Æ Customers can contact the CWS to get PE 

materials translated in other languages. 

Æ All CWSs are required to include information on 

how to access the LSL inventory and how to access the results of all tap sampling in the CCR. 

Æ Revises the mandatory health effects language to 

improve accuracy and clarity. 

Æ If P90 > AL: 

Æ Current PE requirements apply. 

Æ Systems must notify consumers of P90 > AL 

within 24 hours. 

Æ In addition, CWSs must: 

Æ Deliver notice and educational materials to 

consumers during water-related work that 

could disturb LSLs. 

Æ Provide information to local and state health 

agencies. 

Æ Provide lead consumer notice to consumers 

whose individual tap sample is >15 μg/L as 

soon as practicable but no later than 3 days. 

Also see LSL-Related Outreach section of table. 

Change in Source or Treatment 

Systems on a reduced tap monitoring schedule must 

obtain prior primacy agency approval before changing their source or treatment. 

Systems on any tap monitoring schedule must obtain 

prior primacy agency approval before changing 

their source or treatment. 

Systems on any tap monitoring schedule must obtain 

prior primacy agency approval before changing 

their source or treatment. These systems must 

also conduct tap monitoring biannually. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4205 

Previous LCR Proposed LCRR Final LCRR 

Source Water Monitoring and Treatment 

Æ Periodic source water monitoring is required for 

systems with: 

Æ Source water treatment; or 

Æ P90 > AL and no source water treatment. 

Æ Primacy Agencies can waive continued source 

water monitoring if the: 

Æ System has already conducted source water 

monitoring for a previous P90 > AL; 

Æ primacy agency has determined that source 

water treatment is not required; and 

Æ System has not added any new water 

sources. 

Æ Primacy Agencies can waive continued source 

water monitoring if the: 

Æ System has already conducted source water 

monitoring for a previous P90 > AL; 

Æ primacy agency has determined that source 

water treatment is not required; and 

Æ System has not added any new water 

sources. 

Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities 

Æ Does not include separate testing and education 

program for CWSs at schools and child care facilities. 

Æ Schools and child cares that are classified as 

NTNCWSs must sample for lead and copper. 

Æ CWSs must conduct lead in drinking water testing 

and PE at 20% of K–12 schools and licensed child 

cares in service area every 5 years. 

Æ Sample results and PE must be provided to each 

sampled school/child care, primacy agency and 

local or state health department. 

Æ Excludes facilities built after January 1, 2014. 

Æ CWS must conduct sampling at 20% of elementary 

schools and 20% of child care facilities per year 

and conduct sampling at secondary schools on request for 1 testing cycle (5 years) and conduct 

sampling on request of all schools and child care 

facilities thereafter. 

Æ Sample results and PE must be provided to each 

sampled school/child care, primacy agency and 

local or state health department. 

Æ Excludes facilities built or replaced all plumbing 

after January 1, 2014. 

Primacy Agency Reporting 

Primacy Agencies must report information to EPA that 

includes but is not limited to: 

Æ All P90 levels for systems serving >3,300 people, and only levels >15 μg/L for smaller systems. 

Æ Systems that are required to initiate LSLR and 

the date replacement must begin. 

Æ Systems for which optimal corrosion control 

treatment (OCCT) has been designated. 

Expands current requirements to include: 

Æ All P90 values for all system sizes. 

Æ The current number of LSLs and lead status 

unknown service lines for every water system. 

Æ OCCT status of all systems including primacy 

agency-specified OWQPs. 

Expands current requirements to include: 

Æ All P90 values for all system sizes. 

Æ The current number of LSLs and lead status 

unknown service lines for every water system. 

Æ OCCT status of all systems including primacy 

agency-specified OWQPs. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities that could potentially be 

affected include the following: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Public water systems .......................................... Community water systems (a public water system that (A) serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents of the area served by the system; or (B) regularly serves 

at least 25 year-round residents). 

Non-transient, non-community water systems (a public water system that is not a community 

water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per 

year). 

State and tribal agencies .................................... Agencies responsible for drinking water regulatory development and enforcement. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities that could 

be affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility or activities could 

be affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine this final rule. 

As part of this document for the 

LCRR, ‘‘state’’ refers to the agency of the 

state or tribal government which has 

jurisdiction over public water systems 

consistent with the definition of ‘‘state’’ 

in 40 CFR 141.2. During any period 

when a state or tribal government does 

not have primary enforcement 

responsibility pursuant to section 1413 

of the SDWA, the term ‘‘state’’ means 

the applicable Regional Administrator 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper 

Exposure to lead is known to present 

serious health risks to the brain and 

nervous system of children. Lead 

exposure causes damage to the brain 

and kidneys and can interfere with the 

production of red blood cells that carry 

oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has 

acute and chronic impacts on the body. 

The most robustly studied and most 

susceptible subpopulations are the 

developing fetus, infants, and young 

children. Even low level lead exposure 

is of particular concern to children 

because their growing bodies absorb 

more lead than adults do, and their 

brains and nervous systems are more 

sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. 

EPA estimates that drinking water can 

make up 20 percent or more of a 

person’s total exposure to lead. Infants 

who consume mostly formula mixed 

with tap water can, depending on the 

level of lead in the system and other 

sources of lead in the home, receive 40 

percent to 60 percent of their exposure 

to lead from drinking water used in the 

formula (USEPA, 1988). Scientists have 

linked lead’s effects on the brain with 

lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) and 

attention disorders in children (USEPA, 

2013). Young children and infants are 

particularly vulnerable to lead because 

the physical and behavioral effects of 

lead occur at lower exposure levels in 

children than in adults. During 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

pregnancy, lead exposure may affect 

prenatal brain development. Lead is 

stored in the bones and it can be 

released later in life. Even at low levels 

of lead in blood, there is an increased 

risk of health effects in children (e.g., 

less than 5 micrograms per deciliter) 

and adults (e.g., less than 10 micrograms 

per deciliter) (National Toxicology 

Program, 2012). 

The 2013 Integrated Science 

Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and 

the HHS National Toxicology Program 

Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead (National Toxicology 

Program, 2012) have both documented 

the association between lead and 

adverse cardiovascular effects, renal 

effects, reproductive effects, 

immunological effects, neurological 

effects, and cancer. EPA’s Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) 

Chemical Assessment Summary 

provides additional health effects 

information on lead (USEPA, 2004a). 

For a more detailed explanation of the 

health effects associated with lead for 

children and adults see Appendix D of 

the Economic Analysis. 

Acute copper exposure causes 

gastrointestinal distress. Chronic 

exposure to copper is particularly a 

concern for people with Wilson’s 

disease because they are prone to 

copper accumulation in body tissue, 

which can lead to liver damage, 

neurological, and/or psychiatric 

symptoms. For a more detailed 

explanation of the health effects 

associated with copper see Appendix E 

of the final rule Economic Analysis 

(USEPA, 2020). EPA did not propose 

revisions to the copper requirements; 

thus, the final rule does not revise the 

copper requirements. 

B. Statutory Authority 

EPA is publishing revisions to the 

LCR under the authority of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), including 

sections 1412, 1413, 1414, 1417, 1445, 

and 1450 of the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300f 

et seq. 

Section 1412(b)(9) provides that 

‘‘[T]he Administrator shall, not less 

often than every 6 years, review and 

revise, as appropriate, each national 

primary drinking water regulation 

promulgated under this subchapter. Any 

revision of a national primary drinking 

water regulation shall be promulgated in 

accordance with this section, except 

that each revision shall maintain, or 

provide for greater, protection of the 

health of persons.’’ 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(9). In promulgating this revised 

NPDWR, EPA followed the applicable 

procedures and requirements described 

in section 1412 of the SDWA, including 

those related to (1) the use of the best 

available, peer-reviewed science and 

supporting studies; (2) presentation of 

information on public health effects; 

and (3) a health risk reduction and cost 

analysis of the rule in 1412(b)((3)(A), 

(B), (C) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(3)(A)–(C). 

This rule revises the Lead and Copper 

Rule which established treatment 

technique requirements instead of a 

maximum contaminant level. Section 

1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA authorizes 

EPA to ‘‘promulgate a national primary 

drinking water regulation that requires 

the use of a treatment technique in lieu 

of establishing a maximum contaminant 

level, if the Administrator makes a 

finding that it is not economically or 

technologically feasible to ascertain the 

level of the contaminant.’’ EPA’s 

decision to promulgate a treatment 

technique rule for lead instead of a 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) in 

1991 has been upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. American Water 

Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 

1266, 1270–71 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

In establishing treatment technique 

requirements, the Administrator is 

required to identify those treatment 

techniques ‘‘which in the 

Administrator’s judgment, would 

prevent known or anticipated adverse 

effects on the health of persons to the 

extent feasible.’’ 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(7)(A). ‘‘Feasible’’ is defined in 

Section 1412(b)(4)(D) of the SDWA as 

‘‘feasible with the use of the best 

technology, treatment techniques and 

other means which the Administrator 

finds after examination for efficacy 

under field conditions and not solely 

under laboratory conditions, are 

available (taking cost into 

consideration).’’ The legislative history 

for this provision makes it clear that 

‘‘feasibility’’ is to be defined relative to 

‘‘what may reasonably be afforded by 

large metropolitan or regional public 

water systems.’’ A Legislative History of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, Committee 

Print, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) at 550. 

See also City of Portland v. EPA, 507 

F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding 

EPA’s treatment technique for 

Cryptosporidium and the Agency’s 

interpretation that ‘‘feasible’’ means 

technically possible and affordable, 

rather than a cost/benefit 

determination). If the ‘‘feasible’’ 

treatment technique requirement would 

result in an increase in the health risk 

from drinking water by increasing the 

concentration of other contaminants in 

drinking water, or interfering with the 

efficacy of treatment techniques or 

processes that are used to comply with 

other national primary drinking water 

regulations, then the treatment 

techniques ‘‘shall minimize the overall 

risk of adverse health effects by 

balancing the risk from the contaminant 

and the risk from other contaminants’’; 

however, the resulting requirements 

may not be more stringent than what is 

‘‘feasible’’. 42 U.S.C. 300g–1(b)(5). 

Section 1414(c) of the SDWA, as 

amended by the WIIN Act, requires 

public water systems to provide notice 

to the public if the water system exceeds 

the lead action level. 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

3(c). The SDWA section 1414(c)(2) 

provides that the Administrator ‘‘shall, 

by regulation . . . prescribe the manner, 

frequency, form, and content for giving 

notice’’ under section 1414(c). 42 U.S.C. 

300g–3(c)(2). The SDWA section 

1414(c)(2)(C) specifies additional 

requirements for those regulations 

related to public notification of a lead 

action level exceedance ‘‘that has the 

potential to have serious adverse effects 

on human health as a result of shortterm exposure.’’ The public notice must 

be distributed as soon as practicable, but 

not later than 24 hours after the water 

systems learns of the action level 

exceedance and the system must report 

the exceedance to both the 

Administrator and the primacy agency 

in that same time period. 42 U.S.C. 

300g–3(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii). The 

requirement in Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) 

to provide notification to EPA as well as 

the primacy agency was enacted in 2016 

as part of the WIIN Act. One purpose of 

this requirement is to allow EPA to 

implement Section 1414(c)(2)(D), which 

was also enacted as part of the WIIN 

Act. It directs EPA to issue the required 

public notice for an exceedance of the 

lead action level, not later than 24 hours 

after the Administrator is notified of the 

exceedance, if the water system or the 

primacy agency has not issued the 

required public notice. EPA may receive 

this information directly from water 

systems or states. Because the 

Administrator’s duty under Section 

1414(c)(2)(D) is triggered only in the 

event of an action level exceedance and 

not any violation of an NPDWR, EPA 

interprets 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) to require 

systems to report only action level 

exceedances (ALEs) to the 

Administrator. 

Section 1417(a)(2) of the SDWA 

provides that public water systems 

‘‘shall identify and provide notice to 

persons that may be affected by lead 

contamination of their drinking water 

where such contamination results from 

the lead content of the construction 

materials of the public water 

distribution system and/or corrosivity of 

the water supply sufficient to cause 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4207 

leaching of lead. 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

6(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). The notice ‘‘shall 

be provided notwithstanding the 

absence of a violation of any national 

drinking water standard.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

300g–6(a)(2)(A). 

Section 1445(a) of the SDWA 

authorizes the Administrator to 

establish monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting regulations, to assist the 

Administrator in establishing 

regulations under the SDWA, in 

determining compliance with the 

SDWA, and in administering any 

program of financial assistance under 

the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300j–4(a). In 

requiring a public water system to 

monitor under section 1445(a) of the 

SDWA, the Administrator may take into 

consideration the water system size and 

the contaminants likely to be found in 

the system’s drinking water. 42 U.S.C. 

300j–4(a). The SDWA section 

1445(a)(1)(C) provides that ‘‘every 

person who is subject to a national 

primary drinking water regulation’’ 

must provide such information as the 

Administrator may reasonably require to 

assist the Administrator in establishing 

regulations under section 1412. 42 

U.S.C 300j–4(a)(1)(C). The monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in today’s rule, including 

the inventory requirements, are part of 

the NPDWR treatment technique 

requirements; in addition, EPA expects 

to consider the information collected in 

any future revisions to the Lead and 

Copper Rule and in administering 

financial assistance programs (e.g., grant 

programs for the replacement of LSLs 

and/or school sampling). 

Under section 1413(a)(1) of the SDWA 

a state may exercise primary 

enforcement responsibility (‘‘primacy’’) 

for NPDWRs when EPA has determined, 

among other things, that the state has 

adopted regulations that are no less 

stringent than EPA’s. 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

2(a)(1). To obtain primacy for this rule, 

states must adopt regulations that are at 

least as stringent as this rule within two 

years of EPA’s promulgation, unless 

EPA grants the state a two-year 

extension. State primacy requires, 

among other things, adequate 

enforcement (including monitoring and 

inspections) and reporting 

requirements. EPA must approve or 

deny state primacy applications within 

90 days of submission to EPA. 42 U.S.C. 

300g–2(b)(2). In some cases, a state 

submitting revisions to adopt an 

NPDWR has interim primary 

enforcement authority for the new 

regulation while EPA’s decision on the 

revision is pending. 42 U.S.C. 300g–2(c). 

Section 1413(b)(1) of the SDWA requires 

EPA to establish regulations governing 

the primacy application and review 

process ‘‘with such modifications as the 

Administrator deems appropriate.’’ In 

addition to the LCR revisions 

promulgated today which are more 

stringent than the previous LCR, this 

rule includes changes to primacy 

requirements related to this rule. 

Section 1450 of the SDWA authorizes 

the Administrator to prescribe such 

regulations as are necessary or 

appropriate to carry out his or her 

functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j– 

9. 

C. Regulatory History 

EPA published the LCR on June 7, 

1991, to control lead and copper in 

drinking water at the consumer’s tap. 

The rule established a NPDWR for lead 

and copper consisting of treatment 

technique requirements that include 

CCT, source water treatment, lead 

service line replacement (LSLR), and 

PE. The rule established an action level 

of 0.015 mg/L or 15 mg/L for lead and 

1.3 mg/L or 1,300 mg/L for copper. The 

action level is a concentration of lead or 

copper in the water that determines, in 

some cases, whether a water system 

must install CCT, monitor source water, 

replace LSLs, and undertake a PE 

program. The action level is exceeded if 

the concentration in more than 10 

percent of tap samples collected during 

any monitoring period is greater than 

the action level (i.e., if the 90th 

percentile level is greater than the 

action level). If the 90th percentile value 

for tap samples is above the action level, 

it is not a treatment technique violation, 

but rather compels actions, such as 

WQP monitoring, CCT, source water 

monitoring/treatment, PE, and LSLR. 

Failure to take these actions results in 

the water system being in violation of 

the treatment technique or monitoring 

and reporting requirements. 

In 2000, EPA promulgated the Lead 

and Copper Rule Minor Revisions or 

LCRMR, which streamlined 

requirements, promoted consistent 

national implementation, and in many 

cases, reduced burden for water 

systems. One of the provisions of the 

LCRMR required states to report the 

lead 90th percentile to EPA’s Safe 

Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS) database for all water systems 

serving greater than 3,300 persons. 

States must report the lead 90th 

percentile value for water systems 

serving 3,300 or fewer persons only if 

the water system exceeds the action 

level. The new reporting requirements 

became effective in 2002. In 2004, EPA 

published minor corrections to the LCR 

to reinstate text that was inadvertently 

dropped from the rule during the 

previous revision. 

In 2004, EPA undertook a national 

review of the LCR and performed a 

number of activities to help identify 

needed actions to improve 

implementation of the LCR. EPA 

collected and analyzed lead 

concentration data and other 

information required by the LCR, 

carried out review of implementation by 

states, held four expert workshops to 

further discuss elements of the LCR, and 

worked to better understand local and 

state efforts to test for lead in school 

drinking water, including a national 

meeting to discuss challenges and 

needs. EPA used the information 

collected during the national review to 

identify needed short-term and longterm regulatory revisions to the LCR. 

In 2007, EPA promulgated a set of 

short-term regulatory revisions and 

clarifications to strengthen 

implementation of the LCR in the areas 

of monitoring, treatment, customer 

awareness, LSLR, and improve 

compliance with the PE requirements to 

ensure drinking water consumers 

receive meaningful, timely, and useful 

information needed to help them limit 

their exposure to lead in drinking water. 

Long-term issues, requiring additional 

research and input, were identified for 

a subsequent set of rule revisions. 

EPA published proposed revisions to 

the LCR on November 13, 2019 for 

public review and comment (84 FR 

61684). The proposal included 

provisions to strengthen procedures and 

requirements related to health 

protection and the implementation of 

the existing LCR in the following areas: 

Lead tap sampling; corrosion control 

treatment; LSL replacement; consumer 

awareness; and public education. In 

addition, the proposal included new 

requirements for CWSs to conduct lead 

in drinking water testing and public 

education in schools and child care 

facilities. 

III. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, 

Subpart I, Control of Lead and Copper 

A. Lead Trigger Level 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed a lead ‘‘trigger level’’ of 

10 mg/L in addition to the LCR’s current 

15 mg/L lead action level. The trigger 

level is not a health based standard. 

EPA proposed 10 mg/L as a reasonable 

concentration that is below the action 

level and above the Practical 

Quantitation Level of 5 mg/L at which to 

require water systems to take a 

progressive set of actions to reduce lead 

levels prior to an action level 

exceedance and to have a plan in place 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

to rapidly respond if there is an action 

level exceedance. For large and medium 

water systems, EPA proposed action 

that included optimizing CCT, a goal 

based LSLR program, and annual tap 

sampling (no reduced monitoring). EPA 

proposed that small water systems 

would be required to designate the 

actions they would take if they exceed 

the action level. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

A number of commenters supported 

the trigger level, stating that it would be 

beneficial because it initiates actions by 

public water systems to decrease their 

lead levels and requires the utility to 

take proactive steps to remove lead from 

the distribution system, reducing 

exposure to lead from drinking water 

throughout the utility’s community. A 

commenter suggested that the trigger 

level be lowered to 5 mg/L (the 

stakeholder added a reference to ‘‘CDC’’ 

however, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention established a blood lead 

reference level of 5 mg/deciliter, that is 

not a drinking water level). Other 

commenters suggested a trigger level of 

1 mg/L (recommended by the American 

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2016)). 

The use of a trigger level of 10 mg/L 

in the implementation of this treatment 

technique rule provides a reasonable 

concentration that is below the action 

level and above the Practical 

Quantitation Level of 5 mg/L at which to 

require water systems to take a 

progressive set of actions to reduce lead 

levels prior to an action level 

exceedance and to have a plan in place 

to rapidly respond if there is an action 

level exceedance. Requiring such 

actions of systems only when a trigger 

level 10 mg/L is exceeded, rather than all 

systems prioritizes actions at systems 

with higher lead levels and allows states 

to work proactively with water systems 

that are a higher priority. The actions 

water systems will be required to 

undertake if their 90th percentile 

exceeds the trigger level will require 

review and oversight from states to 

assure that they are effective in reducing 

drinking water lead levels. As shown in 

Exhibits 4–13 and 4–20 of the Economic 

Analysis, setting a lower trigger level 

would substantially increase the 

number of water systems required to 

obtain review and input from their 

primacy agency to comply with the CCT 

and LSLR requirements. EPA has 

concluded it is not practicable for this 

significant number of water systems to 

obtain this state review and approval. 

The LCR’s action level prioritizes 

systems with the highest lead levels for 

state interaction and mandates actions 

to reduce drinking water lead levels. 

Similarly, the Agency has determined 

that 10 mg/L is a reasonable level to 

trigger water systems with higher (but 

not the highest) lead levels to have 

interactions with states to prepare for 

and to undertake actions to reduce 

drinking water lead levels. 

Other commenters expressed 

concerns about the potential for 

confusion caused by separate trigger 

level and action level requirements. One 

of these commenters stated that the 

trigger level would be another decisioncriterion for the public to mis-construe 

as a level of health concern. EPA does 

not agree with these commenters. The 

Agency has established a health based 

maximum contaminant level goal 

(MCLG) of zero for lead. The trigger 

level is not a health based level, rather 

it is a reasonable level at which to 

require systems to begin to take a 

progressive set of actions based upon 

lead levels at the tap that are 

appropriate to assure reduced exposure 

to lead. The concept of including 

additional thresholds to compel actions 

before an action level exceedance was 

suggested by the Association of State 

Drinking Water Administrators as a way 

to focus actions towards the systems 

with the greatest potential concerns 

(USEPA, 2018). This regulatory 

framework is similar to other NPDWRs, 

such as the Long-Term 2 Enhanced 

Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(LT2ESWTR), which requires increasing 

levels of remedial action based on the 

concentration of the contaminant. EPA 

has revised the regulatory text in the 

final rule to improve its clarity and will 

work with primacy agencies and water 

systems to assure they understand the 

different actions that must be taken 

when systems exceed the trigger level or 

action level. 

Additional commenters suggested 

EPA lower the action level and 

eliminate the trigger level, stating the 

trigger level makes the rule 

unnecessarily complicated and 

needlessly adds to the regulatory 

burden. EPA disagrees that the action 

level should be lowered. EPA 

established the lead action level in 1991 

to require small and medium-sized 

systems exceeding it to install corrosion 

control treatment and to require large 

systems and other systems with optimal 

corrosion control treatment (OCCT) to 

conduct LSLR. The action level was 

based on examination of data at 39 

medium sized systems; while it was 

‘‘limited as a basis for making broadbased estimates of treatment efficacy,’’ 

EPA concluded that ‘‘the data are useful 

as general indictors of the range of 

levels systems have achieved with 

various treatment measures in place.’’ 

(56 FR 26490). EPA acknowledged in 

1991 that the selection of the action 

level ‘‘is not based on a precise 

statistical analysis of the effectiveness of 

treatment’’ but it ‘‘reflects EPA’s 

assessment of a level that is generally 

representative of effective corrosion 

control treatment, and that is, therefore, 

useful as a tool for simplifying the 

implementation of the treatment 

technique’’ at those systems. (56 FR 

26490). EPA decided to use the same 

action level as a screen to determine 

which systems with CCT must also 

replace LSLs (56 FR 26491). While EPA 

is not lowering the action level, the 

Agency is strengthening the public 

health protections of the treatment 

technique by improving the sampling 

procedures to better identify elevated 

levels of lead. This will result in more 

systems exceeding the action level and 

more actions to reduce drinking water 

exposure to lead. 

EPA disagrees with commenters that 

the trigger level results in unnecessary 

complexity and regulatory burden. 

While there is burden associated with 

the actions that systems must take when 

they exceed the trigger level, EPA 

determined that a progressive set of 

actions based upon lead levels at the tap 

are feasible to assure reduced exposure 

to lead. EPA in its Health Risk 

Reduction Cost Analysis (HRRCA) has 

found that a significant number of 

benefits accrue from systems being 

required to take mitigation activities as 

a result of trigger level exceedances. 

EPA also examined the costs and found 

that it is feasible for systems to take the 

actions required when there is a trigger 

level exceedance. Requiring these 

actions when a system’s lead levels are 

high, but not exceeding the action level, 

will help both systems and states to 

engage in a manageable and orderly 

process to reduce lead levels in drinking 

water so that they remain below the lead 

action level. Accordingly, inclusion of 

the trigger level in the final rule will 

provide for ‘‘greater protection of the 

health of persons’’ consistent with the 

statutory authority in Section 1412(b)(9) 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

for revising existing drinking water 

standards. Additionally, this proactive 

approach to lead contamination in 

response to a trigger level will allow 

systems to quickly take action if there is 

a ALE, while reducing the likelihood 

that a water system will exceed the 

action level in the future or be faced 

with the need to implement emergency 

measures such as the distribution of 

water filters or bottled water in response 

to a lead crisis. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4209 

3. Final Revisions 

EPA is finalizing the lead trigger level 

of 10 mg/L and maintaining the lead 

action level of 15 mg/L. In the event of 

a trigger level exceedance, the actions 

water systems are required to take vary 

based on characteristics of the system. 

Each of the requirements brought about 

by a trigger level exceedance is 

discussed in detail elsewhere in this 

document. However, in summary, small 

CWSs serving populations of 10,000 or 

fewer persons and all sizes of NTNCWS 

that exceed the lead trigger level, but 

not the lead action level, must evaluate 

the small system flexibilities described 

in Section III.E of this preamble and 

identify the action they will take if they 

exceed the action level. Medium and 

large CWSs that exceed the trigger level, 

but do not exceed the action level, must 

implement requirements based on their 

CCT and LSL status as described below. 

Water systems with CCT in place and 

with no LSLs or service lines of 

unknown lead status are required to reoptimize CCT (see Section III.B); and 

conduct annual tap sampling (no 

reduced monitoring (see Section III.G)). 

Water systems without CCT in place 

and with no LSLs or service lines of 

unknown lead status are required to: 

conduct a CCT study and obtain state 

approval for designated CCT (see 

Section III.B.); and conduct annual tap 

sampling (no reduced monitoring (see 

Section III.G)). 

Water systems with CCT in place and 

with LSLs or service lines of unknown 

lead status are required to: Re-optimize 

CCT (see Section III.B); notify customers 

with LSLs or unknowns (see Section 

III.F); implement a goal-based LSLR 

program (see Section III.D); and conduct 

annual tap sampling (no reduced 

monitoring (see Section III.G)). 

Water systems without CCT in place 

and with LSLs or service lines (i.e., the 

pipe that connects the water main to the 

building) of unknown lead status are 

required to: Conduct a CCT study and 

obtain state approval for designated CCT 

(see Section III.B) notify customers with 

an LSL or unknowns (see Section III.F); 

implement a goal based LSLR program 

(see Section III.D); and conduct annual 

tap sampling (no reduced monitoring 

(see Section III.G). 

B. Corrosion Control Treatment 

Requirements Based on Lead 90th 

Percentile 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed revised CCT 

requirements based on the water 

system’s lead 90th percentile level and 

CCT status. The proposed rule required 

all water systems with CCT that have a 

lead trigger level exceedance (>10 mg/L 

but ≤15 mg/L) or a lead action level 

exceedance (>15 mg/L) to re-optimize 

their CCT. The proposed rule would 

require water systems to evaluate other 

corrosion control treatments, make a reoptimization recommendation, and 

receive state approval of any changes to 

CCT or water quality parameters 

(WQPs). The state could require the 

water system to conduct a CCT study 

under the proposed rule. 

The proposal required water systems 

without CCT that exceed the lead trigger 

level (10 mg/L) to conduct a CCT study 

and make a CCT recommendation to the 

state. Once approved by the state, the 

CCT recommendation would be 

implemented if the water system 

exceeds the lead action level in 

subsequent tap sampling. Water systems 

without CCT that have previously 

conducted a CCT study and made CCT 

recommendations would not be 

required to prepare a new CCT study if 

they exceed the trigger level again 

unless the state determines that a new 

study is required due to changed 

circumstances, such as addition of a 

new water source or changes in 

treatment or if revised CCT guidance 

has been issued by EPA since the study 

was conducted. Under the proposed 

rule the state could also determine that 

a new CCT study is needed due to other 

significant information becoming 

available. 

EPA proposed changes to the CCT 

options that water systems must 

consider and the methods by which 

water systems would evaluate those 

options. EPA proposed removing 

calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT 

option. EPA also proposed requiring 

water systems to evaluate two 

additional options for orthophosphatebased corrosion control: Maintaining a 1 

mg/L orthophosphate residual 

concentration and maintaining a 

3 mg/L orthophosphate residual 

concentration. 

EPA also proposed changes to the 

methodologies by which systems 

evaluate CCT options. EPA proposed 

that metal coupon tests could only be 

used as a screen to reduce the number 

of options that are evaluated using pipe 

rig/loops and would no longer be able 

to be used as the basis for determining 

the OCCT. 

EPA proposed that when systems 

choose to conduct coupon studies to 

screen potential options and/or pipe rig/ 

loop studies, these systems cannot 

exclude a treatment option from the 

study based upon potential effects on 

other water quality treatment processes. 

Systems that are conducting coupon 

screening studies and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies should identify potential 

constraints, such as the impact that CCT 

options or treatment chemicals may 

have on other water quality treatment 

processes. Those impacts should be 

noted and considered as part of the CCT 

study design. 

EPA proposed that a medium or small 

water system that exceeds the lead 

action level (15 mg/L), that has 

previously not exceeded the lead trigger 

level and does not have CCT installed, 

would be required to conduct a CCT 

study, make a treatment 

recommendation, and obtain state 

approval of the OCCT determination. 

EPA proposed that systems be required 

to complete these steps even if the 

system meets the lead action level in 

two subsequent, consecutive 6-month 

monitoring periods over the course of 

this process. Water systems that meet 

the action level for two consecutive 6- 

month monitoring periods before 

installing the state-approved treatment 

would be required to install that CCT 

upon any subsequent action level 

exceedance. EPA proposed to retain the 

current LCR provision that allows a 

state to waive the requirement for a CCT 

study. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Commenters generally supported the 

evaluation or re-evaluation of corrosion 

control treatment based on a trigger 

level or action level exceedance because 

it would increase public health 

protection by prioritizing systems with 

the highest 90th percentiles. Many 

commenters had objections to the 

proposed re-optimization process. Some 

commented that the re-optimization 

process was too prescriptive, and that 

more flexibility was needed. 

Commenters wrote that the steps needed 

to optimize or reoptimize treatment 

varied based on factors including the 

presence/absence of LSLs, system size, 

90th percentile lead concentration, and 

existing corrosion control treatment. 

Several commenters suggested a toolbox 

or ‘‘bin approach’’ that allows 

consideration of these factors by 

systems and states to determine which 

optimization/re-optimization process or 

‘‘bin’’ is most appropriate. For example, 

water systems with LSLs and OCCT 

would be in a different ‘‘bin’’ than water 

systems with LSLs and no OCCT. Many 

commenters suggested that systems be 

allowed to modify the existing corrosion 

control treatment before considering 

alternate treatments. Commenters stated 

that the proposed re-optimization 

process might limit a system’s ability to 

quickly and efficiently reduce lead 

levels. EPA agrees that optimization and 

re-optimization processes should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

provide more flexibility. EPA agrees that 

for some systems, lead reductions can 

be achieved quickly with slight 

modifications of the existing CCT and 

should not be delayed potentially by 

two years for the results of the corrosion 

control study. EPA agrees it is 

appropriate for states to approve 

modifications of the system’s existing 

CCT for the ‘‘bin’’ of systems that are 

between the trigger level and action 

level without a corrosion control study. 

EPA agrees that the process to 

optimize/reoptimize CCT should be 

determined based on system 

characteristics such as system size, the 

presence of LSLs and 90th percentile 

value. EPA agrees that a ‘‘bin approach’’ 

in which the steps of the optimization/ 

re-optimization process depend upon 

system characteristics can provide 

flexibility for some systems to more 

effectively establish optimal CCT. EPA 

agrees that requirements to conduct 

harvested pipe loop studies and coupon 

studies are best delineated through such 

a bin approach. Harvested pipe loop 

studies are only required for systems 

with LSLs that exceed the lead action 

level. To the extent that there are any 

large systems without corrosion control 

treatment that have LSLs and exceed the 

lead practical quantitation level of 0.005 

mg/L, those systems would also need to 

conduct a harvested pipe loop study. 

EPA believes that the CCT changes 

needed for systems of any size above the 

action level merit a thorough 

investigation of the impacts of the 

options on the existing LSL pipe scale. 

Commenters noted that some small 

systems may not have the technical 

capacity to construct and operate a 

harvested pipe loop study. EPA notes 

that in these cases the final rule 

provides flexibility to these small 

systems to implement a LSLR program 

or POU program. Coupon studies can 

serve as a screen to reduce the number 

of options for the harvested pipe loop 

study. Commenters noted that the 

construction of harvested flow-through 

pipe loops and the stabilization of those 

loops can take six months to one year 

before options can be evaluated. EPA 

agrees that more time is needed to 

construct pipe loops from harvested 

pipes and therefore is removing the 

requirement for initial treatment 

recommendations in the final rule for 

large and medium systems. For these 

systems, the final rule directs them to 

start constructing and operating the 

flow-through pipe loops after the action 

level exceedance in place of the initial 

treatment recommendation step, since 

the pipe loop study will be the basis for 

their treatment recommendation. 

Commenters indicated that for some 

systems, coupon studies rather than 

pipe loop studies may be an appropriate 

treatment recommendation tool. EPA 

agrees that coupon studies can be used 

for systems that do not have LSLs. The 

final rule only requires harvested pipe 

loop studies for systems that have LSLs. 

Many commenters had concerns with 

orthophosphate impacts on wastewater 

treatment. The use of orthophosphate 

for corrosion control can increase the 

phosphorus loading to wastewater 

treatment facilities. However, water 

systems conducting corrosion control 

studies cannot rule out orthophosphate 

simply based on the increase in loading 

to wastewater treatment facilities. The 

definition of optimal corrosion control 

treatment means the corrosion control 

treatment that minimizes lead and 

copper concentrations at users’ taps 

while ensuring that the system does not 

violate any national primary drinking 

water regulations. SDWA Section 

1412(b)(7)(A) requires that a treatment 

technique prevent known or anticipated 

adverse effects on the health of persons 

to the extent feasible. EPA has 

determined that orthophosphate 

treatment is a feasible corrosion control 

technology in accordance with SDWA 

Section 1412(b)(4)(E). Therefore, 

eliminating orthophosphate as an option 

because of concerns unrelated to 

compliance with national primary 

drinking water regulations may prevent 

a system from installing the treatment 

technique that reduces to the extent 

feasible the risks of adverse health 

effects from lead in drinking water. In 

designing the CCT studies, water 

systems should evaluate the 

orthophosphate treatment options in the 

coupon screening and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies. EPA has examined the potential 

costs of additional phosphorus usage on 

wastewater treatment systems and has 

included this in the Economic Analysis 

for the final rule. Many commenters 

objected to the required evaluations of 

orthophosphate addition at 1 mg/L and 

3 mg/L. Some commenters characterized 

these as high orthophosphate doses. 

EPA disagrees that these 

orthophosphate doses are too high to be 

considered in the corrosion control 

study. The commenters may have 

assumed that the dose was measured as 

P which would be three times greater 

than the dose measured as PO4. EPA is 

clarifying that the orthophosphate doses 

to be studied are measured as PO4. The 

high-end dose in the corrosion control 

study of 3 mg/L as PO4 is at the low end 

of the typical range used in the United 

Kingdom where 95 percent of public 

water supplies are dosed with 

orthophosphate (Hayes and Hydes, 

2010). EPA also notes that the 2018 

edition of Recommended Standards for 

Water Works published by the Great 

Lakes—Upper Mississippi Board of 

State and Provincial Public Health and 

Environmental Managers includes a 

requirement that total phosphate not 

exceed 10 mg/L as phosphate 

sequestering iron and manganese, which 

are aesthetic concerns and not a health 

concern. There are also standards in the 

document for orthophosphate and 

blended phosphates for corrosion 

control noting that the system shall have 

a chemical feed system capable of 

maintaining an orthophosphate residual 

of at least 1.0 mg/L as P (3.0 mg/L as 

PO4) throughout the distribution system. 

The member states for this document 

are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Great 

Lakes, 2018). 

Some commenters supported the 

elimination of calcium carbonate 

stabilization as a corrosion control 

treatment alternative because they 

agreed with EPA’s rationale that it is not 

an effective CCT option, but others did 

not, stating that it worked in some 

specific circumstances. EPA does not 

agree that calcium carbonate 

stabilization should remain as a CCT 

option. Based upon the available peer 

reviewed science, EPA has determined 

that calcium carbonate stabilization 

treatment does not form a consistent 

scale on lead and copper pipes to a level 

that makes it effective as a CCT option 

(AwwaRF and DVGWTechnologiezentrum Wasser, 1996; 

Schock and Lytle, 2011; Hill and Cantor, 

2011). Therefore, EPA has determined it 

is not appropriate to require water 

systems to evaluate it as an option as 

part of a corrosion control study. Some 

commenters noted that some water 

systems have already been deemed 

optimized using this technique. EPA 

notes that states will still have the 

authority to designate the necessary 

water quality parameters to allow these 

systems to maintain this treatment as 

optimal corrosion control unless the 

system exceeds the lead trigger level or 

action level. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

EPA has included a provision in the 

final LCRR to identify ‘‘bins’’ of systems 

for specific corrosion control treatment 

optimization requirements. The first bin 

is to provide flexibility regarding 

corrosion control studies for systems 

that are reoptimizing existing corrosion 

control treatment following a trigger 

level exceedance. In the final rule, states 

are allowed to approve existing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4211 

corrosion control treatment 

modifications without a corrosion 

control study for systems with lead 

levels between the trigger level and the 

action level. To clarify the systems that 

are not eligible for this flexibility, EPA 

added a definition of ‘‘systems without 

corrosion control treatment’’ that 

includes a public water system that does 

not have, or purchases all of its water 

from a system that does not have: (1) An 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

approved by the State; or (2) any pH 

adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, and 

or corrosion inhibitor addition resulting 

from other water quality adjustments as 

part of its treatment train infrastructure. 

Another bin created in the final rule 

identifies the subset of systems that 

must do a harvested pipe loop study. 

This bin includes large and medium 

systems with LSLs that exceed the lead 

action levels and any small system with 

LSLs that selected corrosion control 

treatment option. For the systems in this 

bin, Step 1 of the optimization or reoptimization process is the construction 

and operation of the flow-through pipe 

loops after the action level exceedance, 

which must be completed within one 

year of the exceedance. EPA retained 

the requirement that coupon studies can 

only be used as a screening tool for 

these systems. The final rule includes 

requirements to allow coupon studies to 

be the basis for a treatment 

recommendation tool for other systems 

that do not have a lead action level 

exceedance and LSLs. 

In the final rule, EPA has also 

clarified that the orthophosphate doses 

and benchmarks are orthophosphate 

measured as PO4. EPA removed calcium 

carbonate stabilization as a corrosion 

control treatment alternative in the final 

rule. 

C. Lead Service Line Inventory 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed to improve the 

available information regarding LSL 

numbers and locations by requiring an 

inventory of service line materials to be 

prepared by CWSs and NTNCWSs. EPA 

proposed to require these systems to 

submit an initial inventory within three 

years of publication of the rule, and for 

the water systems to update the 

inventory annually as they gather more 

information through the course of their 

normal activities. EPA proposed 

requiring the inventory to identify not 

only LSLs but also galvanized service 

lines that are or were downstream of an 

LSL, service lines whose material 

composition is unknown, and service 

lines known not to be LSLs. The 

proposed rule required each LSL to be 

associated with a locational identifier. 

EPA proposed that the inventory be 

made publicly available and proposed 

that water systems serving greater than 

100,000 people would be required to 

make their inventory available 

electronically. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Several commenters supported 

requiring systems to make the LSL 

inventory publicly accessible because 

transparency is a critical step for 

building trust, informing and educating 

consumers about the sources of lead in 

drinking water, and reducing risk. Some 

commenters did not support a 

requirement to make the inventory 

publicly accessible, raising concerns 

that it could infringe on customer 

privacy and add to confusion, panic, 

and distrust of the water system, 

especially if the inventory identifies a 

high number of LSLs or service lines 

where the lead status is unknown. 

Commenters also raised concerns that 

the requirement could result in 

unintended impacts to economic 

development for a community and 

property values for individual locations 

with LSLs or lead status unknown 

service lines. Some commenters raised 

concerns with the requirement because 

there are alternatives to allowing open 

access to the general public (e.g., the 

requirement for the PWS to provide 

annual disclosure to customers with 

LSLs; a requirement to release the 

information after account verification; 

or other non-binding measures such as 

pre-purchase residential inspections). 

Many commenters supported the 

inclusion of specific street addresses in 

the inventory, citing the increased 

transparency and the potential to drive 

proactive LSLR. Some commenters 

noted that an inventory without 

addresses would be of limited utility to 

consumers, given that LSLs impact the 

individual locations where they are 

found. Some commenters did not 

support a requirement to include 

addresses in the inventory, citing local 

or state privacy laws that they claim 

would prohibit the publication of 

address-level information in their 

inventory. 

EPA agrees with commenters who 

support a requirement for water systems 

to make the inventory publicly 

accessible. Informed customers are 

better able to take actions to limit 

exposure to lead in drinking water and 

make decisions regarding replacement 

of their portion of a LSL, and to better 

understand the prevalence of lead 

sources in drinking water. A Federal 

requirement for a publicly accessible 

inventory that uses specific addresses is 

not necessary, and could complicate 

implementation of the inventory 

requirements for those systems that may 

have concerns about potential conflicts 

with state or local privacy laws or 

constitutional protections; therefore, the 

final rule only requires systems to 

provide a general location identifier in 

the publicly accessible inventory. An 

address is not the only means by which 

water systems can convey the location 

of LSLs, other location identifiers could 

be used such as blocks, streets, 

landmarks, or other geographic markers 

that are associated with an individual 

service line. An inventory that is 

publicly available with location 

information provides communities with 

updated information regarding the total 

number of LSLs, galvanized requiring 

replacement lines, lead status unknown 

lines, and non-LSLs, as well as the 

general areas where LSLs and 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service lines are located. Making this 

information publicly available also 

allows the community to track LSLR 

and material composition verification 

progress over time. In addition, 

prospective homebuyers could use the 

publicly accessible inventory to 

determine whether and how to work 

with the homeowner, real estate agent, 

or home inspector to identify a service 

line’s material composition. For 

publicly available inventories that do 

not include addresses as location 

identifiers, consumers will be 

individually notified of their service 

line material classification under 40 

CFR 141.85(e), after the water system 

conducts its initial inventory and 

annually thereafter. Finally, even 

though EPA has determined not to 

establish a Federal requirement to 

provide specific addresses in the 

inventory, this does not preclude water 

systems from doing so. Nor are states 

precluded by the SDWA from requiring 

water systems to do so. 

EPA received a comment suggesting 

the final rule strengthen inventory 

public accessibility requirements, 

making the inventory available online 

and extending this requirement to 

systems serving less than the proposed 

benchmark of 100,000 people. Requiring 

more inventories to be available online, 

commenters said, would allow 

consumers to more easily access the 

inventories. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and is requiring online 

publishing in the final rule for water 

systems serving over 50,000 persons, 

given that websites, social media 

platforms, and cloud-based file sharing 

applications are widely available and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

can host information for free or lowcost. 

EPA received comments on other 

aspects of the inventory requirements 

such as the feasibility of creating initial 

inventories within three years after 

publication of the final rule. Some 

commenters believed an inventory 

could be created within three years, 

while others claimed that such an effort 

is not feasible. Some commenters noted 

the absence of a deadline to verify all 

service line materials, as is required in 

Michigan’s LCR, and suggested that the 

final rule include a deadline. Some 

commenters needed clarification 

regarding methods for identifying LSLs. 

The Agency determined it is 

practicable and feasible for water 

systems to prepare the initial inventory 

by the rule compliance date, as the rule 

does not require a deadline to verify 

each service line’s composition, 

allowing unidentified materials to be 

classified as lead status unknown. It is 

important that water systems complete 

the initial LSL inventory within three 

years of publication of the final rule to 

facilitate, for example, selection of tap 

sampling sites under new tiering criteria 

and to inform consumers about the 

presence of a known or potential LSL by 

the compliance date, which is based on 

Section 1412(b)(10) of the SDWA. The 

inventory is also critical to determining 

the number of LSLs to be applied to the 

LSLR rate under a lead trigger level 

exceedance and action level 

exceedance. 

EPA disagrees that an end date by 

which all LSLs and lead status 

unknown service lines must be verified 

is warranted or appropriate. The LCR is 

a national rule which applies to over 

60,000 water systems with very different 

circumstances, including but not 

limited to the number of service 

connections, system size, the proportion 

of LSLs to total service lines, the age of 

the system, and the accessibility or 

existence of service line materials 

records. Water systems with limited or 

nonexistent records will be more reliant 

on physical inspection of service line 

materials, which will require more time 

and resources than systems with robust 

records. Additionally, some service line 

material investigations may require 

access to private property, but the 

customer may deny access or not 

respond to water system outreach, 

which could challenge a water system’s 

ability to comply with a verification 

deadline. Some records used for the 

initial inventory may be outdated or 

inaccurate, requiring the inventory to be 

updated over time as new information 

becomes available. For other systems 

(such as those with very few lead status 

unknown service lines), a Federal 

deadline may discourage or 

unnecessarily prolong the water 

system’s inventorying efforts. Therefore, 

EPA determined it is impractical to 

impose a single deadline for completing 

an accurate inventory; it is more 

appropriately treated as an ongoing 

effort that systems must engage in, 

while clearly communicating to the 

public and the state the progress 

towards completion. The final rule 

facilitates timely development and 

verification of the inventory by 

requiring service line materials to be 

tracked as they are encountered and 

through incentives to verify unknowns. 

By requiring water systems to issue 

annual notification to consumers served 

by unknowns, to include unknowns in 

the replacement rate if the water system 

exceeds the lead trigger or action level, 

and to implement risk mitigation 

measures after disturbance of an 

unknown, EPA has created incentives 

for water systems to reduce the number 

of unknown service lines in their 

inventory. EPA also requires that water 

systems include in their LSLR plan a 

strategy for verifying the material 

composition of lead status unknown 

service lines. An inventory verification 

strategy can improve efficiency by 

allowing the water system to integrate 

material composition investigations into 

its existing standard operating 

procedures for other activities. For 

example, if water system personnel are 

already deployed on a street for a main 

replacement, they may visually inspect 

system-owned lead status unknown 

service lines on that street or engage 

with affected customers to determine 

the material composition of the service 

line entering the home. Water systems 

may also create a strategy that involves 

proactive investigation of service line 

material compositions which is 

independent of other water system 

activities, such as the use of predictive 

models to evaluate the probability a 

service line is lead and other methods 

provided or required by the state. Such 

predictive models could also inform 

water systems in how they can approach 

LSLR in a more efficient manner. EPA 

encourages but does not require this 

practice as it allows consumers with 

lead status unknown service lines to be 

informed sooner about their service line 

material. 

EPA requested comment on the scope 

of the inventory, including whether it 

should be required to include customerowned service lines, galvanized service 

lines, and lead status unknown service 

lines. Some commenters believed that 

the water system should only be 

responsible for inventorying the service 

lines under its control, which would 

exclude all customer-owned service 

lines. Some commenters suggested that 

lead status unknown service lines 

should not be included because 

inventories with large numbers of 

unknowns could cause public alarm. 

Other commenters did not object to 

inclusion of unknowns but sought for 

water systems to have the ability to 

make a judgment about the probability 

of an unknown being an LSL (for 

example, a new classification such as 

‘‘Unknown but likely non-lead’’). Some 

commenters suggested lead connectors 

be inventoried. 

EPA disagrees with comments 

suggesting that the inventory 

requirement in the rule should only 

apply to service lines if they are owned 

by the system. Customer owned service 

lines are connected to either a systemowned service line or main and 

therefore, they are accessible to the 

system and historically, the LCR has not 

been limited to system-owned portions 

of the distribution system. The LCR has 

required systems to take actions with 

respect to portions of the distribution 

system that are not owned by the water 

system, including actions related to the 

materials evaluation and the 

determination of the number of LSLs in 

the distribution system for calculating 

the number of service lines required to 

be replaced. For example, the LCR has 

required that ‘‘[t]he system shall 

identify the initial number of LSLs in its 

distribution system, including an 

identification of the portion(s) owned by 

the system. . . .’’ Similarly, the 

previous LCR has provided that ‘‘where 

the system does not own the entire LSL, 

the system shall notify the owner of the 

line that the system will replace the 

portion of the line that it owns and shall 

offer to replace the owner’s portion of 

the line.’’ Moreover, where service line 

ownership is divided between the 

system and the customer, water system 

actions can release lead from customerowned pipes and cause subsequent 

customer lead exposure. For example, 

partial LSLR of the system-owned 

portion can result in a lead spike on the 

customer-owned portion from physical 

disturbance as well as lead release from 

galvanic corrosion. Regarding inventory 

development, EPA notes that customerowned service lines are connected to 

either a system-owned service line or 

system-owned water main and are 

therefore accessible to the system. 

Accounting for locations of customerowned LSLs will continue to be an 

integral part of the rule; without it, 

water systems would not be able to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4213 

coordinate replacement of customerowned LSLs simultaneously with 

system-owned LSL, take required risk 

mitigation actions after replacement of a 

partial LSLR, or provide notice to 

persons served by LSLs. 

EPA disagrees that lead status 

unknown service lines should be 

excluded from the inventory. As EPA 

explained in the proposal, ‘‘[b]ecause 

water systems may not have complete 

records to enable them to identify the 

material for every service line’’ the 

proposed rule would require water 

systems to identify those lines as 

unknown, and then update the 

inventory on an annual basis to reflect 

more precise information about those 

lines. (84 FR 61695). EPA determined 

that such an approach strikes an 

appropriate balance between a 

voluntary and mandatory requirement 

to conduct an accurate and complete 

inventory of the service line materials in 

the distribution system. It provides 

significant flexibility that would not be 

available if the rule required an accurate 

and complete inventory by a fixed date; 

on the other hand, by structuring the 

replacement requirements so as to 

incentivize systems to verify the 

materials of unknown service lines, 

completion of an accurate inventory is 

more than an aspirational goal. 

Including unknown service lines in the 

inventory will demonstrate 

transparency, build trust, and present an 

opportunity for customer engagement, 

all of which should mitigate commenter 

concerns about potential customer 

alarm about the presence of lead status 

unknown service lines. Exclusion of 

lead status unknown service lines from 

the inventory would likely cause 

significantly more confusion and alarm 

to the consumers at locations that are 

excluded from the inventory entirely. 

Some commenters asked that multiple 

classifications be introduced for 

unknowns, for example ‘‘unknown but 

likely non-lead’’ or ‘‘unknown—not 

lead,’’ where records do not exist, but 

the water system believes the service 

line is likely not an LSL. A requirement 

to distinguish the categories of 

unknown service lines is not necessary 

for the portions of the rule that use the 

inventory, and therefore, EPA 

concluded it would not be appropriate 

to require in the final rule. Water 

systems may elect to provide more 

information in the inventory regarding 

their unknown lines as long as it clearly 

distinguishes service lines classified as 

‘‘Lead status unknown’’ from those 

whose material has been verified 

through records or inspection. The 

distinction between unknown and 

verified service lines is critical to 

implementation of the LSLR 

requirements and will also help to avoid 

confusion. EPA adjusted the 

terminology for unknowns from 

‘‘service line of unknown material’’ in 

the proposal to ‘‘lead status unknown 

service line’’ in the final rule. This 

change clarifies that water systems may 

classify a service line as ‘‘non-lead’’ 

rather than ‘‘service line of unknown 

material’’ where it knows that the 

service line is not an LSL but does not 

know the precise material, such as 

copper or plastic. 

EPA disagrees that the final rule 

should require lead connectors to be 

included in the inventory. In many 

cases, records on lead connectors are 

often extremely limited or may not exist 

at all. Unlike an inventory of service 

lines, whose material can be visually 

inspected often without excavation from 

inside the home or in the meter box, a 

complete and accurate inventory of 

connectors would require excavation 

that disturbs road pavement and 

repaving post-inspection—an 

undertaking that EPA expects would not 

be feasible or practical for most systems. 

Instead, EPA addresses the presence of 

lead connectors by requiring that water 

systems replace system-owned lead 

connectors whenever they are 

encountered during water system 

activities, such as emergency repairs or 

planned infrastructure work, and to 

offer to replace a customer-owned 

connector at no cost to the system. EPA 

encourages water systems to voluntarily 

include information about lead 

connectors in the inventory where such 

records exist. 

Commenters suggested that annual 

submission of the inventory to the state 

would create burden for the water 

system to submit its inventory and for 

the state to review it. EPA agrees that for 

some water systems, annual inventory 

updates may not be necessary. For 

example, water systems below the lead 

trigger level are not required to execute 

a system-wide LSLR program, meaning 

they will have fewer inventory changes 

to report. EPA agrees that linking 

inventory update frequency with the tap 

sampling monitoring period would be 

efficient for water systems and states 

because tap sampling must be 

conducted at LSL sites. Changes in the 

inventory and any resulting changes to 

the tap sampling plan made to ensure 

samples are collected at LSL sites can be 

reviewed by states concurrently. EPA 

also agrees that for water systems on 6- 

month monitoring, annual inventory 

updates are more appropriate given that 

LSLR rates apply annually. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

The final rule requires all water 

systems to create a publicly accessible 

LSL inventory. The initial inventory 

must be available within three years and 

updated over time to reflect changes, 

such as verification of lead status 

unknown service line material 

compositions or LSLs that have been 

replaced. All water systems must create 

an inventory, regardless of size or other 

water system characteristics, and the 

inventory must include all service lines 

in the distribution system, without 

exclusions. Water systems with only 

non-LSLs are required to conduct an 

initial inventory, but they are not 

required to provide inventory updates to 

the state or the public and they may 

fulfill the requirement to make the 

inventory publicly accessible with a 

statement that there are no LSLs, along 

with a general description of the 

methods used to make that 

determination. For example, water 

systems where the entire distribution 

system (including customer-owned 

portions of the service line) was 

constructed after a state or Federal lead 

ban may designate applicable service 

lines as ‘‘Non-lead.’’ There is no 

deadline to investigate the material 

composition of all lead status unknown 

service lines. Water systems must create 

a strategy in their LSLR plan for 

investigating lead status unknown 

service lines in their inventory. This 

strategy, coupled with the incentive to 

investigate unknowns to ease future 

LSLR burden, will encourage water 

systems to verify all unknown service 

line materials in a timely manner. Other 

rule provisions ensure that customers 

served by lead status unknown service 

lines receive protections while 

inventory development is in progress, 

such as the requirement to receive 

targeted information that their service 

line material is unknown but may be an 

LSL. 

While EPA retained the proposed 

inventory classifications, the final rule 

modifies some terminology. To avoid 

potential customer confusion, 

galvanized service lines that are or were 

downstream of an LSL are no longer 

required to be classified as an LSL. 

Instead, they must be labeled 

‘‘Galvanized requiring replacement’’ 

which allows their correct material 

composition to be listed while 

maintaining they are not to be classified 

as ‘‘Non-lead’’ because they must be 

replaced as part of the system’s LSLR 

program. As previously described, the 

proposed ‘‘Service lines of unknown 

material’’ are referred to as ‘‘Lead status 

unknown service lines’’ in the final rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4214 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

The classification of ‘‘non-lead’’ means 

that, as in the proposed rule, the water 

system does not need to identify the 

exact material of a service line, such as 

plastic or copper, if it is not an LSL or 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service line. 

The final rule does not include a 

requirement to investigate or inventory 

lead connectors for the reasons 

discussed above. EPA recommends 

reviewing records on connector material 

composition during the records search 

for the initial inventory. EPA also 

recommends but is not requiring that 

water systems inventory connector 

materials where records exist to provide 

additional information to consumers 

about additional lead sources that could 

contribute to lead in drinking water 

serving the residence. 

The final rule incorporates 

commenter suggestions to link the 

inventory update submission frequency 

with the system’s compliance 

monitoring period or annually, 

whichever is greater. Because tap 

sampling must be conducted at LSL 

sites, changes in the inventory and any 

resulting changes to the tap sampling 

plan, to ensure samples are collected at 

LSL sites, can be reviewed by states 

concurrently. Water systems on 

triennial monitoring will be required to 

provide LSL inventory updates every 

three years. Water systems that exceed 

the lead trigger level must conduct tap 

sampling annually, and therefore, these 

systems must provide LSL inventory 

updates annually. Water systems that 

exceed the lead action level will 

conduct tap sampling every six months; 

however, they are required to update the 

inventory annually. 

The final rule requires the LSL 

inventory to be publicly accessible. The 

threshold required for water systems to 

publish their inventory online was 

reduced to 50,000 persons from the 

threshold of 100,000 as proposed. 

Internet platforms, such as websites, 

cloud-based file sharing applications, 

and social media, are widely available 

and can host information for free or lowcost. 

These provisions will strengthen the 

public accessibility to information in 

the inventory. EPA also added a 

requirement for the Consumer 

Confidence Report to include a 

statement that a service line inventory 

has been prepared and is available for 

review either online or at the water 

system offices. 

The final rule requires the publicly 

accessible inventory to provide a 

location identifier for lead service lines. 

The location identifier could be a 

general location such as a street, block, 

intersection, or landmark, or other 

geographic marker associated with the 

service line. An inventory created and 

maintained internally by water systems 

to track service line materials may use 

the specific address of each service line 

in order for the water system to provide 

the required notification under 

§ 141.85(e), but the final rule does not 

require that the system make the exact 

street addresses publicly available. 

Instead, the final rule gives the water 

system flexibility to determine which 

location identifier best meets the needs 

of its own community. 

D. Lead Service Line Replacement 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed to accelerate lead 

service line replacement (LSLR) by 

proposing LSLR requirements target 

systems with higher lead levels and that 

address weaknesses in the current rule 

to achieve full LSLR in the communities 

where they are needed most. EPA 

proposed to require all water systems to 

replace the system-owned portion of an 

LSL after they were notified of a 

customer-initiated replacement of their 

portion. EPA proposed that water 

systems above the lead trigger level but 

at or below the lead action level would 

be required to implement a ‘‘goal-based’’ 

LSLR program at a rate approved by the 

state primacy agency. Water systems 

that exceeded the lead action level 

would be required to conduct 

mandatory, full LSLR at a minimum rate 

of three percent annually. While the 

proposal did not include a prohibition 

on partial replacements, it did not 

incentivize them and included required 

notification and risk mitigation actions. 

The proposal promoted full LSLR by 

allowing only full replacements to count 

towards the LSLR rate. Partial LSLR and 

‘‘test-outs’’ would no longer count as a 

replacement as they do in the current 

LCR. EPA proposed a provision for 

water systems to create an LSLR plan by 

the rule compliance date, which would 

ensure operating procedures are in place 

that would ready the water system to 

perform the technical, financial, and 

other aspects of LSLR. 

EPA proposed that galvanized service 

lines that are currently or were formerly 

downstream of an LSL be replaced as 

part of a water system’s LSLR program. 

These galvanized lines would be 

included when calculating the annual 

number of replacements applicable 

under goal-based or mandatory LSLR. 

Lead status unknown service lines 

(called ‘‘service lines of unknown 

material’’ in the proposal) were also 

proposed to be included in the LSLR 

rate calculation until the system 

determines that it is non-lead. 

EPA proposed requirements to 

address elevated lead levels that can 

result from disturbance of an LSL, such 

as after a meter replacement or lead 

connector replacement. EPA proposed 

risk mitigation steps required after an 

LSL disturbance, including flushing and 

delivery of a pitcher filter. EPA also 

proposed to require systems to replace 

the lead connectors (including 

goosenecks, pigtails that have been used 

to connect service lines to water mains) 

whenever encountered by the water 

system in the course of conducting 

maintenance or replacement of the 

water mains or adjacent infrastructure. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA requested comment on the 

proposed requirements for water 

systems to create a LSLR plan. 

Specifically, EPA asked whether small 

water systems should be exempt from 

the requirement to prepare a LSLR plan 

concurrent with their inventory. Some 

commenters expressed that small water 

systems should not be required to create 

a LSLR plan, claiming that the 

requirement is too burdensome and 

potentially unnecessary, given that a 

small system may not choose LSLR as 

its compliance option following a lead 

action level exceedance. EPA agrees that 

small water systems should not have to 

recommend a goal LSLR rate within the 

LSLR plan because small systems would 

not conduct goal-based LSLR program 

under the small system compliance 

path. EPA disagrees, however, that 

small systems should be exempt from 

preparing a LSLR plan, as its other 

components are still relevant to small 

systems. For example, given that small 

systems must respond to customerinitiated LSLR, the requirement to 

develop procedures to conduct LSLR in 

their plan still applies. Additionally, 

given that small water systems may still 

replace LSLs at any time (i.e., after 

planned infrastructure work or an 

emergency repair), they must develop a 

strategy to inform customers before a 

full or partial LSLR. Furthermore, 

flushing procedures in the LSLR plan 

apply after an LSL is disturbed or 

replaced, which could apply, for 

example, to small systems replacing 

water mains or water meters. While 

there is some upfront burden associated 

with creating an LSLR plan, the plan 

could significantly reduce future burden 

for water systems and will reduce the 

response time if LSLR is needed. Plan 

components like the strategy to 

investigate the material of lead status 

unknown service lines, identify 

potential LSLR funding and have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4215 

procedures established for LSLR have 

the potential to significantly reduce the 

investigation burden that small systems 

choosing a LSLR compliance path 

would face after exceeding the action 

level and will ensure faster 

implementation. Investigating 

unknowns will also benefit public 

health by providing consumers with 

information about their service line 

material. 

EPA also requested comment on how 

water systems could identify and 

prioritize LSLR. Many commenters 

supported the concept and provided 

several examples of how LSLR could be 

prioritized. Commenter 

recommendations include prioritizing 

LSLR where large numbers of LSLs are 

present, tap sampling data indicates 

high lead levels, construction work is 

already scheduled, susceptible 

populations are served (such as child 

care facilities), areas with older 

infrastructure, or where disadvantaged 

populations are located. EPA agrees that 

water systems should include a 

prioritization strategy in the LSLR plan, 

as these and other factors could inform 

systems’ LSLR efforts. Water systems 

could give specific consideration to, for 

example, prioritizing locations where 

susceptible populations are 

concentrated (such as child care 

facilities) and where disadvantaged 

populations live because these 

populations may be more susceptible to 

the impacts of lead exposure, or may be 

more likely to live in environments with 

other lead exposure sources. Data from 

the 2005 American Housing Survey 

suggest that non-Hispanic black 

individuals are more than twice as 

likely as non-Hispanic whites to live in 

moderately or severely substandard 

housing (Leech et al., 2016). 

Substandard housing is more likely to 

present risks from deteriorating leadbased paint (White et al., 2016). 

Additionally, minority and low-income 

children are more likely to live in 

proximity to lead-emitting industries 

and to live in urban areas, which are 

more likely to have contaminated soils 

(Leech et al., 2016). In addition, a water 

system could identify in its LSLR plan 

the factors that will guide the 

prioritization of the LSLRs and how the 

system will facilitate full LSLR where 

the customer is unable to pay for 

replacement of the customer-owned 

portion of the service line. 

EPA requested comment on the 

proposed requirement that water 

systems complete the replacement of the 

water system-owned portion of the LSL 

within 45 days of a customer-initiated 

replacement. Many commenters 

supported this requirement but 

suggested that water systems should be 

allowed more time to complete the 

replacement. Several cities in northern 

states, commenters noted, have 

construction moratoriums during winter 

months. EPA agrees that it may not be 

possible for water systems to obtain 

permits and complete LSLR within 45 

days, therefore the final rule includes a 

provision to allow up to 180 days after 

notification to the state. EPA 

recommends water systems to establish 

a process for customer-initiated LSLRs 

that would allow for up front 

coordination on timing and would avoid 

the need for a reactionary replacement, 

where possible. 

EPA sought comment on how the 

number of replacements under a goalbased or mandatory LSLR program 

should be calculated. Some commenters 

pointed out that customer-owned LSLs 

are outside of the water system’s control 

and they should not be included in the 

water system’s LSLR rate calculation. 

EPA disagrees that customer-owned 

LSLR should be excluded from the 

LSLR program requirements. Under the 

currently applicable LCR, customer 

owned service lines are included in the 

LSLR calculations. Customer-owned 

service lines must be accounted for in 

determining the number of initial 

service lines in section 141.84(b)(1) The 

initial number of LSLs is the number of 

LSLs in place at the time the 

replacement program begins. The 

system shall identify the initial number 

of LSLs in its distribution system, 

including an identification of the 

portion(s) owned by the system. 

Excluding customer owned LSLs would 

continue to promote partial LSLR, 

which have not been shown to reliably 

reduce drinking water lead levels in the 

short-term, ranging from days to 

months, and potentially even longer. 

Partial replacements are often associated 

with elevated drinking water lead levels 

in the short-term (USEPA, 2011b). EPA 

notes that while customer-owned lines 

are not under the direct control of the 

water systems, there are many actions 

the water system can take to influence 

the customers behavior including 

educating the customer and providing 

financial assistance, such as loans or 

grants, to the customer (water systems 

are not required to bear the cost to 

replace the customer-owned portion). 

Moreover, the ‘‘ownership’’ status of 

LSLs is not necessarily static (e.g., it 

may change as a result of state law or 

regulations governing public utilities). 

EPA specifically requested comment 

on including galvanized service lines in 

goal-based and mandatory LSLR rates 

under the proposed LCR revisions. 

Some commenters agreed that 

galvanized lines should be replaced 

under LSLR programs, noting that 

science demonstrates that galvanized 

service lines that are or ever were 

downstream from an LSL can adsorb 

lead and contribute to lead in drinking 

water. Some commenters sought 

clarification regarding the burden of 

proof required to determine if a 

galvanized service line ‘‘ever was’’ 

downstream of an LSL. A few 

commenters recommended that the final 

rule take an approach that either 

requires replacement of all or no 

galvanized service lines due to the 

difficulty and burden often required to 

determine whether a galvanized line 

‘‘ever was’’ downstream of an LSL. EPA 

agrees galvanized lines that are or were 

downstream of an LSL can contribute to 

lead in drinking water and should be 

replaced under a system’s LSLR 

program. 

Some commenters believed that lead 

status unknown service lines should not 

be used in calculating the number of 

replacements required, while others 

suggested that water systems should 

receive replacement credit whenever an 

unknown is investigated and verified to 

be non-lead. EPA disagrees that 

unknowns should be excluded from the 

LSLR rate calculation. In the final rule, 

partial LSLR no longer count as a 

replacement because they do not result 

in a full LSLR, so allowing unknown 

verifications to count as a replacement 

without actually conducting a LSLR 

would run counter to the final rule’s 

emphasis on full LSLR. Additionally, 

this policy would not incentivize, and 

would instead discourage, systems from 

conducting robust material 

investigations for their initial inventory 

or updating their inventory over time, 

given that improving the inventory 

would increase their LSLR burden as 

some unknowns are found to be LSLs. 

EPA also disagrees that verification of 

unknowns to be non-lead should count 

as a replacement. Counting a 

verification as ‘‘replaced’’ could also 

disincentivize a robust initial inventory 

in attempts to lower the LSLR burden 

and allow compliance with LSLR 

requirements without conducting an 

LSLR. 

EPA requested comment on the goalbased LSLR requirement for systems 

that exceed the trigger level, asking if a 

goal-based program provides adequate 

incentives for water systems to achieve 

meaningful LSLR, and such a program 

could be incorporated into existing 

infrastructure improvement programs. 

Commenters offered a wide range of 

views on the new construct. 

Commenters expressed some support for 

the proposed requirement, noting it 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4216 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

would increase the number of systems 

with an LSLR program. Many 

commenters asked for EPA to be more 

prescriptive regarding the goal LSLR 

rate in the final rule. For example, some 

commenters suggested that EPA should 

set a Federal goal LSLR rate, while 

others thought that EPA should set a 

minimum goal LSLR rate while 

maintaining the current provision 

which requires states to set a higher goal 

rate where feasible. Other commenters 

suggested that EPA set a maximum goal 

rate, such as three percent. EPA also 

requested comment on what criteria 

must be met for the Agency to establish 

a Federal goal rate for an individual 

water system under § 142.19. Some 

commenters disagreed that EPA should 

maintain authority to supersede a stateapproved goal LSLR rate. EPA disagrees 

that it should be more prescriptive 

regarding the goal LSLR rate. The goalbased LSLR program is intended to 

reflect the specific water system and 

state’s priorities and community 

characteristics. EPA agrees with 

commenters that the final rule should 

not include a provision for the Regional 

Administrator to establish a goal LSLR 

rate that would supersede a state 

decision. States best understand 

individual water system’s 

characteristics, its technical, financial, 

and managerial capacity, as well as 

community demographics. States may 

also set goal LSLR rates in accordance 

with statewide replacement policies, 

such as conducting LSLR in tandem 

with existing infrastructure work, taking 

a more active approach to LSLR, or 

making a determination that a higher 

replacement rate is feasible. 

EPA requested comment on the 

feasibility of a minimum annual LSLR 

rate of three percent as a result of a lead 

action level exceedance. While some 

commenters thought that a three percent 

LSLR was too burdensome, others 

believed the rate was not stringent 

enough and should be higher. Some 

noted that the current rule requires 

seven percent LSLR and claimed that a 

replacement rate of three percent would 

be backsliding in violation of the 

statutory requirement that revisions to 

existing drinking water standards 

‘‘maintain, or provide for greater, 

protection of the health of persons’’ as 

the existing rule. Some commenters 

believed that a mandatory LSLR rate 

should apply at all times and regardless 

of a water system’s lead levels, 

effectively requiring mandatory, 

proactive LSLR program at all water 

systems. 

EPA disagrees that a requirement to 

fully replace three percent of all known 

and unknown LSLs annually is too 

slow. Under the previous LCR, many 

water systems delayed or never initiated 

LSLR because the rule allows a system 

to stop LSLR with two bi-annual rounds 

of tap sampling at or below the action 

level (AL). A number of scenarios 

allowed water systems to delay or not 

begin LSLR. For example, under the 

previous LCR, water systems without 

CCT must conduct a study, obtain state 

approval for the recommended CCT, 

and obtain state approved optimal 

WQPs prior to beginning LSLR. Because 

a CCT study takes longer than one year, 

many water systems were able to 

complete two rounds of tap sampling at 

or below the AL and were not required 

to complete the CCT study. Further, a 

water system could delay initiation if 

the system did not have an accurate LSL 

inventory and needed time to identify 

the total number of LSLs in order to 

determine the number of LSLs required 

for 7 percent replacement. Meanwhile, 

that water system could complete two 

rounds of tap sampling at or below the 

AL resulting in an end of the LSLR 

program having replaced few or no 

LSLs. As a result, very few water 

systems have conducted LSLR programs 

under the previous rule. The LCRR no 

longer allows these delays; systems that 

exceed the trigger level (TL) must 

conduct a CCT study so they are 

prepared to quickly install CCT if there 

is a subsequent ALE. Also, water 

systems must prepare an LSL inventory 

prior to the compliance effective date 

and systems must conduct four rounds 

(two years) of bi-annual tap sampling at 

or below the AL before LSLR may stop. 

Requiring only full LSLR to count as a 

replacement will require more time and 

resources per replacement than partial 

LSLR, which was allowed in the 

previous rule because water systems 

will likely require customer consent to 

replace their portion of an LSL at 

customer cost and may need access to 

the customer’s property. EPA notes that 

as in the previous LCR, states must 

require systems to replace LSLs on a 

shorter schedule, i.e., a higher annual 

percentage than required under the 

Federal rule, where the state determines 

a shorter schedule is feasible. 

EPA disagrees that reducing the LSLR 

rate to three percent is backsliding 

relative to the current LCR. The current 

LCR does not require full replacement of 

LSLs and the required seven percent 

replacement rate is rarely occurring 

since there are provisions in the current 

rule that allow for avoidance of LSLR. 

EPA has determined that the revisions 

to the LCR, as a whole, maintain or 

provide for greater public health 

protection. Because a treatment 

technique rule is not centered on a 

single compliance level, but rather on 

an integrated set of actions designed to 

reduce the level of exposure to a 

contaminant, the backsliding analysis 

for a treatment technique rule should be 

based on an assessment of public health 

protection as a result of implementation 

of the rule as a whole, rather than a 

comparison of numerical benchmarks 

within the treatment technique rule. 

Even when the lead service line removal 

rates are compared directly, this rule 

results in a greater rate of removal. 

Based on data presented in Tables 6–7 

and 6–8 of this preamble, improvements 

in the final rule will result in a 5 to 73 

fold increase in full LSLR investments 

by closing loopholes, improving 

sampling and monitoring requirements, 

compelling early action, and 

strengthening replacement 

requirements. LSL replacement 

programs are required to be initiated at 

systems that exceed the lead trigger 

level of 10 mg/L versus 15 mg/L in the 

previous LCR. The requirement for a 

LSLR plan for all systems will avoid 

delays in initiating LSLR that have 

hampered progress under the current 

rule. Furthermore, the more stringent 

sampling requirements in the final rule 

will better identify elevated lead levels 

associated with LSLs, which will result 

in more systems that exceed the trigger 

and action levels and are thus required 

to replace LSLs. The current rule allows 

systems to count the line as replaced 

towards their seven percent removal if 

a sample taken from an individual line 

is below 15 mg/L—called ‘‘testing out’’— 

even when no replacement has 

occurred. The final rule eliminates the 

ability of water systems to ‘‘test out’’ 

lines from replacement. In addition, 

while the current rule requires a 

minimum of one year of mandatory 

LSLR, the final rule requires water 

systems to demonstrate lead levels 

below the 15 mg/L action level for two 

years before ceasing mandatory LSLR. 

EPA also notes that the final rule’s three 

percent LSLR rate includes a greater 

pool of service lines covered by the 

replacement requirements than the 

current rule, including not only LSLs, 

but also lead status unknown service 

lines and galvanized requiring 

replacement service lines. Including 

these known and potential lead sources 

is expected to result in more service 

lines requiring replacement under this 

construct at three percent than under 

the seven percent required in the 

previous LCR. Furthermore, the final 

rule includes provisions requiring water 

systems to replace lead connectors 

when encountered and complete 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4217 

customer-initiated LSLR regardless of 

their 90th percentile lead levels, rather 

than requiring those actions only for 

systems that exceed the action level. 

This is bolstered by requirements for 

systems to make their LSL inventory 

publicly available and notify occupants 

of homes with LSL every year about 

their LSL, drinking water exposure 

risks, and mitigation options, including 

removal. In addition, only full LSLs will 

count towards the mandated 

replacement rate; partial LSLR may still 

be conducted in certain limited 

situations, but they will not count in 

calculating the number of lead lines that 

have been replaced, in contrast to the 

current LCR. Therefore, this element of 

the rule, taken by itself, meets the 

statutory standard for this rule that it 

maintains or provides for greater health 

protection. Lastly, LSLR is just one 

component of the revised rule. Other 

strengthened provisions in the rule such 

as corrosion control treatment, find-andfix, and public education, will mitigate 

lead exposure to a greater extent relative 

to the current rule, and thus the rule as 

a whole provides more protection than 

the current rule. 

Some commenters suggested use of a 

rolling average replacement rate across 

several years to provide more flexibility 

to the water system than a static annual 

rate. Commenters noted that in the first 

year of mandatory LSLR, water systems 

may receive a high number of requests 

from customers to have their LSL 

replaced, while the pool of willing 

customers may decline in later years. 

Commenters believed that water 

systems should respond to as many 

customer requests as they can, even if it 

exceeds their mandatory LSLR rate, in 

order to remove lead sources sooner. 

Water systems should not be 

incentivized, commenters said, to 

replace the minimum number of LSLs in 

the first year to ensure a sufficient 

number of willing participants to meet 

the mandatory LSLR rate in later years. 

The Agency agrees that a rolling average 

construct is appropriate for the final 

rule. As commenters mentioned, a water 

system may receive heightened 

customer interest in LSLR immediately 

following a lead AL exceedance. 

Replacing more than 3% LSLs in the 

first year of an LSLR program under a 

rolling average rate will result in earlier 

reductions in drinking water lead 

exposure for those households served by 

systems that are able to obtain resources 

for a short term expedited replacement 

program. This would remove a potential 

unintended incentive under a fixed rate 

of 3% to replace the minimum number 

of LSLs in the first year to ensure there 

is sufficient customer participation to 

achieve 3% in the second year. For 

example, under a rolling average, a 

system that is able to expedite LSLRs in 

the first year following an ALE to 

replace 4% but in the second year is 

only able to replace 2% will achieve a 

3% two year rolling average. EPA notes 

that while the final rule requires states 

to set the mandatory LSLR rate higher 

than 3% where feasible, the short-term 

ability of a water system to replace more 

than 3% immediately following a lead 

AL exceedance when customer interest 

is highest is not necessarily indicative of 

long-term feasibility. EPA also notes 

that a rolling average approach could 

provide flexibility to water systems that 

experience delays in initiating LSLR 

programs. While not mentioned by 

commenters, some systems may not 

immediately have access to LSLR 

financing following a lead AL 

exceedance, and therefore would face 

increased challenges to meet the 

mandatory 3% LSLR in the first year. 

These challenges could be compounded 

where the water system experiences 

delays securing financing and then 

faces, as commenters noted in the 

context of customer-initiated 

replacement, construction moratoriums 

in the winter months. The rolling 

average approach could alleviate these 

challenges. For example, a system that 

is only able to replace 2% in the first 

year due to delays may be able to 

expedite the LSLR program to replace 

4% in the second year and achieve a 3% 

rolling two year average. EPA 

acknowledges that some households 

would experience delays in reductions 

to drinking water lead exposure under 

this example in comparison to a fixed 

annual rate. EPA recommends that 

water systems begin LSLR as quickly as 

possible following an ALE to assure that 

the system achieves the required 3% 

rolling annual average by the end of the 

second year following the ALE. EPA 

notes that by having the LSLR plan 

prepared in advance as required by the 

rule, systems should be positioned to 

avoid delays and have timely 

implementation of their LSLR program. 

EPA recognizes that potential funding or 

scheduling delays that may impede a 

water system’s ability to achieve the 

LSLR rate or circumstances such as 

higher than average customer interest 

that may expedite a water system’s 

ability to achieve the LSLR rate may 

occur throughout implementation of the 

LSLR program. Therefore, EPA has 

constructed the rolling average 

approach for the duration of the LSLR. 

For example, a water system that 

continually exceeds the lead AL may 

expend its initial funding source and 

need to seek new funding to continue 

LSLR. The rolling average approach is 

not intended to address delays caused 

by customer refusals, as the final rule 

includes a mechanism for a water 

system to cease LSLR after it shows no 

unknowns in its inventory and has 

received replacement refusals from all 

customers served by an LSL or 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service line. 

EPA sought comment on proposed 

risk mitigation procedures following 

LSLR or a LSL disturbance, such as the 

appropriateness of pitcher filters. The 

proposed rule categorized disturbances 

into two types: Minor disturbances that 

require consumer notification and 

flushing, and more significant 

disturbances requiring consumer 

notification, flushing, and pitcher 

filters. Some commenters claimed that 

high velocity flushing is appropriate for 

all disturbances and that filters should 

not be required as a result of any 

disturbance. EPA agrees that flushing 

can be effective at reducing lead in 

drinking water but disagrees that it is 

adequate in response to all disturbances. 

Use of pitcher filters or POU devices 

over a period of months can help reduce 

lead exposure from more significant 

disturbances that may cause sustained 

elevated lead concentrations over weeks 

or months. EPA has determined that 

pitcher filters provide the most viable 

and efficient option for both water 

systems and consumers. EPA agrees that 

POU devices are also effective for risk 

mitigation and acknowledges that some 

water systems may prefer POU devices 

to pitcher filters. It is important to note 

that systems that elect to distribute POU 

for risk mitigation after an LSLR are not 

required to maintain and/or own the 

devices since they would be used only 

for short-term mitigation and not for 

compliance purposes. Small water 

systems that select POU devices as their 

compliance alternative must maintain 

and test devices to be in compliance 

with the LCRR. EPA also received 

comments suggesting that notification 

and risk mitigation be provided after a 

customer’s water is turned back on. A 

commenter noted that some work may 

require a customer’s water to be turned 

on and off multiple times. EPA agrees 

with the commenter that providing 

notification and risk mitigation before 

the consumer uses the water is of 

primary importance and has revised the 

requirement for notification and risk 

communication to be provided prior to 

the water system returning the affected 

service line to service. 

EPA received many comments calling 

for the final rule to ban partial LSLR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4218 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

under all circumstances. Commenters 

noted that partial replacements are not 

effective at reducing lead in drinking 

water and may cause a temporary lead 

spike. Many other comments supported 

the proposal’s allowance of partial 

replacements, claiming that in some 

cases partial replacements are 

unavoidable, such as during emergency 

repairs. EPA agrees that it is not feasible 

to ban partial LSLR in all situations. 

Although partial LSLR can cause lead 

levels to be temporarily elevated, the 

practice may sometimes be unavoidable, 

such as resulting from an emergency 

repair. In another scenario, other water 

system activities may result in a 

significant LSL disturbance and the 

water system may find it appropriate to 

remove the portion it owns, while the 

customer does not agree to replace his 

or her portion. Because of circumstances 

such as those, it is appropriate for the 

rule to not prohibit all partial LSLR. The 

final rule discourages the practice of 

partial LSLR by excluding it from 

counting towards goal and mandatory 

LSLR rates, while also ensuring risk 

mitigation steps are taken when partials 

are conducted. One commenter noted 

that their state prohibits partial LSLR 

and considers lead connectors to be part 

of the LSL. The commenter sought 

clarification in the final rule as to how 

systems would comply with their partial 

LSLR ban as well as the proposed 

requirement to replace lead connectors 

as they are encountered. EPA agrees 

with this commenter and has provided 

clarification in the final rule to allow an 

exemption from the requirement to 

replace lead connectors as they are 

encountered if state law bans partial 

LSLR, includes lead connectors in the 

LSL definition, and requires systems to 

remove all LSLs irrespective of a 

system’s 90th percentile lead level. This 

new provision will facilitate compliance 

with both state and Federal law while 

ensuring that consistent progress 

towards the replacement of lead 

connectors will occur over time. 

Some commenters requested that EPA 

allow verbal refusals or documented 

attempts to reach a non-responsive 

customer rather than limiting refusals to 

customer signatures turning down LSLR 

as was proposed. EPA agrees with 

commenters, noting that there may be 

times where, despite a good faith effort 

to engage the customer, the water 

system is unable to reach the customer 

to obtain a consent or refusal for LSLR. 

EPA agrees that compliance should be 

based on the effort to reach the customer 

to obtain a refusal, and that the water 

system should not be penalized as a 

result of customer actions. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

All water systems with LSLs or lead 

status unknown service lines in their 

initial inventory must create and submit 

an LSLR plan to their state by the rule’s 

compliance date. The LSLR plan must 

include a description of: (1) A strategy 

for determining the composition of lead 

status unknown service lines in its 

inventory, (2) procedures to conduct full 

LSLR, (3) a strategy for informing 

customers before a full or partial LSLR, 

(4) for systems that serve more than 

10,000 persons, a recommended LSLR 

goal rate in the event of a lead trigger 

level exceedance, (5) a procedure for 

customers to flush service lines and 

premise plumbing of particulate lead, 

(6) a LSLR prioritization strategy based 

on factors including but not limited to 

the targeting of known LSLs, LSLR for 

disadvantaged consumers and 

populations most sensitive to the effects 

of lead, and (7) a funding strategy for 

conducting LSLRs which considers 

ways to accommodate customers that 

are unable to pay to replace the portion 

they own. Completing a LSLR plan will 

prepare water systems to take the steps 

necessary to remove a source of 

drinking water lead exposure when 

required. Water systems will be able to 

initiate removals in a more timely 

manner and may be able to more cost 

effectively identify and remove LSLs 

with careful preparation and planning. 

The final rule does not include a 

requirement for water systems to 

include pitcher filter tracking and 

maintenance plan because water 

systems will likely distribute the filter 

and all replacement cartridges 

simultaneously, making it unnecessary 

to track filters replacement schedules 

over time. The final rule adds a new 

LSLR plan component for water systems 

to include a strategy for accommodating 

customers who wish to replace the LSL 

but are unable to pay the cost of 

replacing the portion of they own. 

Nothing in this provision obligates the 

water system to pay for replacement of 

a customer-owned LSL. EPA notes 

potential environmental justice 

concerns associated with full LSLR 

when the customer is expected to pay 

the entire cost to replace the customerowned portion of the LSL. EPA believes 

that these impacts can be mitigated by 

water systems developing a financial 

assistance strategy ahead of time. In 

recent years, EPA has become aware of 

water systems around the country that 

have successfully adopted one or more 

approaches for facilitating full LSLR 

(‘‘Strategies for Achieving Full LSLR,’’ 

docket EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). As 

part of their plan, water systems could 

investigate whether rate revenue can 

contribute to customer-owned LSLR or 

identify external LSLR funding, such as 

Federal or state grants or loans, that 

could be used to finance a customer’s 

LSLR. EPA maintains a list of some 

funding sources that can be used for 

lead in drinking water reduction 

activities which can be reached at 

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/funding-lead-serviceline-replacement. EPA is also requiring 

that the LSLR plan must include a 

replacement prioritization strategy, 

which will inform how a water system 

will execute their LSLR program. 

The final rule requires the 

replacement of lead goosenecks, 

pigtails, and connectors any time they 

are encountered by the water system. 

Coupling lead connector replacement 

with other water system activities, such 

as main replacement or LSLR, will 

facilitate consistent progress is made 

toward elimination of this lead source 

from drinking water infrastructure over 

time. A new provision was added to 

allow systems to comply with state 

regulations which ban partial LSLR and 

consider lead connectors part of the 

LSL. 

The final rule requires that water 

systems complete customer-initiated 

LSLR within 45 days of being notified 

by the customer, with the possibility of 

an extension to 180 days after 

notification to the state. EPA encourages 

water systems to establish a process for 

customer-initiated LSLRs that would 

allow for up front coordination on 

timing and would avoid the need for a 

reactionary replacement of the water 

system portion of the LSL. To mitigate 

potential lead exposure associated with 

a partial LSLR until the system 

completes the full replacement, the 

water system must provide the 

consumer with a pitcher filter or POU 

device with six months of replacement 

cartridges, to consumers until the 

replacement is completed. Because of 

the potential for partial LSLR to 

contribute higher levels of lead into 

drinking water, water systems must also 

provide the customer with a filter 

within 24 hours of learning of a 

customer replacement that left a systemowned LSL in place within the past six 

months. This new requirement will 

ensure customers are protected from the 

effects of partial LSLR, regardless of 

who owns the remaining LSL portion. 

Water systems that conduct a full LSLR 

must also provide customer notification 

and risk mitigation before the service 

line is returned to service. 

EPA has retained the inclusion of 

galvanized service lines that are or were 

downstream of an LSL in the calculation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4219 

of the LSLR rate. Water systems are 

required to presume the galvanized 

service line was downstream of an LSL 

if unable to demonstrate that the 

galvanized service line was never 

downstream of a lead service line. This 

approach ensures that all galvanized 

service lines that may contribute lead 

into drinking water may be counted 

towards replacement under the water 

system’s LSLR program. In the final 

rule, lead status unknown service lines 

must be considered in determining a 

water system’s annual LSLR rate under 

a goal-based or mandatory LSLR 

program. This provides an incentive to 

water systems to verify the material of 

lead status unknown service lines. 

In the final rule, water systems must 

recommend a goal LSLR rate in their 

LSLR plan to be implemented after a 

lead trigger level exceedance. There is 

no required minimum or maximum for 

the recommended goal rate but it must 

be approved by the state. States may set 

a different LSLR goal rate than the rate 

recommended by the system. EPA 

expects that some systems may propose 

to conduct goal based LSLR in 

coordination with planned 

infrastructure work, while other systems 

may propose more expansive goal based 

LSLRs to address the most susceptible 

or disadvantaged populations. EPA 

believes it is appropriate for the system 

to propose a goal LSLR rate based upon 

an understanding of its individual 

opportunities and challenges in 

conducting LSLRs and the priorities in 

the community for improved public 

health protection. EPA believes that the 

primacy agency is in the best position 

to evaluate the system’s 

recommendation and determine a goal 

rate. 

The final rule retains the proposed 

minimum mandatory full LSLR rate of 

three percent after a lead action level 

exceedance (ALE). The final rule also 

maintains the LCR’s existing 

requirement that water systems conduct 

LSLR on a shorter schedule (i.e., greater 

than three percent annually) where the 

state has determined it is feasible for the 

system. The final rule incorporates 

commenters’ suggestions to require that 

the mandatory LSLR rate be determined 

based upona rolling two year average. A 

water system that exceeds the action 

level must replace a rolling two year 

average of 3% per year (i.e., starting in 

year 2 following an ALE, a water 

system’s compliance is determined 

every year based upon whether it 

replaced at least 6% in the prior twoyear period). As stated in § 141.84(a)(7), 

the number of LSLRs required under the 

mandatory LSLR program must be 

calculated using the number of LSLs 

and galvanized requiring replacement 

service lines at the time the system first 

exceeds the action level plus the 

number of unknowns at the beginning of 

each years of the system’s LSLR 

program. A water system that has an 

ALE must conduct the mandatory LSLR 

program until the water system’s 90th 

percentile lead levels are at or below the 

action level for 2 years and the 

cumulative percentage of LSLs replaced 

by the system is greater than or equal to 

3% times the number of years that 

elapsed between the system’s first ALE 

and the date on which the system’s 90th 

percentile lead levels are at or below the 

action level for 2 years. A system with 

90th percentile lead levels at or below 

the action level for 2 years that has not 

yet replaced the required cumulative 

percentage of lines, may discontinue 

LSLR only if it achieves replacement of 

the cumulative percentage of LSLRs 

before the end of the third year in which 

its 90th percentile lead levels are at or 

below the action level. For example, if 

a system exceeds the action level and 

replaces 2% in the first year following 

the ALE, 4% in the second year, and 2% 

in the third year that system will have 

met the requirement for a rolling two 

year 3% average. However if that 

system’s 90th percentile lead levels 

drop below the action level in the 

second year and stays below the action 

level in the third year, that system 

cannot stop its LSLR program unless it 

replaces 1% in the fourth year to 

achieve a cumulative replacement of 

9%.Where a water system fails to 

achieve its mandatory LSLR rate, it may 

remain in compliance if it has no 

remaining lead status unknown service 

lines in its distribution system and it 

provides documentation of refusals, or 

non-response, to the water system’s 

efforts to fully replace all LSLs and 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service lines. The final rule builds on 

the proposal by allowing documentation 

of two good faith attempts to reach the 

customers that either resulted in a 

signed or verbal refusal, or nonresponse. This provision allows a water 

system to maintain compliance with the 

rule in the expected limited cases when 

customers do not cooperate enough with 

systems to meet the minimum LSLR 

requirements in the rule. This provision 

does not allow refusal of an individual 

customer to count as a replaced LSL. 

The final rule mandates risk 

mitigation best practices after partial 

replacements or other actions that cause 

LSL disturbances. These practices 

include consumer notification, flushing, 

a free pitcher filter or POU and 

replacement cartridges delivered to the 

affected consumer, and an offer to 

conduct a follow up tap sample between 

three and six months following the 

replacement to ensure lead levels have 

subsided. While the final rule does not 

include a ban on partial LSLR, 

provisions in the revised rule 

requirements will discourage partial 

LSLR relative to the previous rule; in 

addition, the revised requirements will 

reduce consumer exposure to lead in 

drinking water when partials and other 

LSL disturbances occur. 

E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead 

Action Level Exceedance for Small 

Community Water Systems and NonTransient, Non-Community Water 

Systems 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed revisions that provide 

small Community Water Systems 

(CWSs), serving 10,000 or fewer 

persons, and all Non-Transient, NonCommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs) 

greater flexibility to comply with the 

requirements of the LCRR. In 1998, EPA 

designated corrosion control treatment 

as an affordable compliance technology 

for all categories of small systems in 

accordance with SDWA Section 

1412(b)(4)(E)(iii) (USEPA, 1998c). EPA 

has determined that corrosion control 

treatment is still an affordable 

technology for the three categories of 

small systems, however, EPA 

recognized that small systems tend to 

have more limited technical, financial, 

and managerial capacity to implement 

complex treatment techniques. Small 

system flexibilities will provide 

alternatives to chemical treatment, as it 

is difficult for many small systems to 

find operators that have the more 

advanced skills necessary to implement 

and maintain such treatment. 

EPA proposed three compliance 

alternatives for a lead action level 

exceedance to allow increased 

flexibility for small CWSs that serve 

10,000 or fewer people and four 

compliance alternatives for NTNCWSs 

of any size. The proposed rule would 

allow water systems to select the most 

financially and technologically viable 

strategy that is effective in reducing lead 

in drinking water. EPA proposed the 

following compliance alternatives for 

small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) 

installation and maintenance of 

Optimized Corrosion Control Treatment 

(OCCT), or (3) installation and 

maintenance of point-of-use (POU) 

treatment devices. EPA proposed the 

above three compliance alternatives for 

NTNCWSs and an additional 

compliance alternative of replacement 

of all lead bearing plumbing materials. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4220 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

As proposed, the NTNCWS must have 

control of all plumbing materials and 

must have no LSLs to select this option. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA requested comment on whether 

small system flexibility is needed by 

systems serving between 3,301 and 

10,000 persons and whether a different 

threshold is more appropriate. Several 

commenters recommended the final 

LCRR revise the threshold for small 

systems to those serving 3,300 persons 

or fewer to be consistent with other 

drinking water rules. Some commenters 

supported the proposed LCRR small 

system definition and recommended 

that the small system flexibility 

provisions apply to systems serving 

10,000 persons or fewer. Other 

commenters argue that the proposed 

threshold of 10,000 or fewer persons is 

too broad and it would apply to over 

ninety percent of the nation’s water 

suppliers. These commenters stated that 

most systems serving 3,301 to 10,000 

people likely have sufficient resources 

to comply with the regulatory 

requirements for larger systems and do 

not require the flexibility needed by 

smaller water systems. 

EPA agrees that the appropriate 

threshold to provide flexibility to small 

CWS is 10,000 or fewer persons served. 

The Agency agrees that small water 

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons 

typically do not have the capacity to 

implement multiple measures 

simultaneously such as corrosion 

control treatment and LSLR programs. 

Small CWSs and NTNCWSs tend to 

have more limited technical, financial, 

and managerial capacity to implement 

complex treatment technique rules such 

as the LCR (USEPA, 2011a). Many small 

public water systems face challenges in 

reliably providing safe drinking water to 

their customers and consistently 

meeting the requirements of the SDWA 

and the National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations (NPDWRs) (USEPA, 

2011a). The cost of providing service 

places significant pressure on small 

water systems because they lack 

resources and economies of scale 

(USEPA, 2000c). The Agency 

determined the compliance flexibility 

options would be most appropriate for 

small water systems that serve 10,000 or 

fewer persons, as they are most 

frequently the systems that are 

struggling to maintain compliance with 

the current LCR and/or do not have the 

capacity to operate corrosion control 

treatment in conjunction with other 

complex treatment technique 

requirements. Small water systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer persons have 

more monitoring and reporting (M&R) 

violations, approximately 90 percent of 

all M&R violations for all NPDWRs. 

Recurring M&R violations can obscure 

more important water quality problems 

because MCL and maximum 

disinfectant residual level (MRDL) 

violations may not be discovered if a 

system fails to conduct routine 

monitoring. M&R requirements are often 

the simplest compliance requirements 

and systems that cannot complete these 

procedures may have other technical, 

financial and managerial issues 

(USEPA, 2011a). Small system 

flexibilities will provide alternatives to 

chemical treatment as it is difficult for 

many small systems to find operators 

that have the more advanced skills 

necessary to implement and maintain 

such treatment, particularly given the 

limited financial and programmatic 

capacity of many small utilities (Kane, 

2018). EPA has concluded that these 

small systems can work with their state 

to identify an affordable and feasible 

treatment technique to reduce drinking 

water lead exposure. EPA expects that 

small systems will work with their state 

to identify the single most cost-effective 

measure from this list of affordable and 

feasible compliance options. That 

measure will depend upon the 

characteristics of the small system 

including the number of service 

connections, the number of LSLs and 

the technical capacity of the system’s 

operators. 

Some commenters recommended that 

a threshold 3,300 or fewer persons 

should be used in the final rule as it 

would allow for consistency across 

NPDWRs. EPA notes that the NPDWR 

for lead and copper is a unique and 

complicated treatment technique rule 

that requires water systems with 

elevated lead to take a suite of actions 

to reduce lead levels in drinking water. 

To improve public health protection, 

the final rule maintains or modifies 

regulatory requirements from the 

previous LCR and includes new 

requirements that apply to all system 

sizes, for example, preparing an LSL 

inventory, collecting all tap samples 

from homes with LSLs, conducting 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ assessments, conducting 

water system side LSLR when customer 

initiated LSLR occurs and providing 

filters, providing filters in the event of 

an LSL disturbance, and conducting 

public education outreach to customers 

served by an LSL. Additionally, the 

final rule establishes a new trigger level 

that, when exceeded, prompts a set of 

actions designed to protect public 

health. Given the complex requirements 

associated with this treatment technique 

rule, EPA has determined that it is not 

feasible for water systems serving 

10,000 or fewer persons to implement 

the full suite of treatment technique 

requirements for systems that exceed 

the action under the final LCRR 

because, in most cases, they lack the 

technical, financial, and managerial 

capacity to do so. EPA has concluded 

that small system flexibilities are 

appropriate and allow water systems 

that exceed the action level, with state 

approval, to take the lead reduction 

approaches that both maximize public 

health protection to the extent feasible 

and are best tailored to their 

communities. 

EPA does not agree with commenters 

that support the small system 

flexibilities only for systems serving 

3,300 or fewer persons. EPA recognizes 

that while small systems serving 

between 3,301 and 10,000 persons may 

have greater technical, managerial, and 

financial capacity than smaller systems, 

they still face limitations in their 

capacity to implement multiple 

treatment technique actions. EPA has 

determined that it is not feasible for 

most systems serving 10,000 or fewer 

persons to implement the multiple 

treatment technique actions of 

optimized CCT, PE and LSLR due to 

limitations in financial, managerial and 

technical capacity. Implementing such a 

complex NPDWR as the LCRR treatment 

technique rule requires consequential 

managerial, operational, and financial 

resources investment. New rule 

requirements, such as implementation 

of an LSLR goal based program when 

the lead TL is exceeded and mandatory 

3% per year rate based on a two year 

rolling average LSLR when the AL is 

exceeded, preparing and updating an 

LSL inventory, collecting 5th liter 

samples from LSL sites and collecting 

tap samples from 100% LSL sites, 

conducting find-and-fix actions, testing 

in schools and child care facilities and 

conducting enhanced PE all represent 

significant new requirements for water 

systems. Small water systems will need 

to comply with all of these new LCRR 

components. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that systems serving 10,000 

or fewer persons have less professional 

staff than larger systems; these systems 

have an average of 0.4 to 2.4 full time 

operators and 0.5 to 2.4 managers per 

system, which is approximately 2 to11 

times less than the average number of 

operators in the larger systems. Average 

revenues for systems serving 10,000 or 

fewer persons are about 4 to 170 times 

smaller than average revenues for large 

systems (USEPA, 2009). 

Other commenters assert that POU 

treatment is implementable only in very 

small water systems. Some commenters 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4221 

stated that POU treatment is not an 

appropriate option for small systems 

since they could not properly train users 

on how to maintain them. Other 

commenters suggested the POU 

treatment option is not cost-effective 

compared to corrosion control treatment 

for systems serving more than 3,300 

people. 

EPA also recognizes the concerns over 

POU device maintenance problems; 

however, with proper installation and 

maintenance provided by the water 

system, including changing filter 

cartridges and resolving operational 

issues experienced by the user, POU 

devices are an effective option for some 

small CWSs and NTNCWSs. When 

POUs are identified by EPA in the list 

of technologies for small system 

compliance, Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of 

the SDWA requires PWSs using POU 

treatment units to own, control, and 

maintain the treatment units to ensure 

proper operation and maintenance and 

compliance with the treatment 

technique. It also requires that the POUs 

be equipped with mechanical warning 

devices to ensure that customers are 

automatically notified of operational 

problems. EPA believes that some small 

water systems can cost effectively install 

and maintain POU devices in their 

customer’s homes and can educate their 

customers on the proper operation of 

these devices. Most NTNCWSs own and 

control all the outlets in their system 

and can ensure proper operation and 

maintenance of installed units. In 

addition, smaller CWSs serve fewer 

persons for which they would need to 

provide POU devices compared to larger 

CWSs. 

In the proposal, EPA also requested 

comment on whether different 

flexibilities would be more appropriate 

for small systems. Many commenters 

recommended that the lead-bearing 

plumbing replacement option proposed 

for NTNCWSs should be also extended 

as a compliance option for small CWSs. 

Commenters noted that this option 

could be beneficial for some small 

CWSs that do not wish to operate OCCT 

or install POU devices in perpetuity but 

have lead bearing plumbing materials 

that are in their control. One commenter 

wrote that small CWSs that control the 

premise plumbing include public water 

systems that are owned and operated by 

assisted living facilities, boarding 

schools, prisons, and apartment 

buildings. EPA agrees with the 

commenters and acknowledges that in 

certain circumstances, when small 

CWSs have no LSLs and have control of 

all of the plumbing materials in the 

system, replacement of all lead-bearing 

plumbing material might be feasible, 

affordable, and a more effective option 

than CCT for the system to reduce 

drinking water lead exposure. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

that small CWSs that elect to conduct 

LSLR would not be required to 

implement immediate measures to 

reduce lead exposures. One commenter 

noted this approach ‘‘is not acceptable 

from public health, health equity or 

environmental justice perspectives’’ 

because it creates the potential for 

consumers to be exposed to high lead 

levels for up to 15 years without CCT or 

POU devices in place. Other 

commenters were concerned that small 

CWSs that elect to implement CCT 

would not be required to undertake 

LSLR. These commenters noted that this 

approach allows LSLs to remain in the 

ground indefinitely, thus raising 

‘‘serious environmental justice 

concerns.’’ 

EPA agrees that systems serving 

greater than10,000 persons can and 

should implement both corrosion 

control treatment and LSLR programs if 

the system exceeds the action level. For 

systems serving less than 10,000 people, 

EPA has determined it is appropriate to 

retain both LSLR and CCT as 

compliance alternative options as 

outlined in the proposed LCRR. CCT 

may be the most appropriate option for 

small CWSs and NTNCWSs that have 

many LSLs because LSLR is a resourceintensive process and may not be a 

feasible solution for some systems. 

LSLR, on the other hand, may be a 

feasible option for small CWSs and 

NTNCWSs that have fewer LSLs and 

that could be removed within a few 

years. The state must require a system 

to replace LSLs on a shorter schedule, 

taking into account the number of LSLs 

in the system, where a shorter 

replacement schedule is feasible. The 

LSLR option could allow those systems 

to avoid the need to add a CCT process 

that would require continual operation 

and maintenance. EPA has determined 

that it is not feasible for small systems 

serving fewer than 10,000 to both 

operate optimized CCT and conduct 

LSLR. As explained in greater detail 

above, these systems have limited 

operator staff to manage CCT and LSLR 

programs. Systems serving 10,000 or 

fewer persons do not enjoy the 

economies of scale of larger systems 

therefore the cost of multiple treatment 

technique actions may not be affordable 

for these smaller systems. Additionally, 

the LCRR includes several public 

education requirements including 

annual notice to sites served by an LSL 

that will provide consumers with 

information about the risks of the LSLs 

and the actions they can take to reduce 

their risks. Regardless of the compliance 

options selected, all water systems are 

required to conduct public education 

when the lead action level is exceeded. 

Finally, the LCRR will afford all 

NTNCWSs and small CWSs the 

flexibility to evaluate the best treatment 

technique for them to control lead and 

to implement their chosen approach 

based on state approval. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

Under the final LCRR, small CWSs 

that serve 10,000 persons or fewer and 

any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead 

trigger level but do not exceed the lead 

and copper action levels must evaluate 

the four compliance alternatives and 

make a recommendation to the state 

within six months on which compliance 

alternative the water system would 

implement if the water system 

subsequently exceeds the lead action 

level. The state must approve the 

recommendation or designate an 

alternative compliance option within 

six months of submittal. In the event 

these water systems exceed the lead 

action level, they must implement the 

state-approved compliance option. 

Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS 

that exceeds the lead action level and 

had not previously exceeded the trigger 

level, must evaluate the compliance 

alternatives and make a 

recommendation to the state within six 

months. The state must approve the 

system’s recommendations or designate 

an alternative compliance option within 

six months; these water systems must 

implement the state-approved 

compliance option. 

a. Lead Service Line Replacement 

Water systems that select and are 

approved for LSLR and subsequently 

exceed the lead action level are required 

to implement a full LSLR program on a 

schedule specified by the state, not to 

exceed 15 years. EPA is requiring that 

NTNCWSs and small CWSs with LSLs 

that exceed the lead action level of 15 

mg/L that choose to fully replace all of 

their LSLs until none remain must 

ensure they have the authority or 

consent to remove the customer-owned 

portion of every LSL in its distribution 

system or obtain refusals from 

customers. If the water system’s 90th 

percentile drops below the lead action 

level, the water system must continue to 

replace LSLs until none remain. This 

option is projected to be a feasible and 

affordable, as well as practical choice 

for small systems that have few LSLs 

that could be removed within a few 

years, thus potentially avoiding the 

need to add a CCT process that would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

need to be continually operated and 

maintained. 

b. Corrosion Control Treatment 

Water systems that select and are 

approved for implementation of 

optimized CCT and subsequently 

exceed the lead action level are required 

to implement the state-approved option 

for CCT. The final rule provides 

flexibility for NTNCWSs and small 

CWSs to install and maintain optimized 

CCT as a compliance alternative after 

exceeding the lead action level. EPA has 

determined in its analysis that some 

water systems may choose this 

alternative as the feasible, affordable, 

and most effective strategy for reducing 

lead in drinking water (e.g., small water 

systems with many LSLs to replace or 

a large number of households and nonresidential buildings that would make 

installation and maintenance of POU 

devices logistically challenging) (see 

section VI.C.4 of this preamble). EPA is 

requiring water systems, including 

small water systems, that have already 

installed CCT and subsequently exceed 

the lead action level to re-optimize CCT. 

c. Point-of-Use Devices 

Water systems that select and are 

approved for the POU option and 

subsequently exceed the lead action 

level, are required to implement a POU 

program on a schedule specified by the 

state, but not to exceed one year for 

CWSs and three months for NTNCWSs. 

The final rule provides flexibility for 

NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install 

and maintain POU devices, 

independently certified by a third party 

to meet the American National 

Standards Institute standard applicable 

to the specific type of POU unit to 

reduce lead in drinking water, as a 

compliance alternative to a lead action 

level exceedance in lieu of CCT and 

LSLR. EPA is requiring small CWSs that 

select this compliance alternative to 

provide a minimum of one POU device 

per household and one for every tap that 

is used for cooking and/or drinking in 

every building in its distribution 

system, regardless of whether that 

household or building is served by an 

LSL, to ensure the residents can access 

filtered water. Since system-wide CCT is 

not being provided under this option, 

even homes and non-residential 

buildings without LSLs would need to 

be provided with a POU device to 

address lead leaching from old lead 

solder or brass plumbing fittings and 

fixtures. EPA is requiring NTNCWSs to 

provide a POU device for every tap 

intended for drinking or cooking to 

ensure all building users can easily 

access filtered water. The water system 

is responsible for maintenance of the 

device, including changing filter 

cartridges and resolving operational 

issues experienced by the customer. 

Small CWSs that serve relatively few 

households, or NTNCWSs that are 

responsible for the facility’s plumbing, 

may find this to be the feasible, 

affordable, and most effective 

compliance alternative (see section 

VI.C.4 of this preamble). Small CWSs 

must ensure water system personnel 

have access to the homes of the 

residents and the non-residential 

structures to install and maintain the 

POU devices, including changing the 

filters. Systems are also required to 

provide instructions on the proper use 

of POU devices to maximize the units’ 

lead level reduction effectiveness. 

d. Replacement of Lead Bearing 

Plumbing Materials 

Water systems that select and are 

approved to replace all lead-bearing 

plumbing and subsequently exceed the 

action level are required to replace all 

lead bearing plumbing on a schedule 

specified by the state, but not to exceed 

one year. Under the final rule, 

NTNCWSs and small CWSs that have 

control over all plumbing in its 

buildings and no LSLs may choose to 

replace all lead bearing plumbing in 

response to a lead action level 

exceedance. EPA is requiring that the 

replacement of all lead bearing 

plumbing occur on a schedule set by the 

state which must not exceed one year. 

F. Public Education 

Under the current LCR, water systems 

that exceed the lead action level must 

initiate a public education program 

within 60 days of the end of the tap 

sampling period in which the action 

level exceedance occurred. The purpose 

of public education is to inform 

consumers that elevated levels of lead 

have been found in the drinking water, 

provide information about sources of 

lead in drinking water, provide 

information about the health effects of 

lead, and explain the actions consumers 

can take to reduce exposure as well as 

the actions the water system is taking to 

reduce drinking water lead levels. 

Under the current rule, water systems 

are required to provide consumers with 

their tap sample results within 30 days. 

1. Proposed Revisions 

Proposed revisions included a 

requirement for systems to update 

public education materials with revised 

mandatory health effects language. EPA 

proposed to modify requirements to 

provide consumers with their lead tap 

sample results within 24 hours if the 

sample is greater than 15 mg/L, while 

maintaining the current rule 

requirement to provide tap sample 

results within 30 days for sample results 

less than or equal to 15 mg/L. 

EPA proposed additional public 

education requirements following a lead 

action level exceedance. EPA proposed 

that CWSs conduct annual outreach to 

state and local health agencies to 

explain the sources of lead in drinking 

water, describe health effects of lead, 

with the expectation they would explore 

collaborative efforts. EPA proposed a 

requirement for systems with LSLs to 

annually notify consumers served by an 

LSL or service line of unknown lead 

status and to provide them with public 

education annually until the LSL is 

replaced or the unknown service line is 

determined not to be an LSL. EPA 

proposed that this notification inform 

consumers of the health effects and 

sources of lead in drinking water 

(including LSLs), how to have water 

tested for lead, actions consumers can 

take to reduce exposure to lead, and 

information about the opportunities for 

LSLR, including the water system’s 

requirement to replace its portion of an 

LSL when notified by a customer that 

they intend to replace the customerowned portion of the LSL. 

EPA also proposed additional public 

education requirements for water 

systems that are required to conduct a 

goal based LSLR program but that fail to 

meet their annual LSLR goal. EPA 

proposed to require those systems to 

conduct additional public outreach 

activities to increase customer 

awareness of the potential higher 

exposure to lead from an LSL and 

advance customer interest in 

participating in the goal based LSLR 

program. EPA proposed that CWSs 

conduct one or more of the following 

annual public outreach activities, until 

the water system meets its replacement 

goal: (1) A social media campaign (e.g., 

Facebook, Twitter), (2) outreach to 

organizations representing plumbers 

and contractors to provide information 

about lead in drinking water including 

health effects, sources of lead, and the 

importance of using lead free plumbing 

materials, (3) certified mail to LSL 

customers inviting them to participate 

in the LSLR program, (4) conduct a 

town hall meeting or participate in a 

community event to provide 

information on the LSLR program, (5) 

visit targeted customers to discuss LSLR 

program and opportunities for LSLR, or 

(6) obtain written refusal from all LSL 

customers to participate in the LSLR 

program. Outreach to organizations 

representing plumbers and contractors 

is included as an outreach activity that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4223 

systems may conduct, as plumbers and 

contractors may also be a source of 

information about lead in drinking 

water for customers and may help with 

identifying LSLs during home repair. 

EPA proposed that CWSs conduct 

annual outreach to state and local health 

agencies to explain the sources of lead 

in drinking water, describe health 

effects of lead, and explore collaborative 

efforts. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA received many comments on the 

mandatory health effects language 

required in all public education 

materials, the CCR, and the 24 hour 

public notice of a lead action level 

exceedance. Some commenters 

characterized the proposed language as 

redundant, too long and not clearly 

stating the level of risk. Some 

commenters recommended using more 

definitive language about the health risk 

in adults. Some commented that the 

language improperly describes the 

scientific evidence on adult risks as 

‘‘recent.’’ Several commenters provided 

suggestions for making the language 

clearer and more concise. EPA has 

revised the mandatory health effects 

language in the final rule to address 

many of these suggestions and to 

provide better risk communication and 

improve accuracy and clarity, resulting 

in a more concise message and simpler 

sentence structure for clearer 

communication. 

EPA also received comments on the 

proposed consumer notice requirement 

for individual samples that exceed 15 

mg/L. Many commenters expressed 

concern over the ability of water 

systems to deliver a notice to consumers 

within 24 hours of learning of a tap 

sample over 15 mg/L and recommended 

that water systems be allowed two 

business days to notify consumers. After 

considering these comments, EPA has 

determined that it may not be possible 

for water systems to provide consumer 

notification within 24 hours, therefore 

the final rule will require water systems 

to provide the consumer notification as 

soon as practicable but no later than 3 

calendar days. Once systems receive tap 

sample results that exceed 15 mg/L, they 

can choose from several options that 

make it feasible to provide the consumer 

notice within 3 days, including delivery 

electronically, by phone, hand delivery, 

mailing with a post mark within 3 days, 

or any other method approved by the 

state. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

the Agency should require water 

systems to distribute public education 

materials to homes with unknown 

service line types to inform them of the 

potential for their service line to be 

made of lead and the actions they can 

take to reduce their exposure to 

drinking water lead. Many commenters 

supported the new provision and noted 

that it would encourage homeowner 

engagement in LSLR, while some 

expressed concern that notifying 

consumers that their service lines are of 

unknown lead status may cause fear and 

distrust of the water system. EPA does 

not find any compelling evidence that 

public education to consumers with 

lead status unknown service lines 

would cause increased fear and distrust 

so is finalizing requirements to notify 

customers with an LSL and lead status 

unknown lines. Persons served by a lead 

status unknown service line may decide 

to take steps to determine the material 

of their service line and/or take 

measures to reduce their potential 

exposure to lead in drinking water. 

Providing information to aid customer 

decision making should provide greater 

transparency increasing trust. 

EPA requested comment on the 

appropriateness of required outreach 

activities a water system should conduct 

if they do not meet the goal LSLR rate 

in response to a trigger level 

exceedance. EPA also requested 

comment on other actions or additional 

outreach efforts water systems could 

take to meet their LSLR goal rate. Many 

commenters supported outreach to 

encourage participation in the LSLR 

program but expressed concern about 

how well the activities followed risk 

communication best practices. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

some of the outreach activities (e.g., 

social media campaign) would exclude 

some consumers. EPA agrees that a 

social media campaign on its own may 

exclude some segments of the 

population and has revised the outreach 

requirements in the final rule to be more 

inclusive. In the final rule, conducting 

a social media campaign is still an 

option but must be accompanied by at 

least two other forms of outreach to 

ensure that water systems reach 

individuals who may not use social 

media. At least one of the activities 

must include the following: (1) Send 

certified mail to customers with lead or 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service lines, inviting them to 

participate in the LSLR program, (2) 

conduct a townhall meeting, (3) 

participate in a community event to 

provide information about its LSLR 

program and distribute public education 

materials, (4) contact customers by 

phone, text message, email or door 

hanger, or (5) use another method 

approved by the state to discuss the 

LSLR program and opportunities for 

LSLR. Many commenters suggested 

alternative means for reaching 

customers such as newspapers, 

television, radio, and reverse 911 calls, 

or that states be able to approve 

alternative methods. EPA has added 

some of the outreach efforts commenters 

suggested (e.g., newspaper, television, 

and radio) as additional options that 

CWSs may select if they continue to fail 

to meet their goal LSLR. In addition to 

conducting at least one of the above five 

activities, CWSs must conduct at least 

two activities from the following list if 

they continue to fail to meet their goal 

LSLR: (1) Conduct a social media 

campaign, (2) conduct outreach via 

newspaper, television, or radio, (3) 

contact organizations representing 

plumbers and contractors by mail to 

provide information about lead in 

drinking water, or (4) visit targeted 

customers to discuss the LSLR program 

and opportunities for replacement. 

EPA requested comment on the 

appropriateness, frequency, and content 

of required outreach to state and local 

health agencies and whether the 

requirement should apply only to a 

subset of the country’s CWSs. Many 

commenters supported requiring water 

systems to engage with public health 

agencies; however, they expressed 

concern that an annual report from all 

CWSs to local and state health agencies 

would not be an effective way to 

encourage collaboration and would 

overload health agencies with virtually 

the same information. Some 

commenters suggested that the outreach 

requirement be limited to CWSs with 

action level exceedances or CWSs with 

LSLs. Additionally, many commenters 

recommended that outreach be led by 

the state. EPA acknowledges concerns 

about the amount of information health 

agencies would be receiving from water 

systems; however, under the final rule 

each CWS will provide unique 

information. In addition to providing 

important information on sources of 

lead in drinking water and actions to 

reduce lead in drinking water that 

health agencies may incorporate in their 

lead poisoning program materials, CWSs 

must also provide system-specific 

information about find-and-fix activities 

and information about school and child 

care facility testing. Therefore, it is 

important that all CWSs provide this 

information so that the state and local 

health agencies in their service area can 

evaluate it along with other data they 

may have such as blood lead levels and 

take steps to investigate other potential 

sources of lead in the communities they 

serve. The purpose of this outreach is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

also to provide an opportunity for CWSs 

to explore collaborative efforts with 

local and state health agencies and work 

together on public education programs; 

therefore, EPA believes it is important 

for all CWSs to participate. 

Collaborating with local and state health 

agencies serves as an additional way for 

CWSs to reach consumers who may be 

affected by lead in their drinking water, 

so they can take measures to reduce 

their exposure. 

Many commenters requested 

clarification of whether this provision 

requires systems to provide public 

education to health care providers and 

caregivers. EPA acknowledges 

commenters’ confusion and has clarified 

that is not required in the final rule. The 

requirement is for annual outreach to 

local and state health agencies. Some 

commenters also expressed concern 

with the January 15 deadline and 

recommended that it be conducted on 

the same schedule with the Consumer 

Confidence Report (CCR) or other 

required outreach. In response, EPA has 

updated the reporting date to July 1, 

consistent with the CCR. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

EPA is requiring public education 

materials to include the following 

revised mandatory health effects 

statement: 

Exposure to lead in drinking water 

can cause serious health effects in all 

age groups. Infants and children can 

have decreases in IQ and attention span. 

Lead exposure can lead to new learning 

and behavior problems or exacerbate 

existing learning and behavior 

problems. The children of women who 

are exposed to lead before or during 

pregnancy can have increased risk of 

these adverse health effects. Adults can 

have increased risks of heart disease, 

high blood pressure, kidney or nervous 

system problems. 

EPA is requiring that water systems 

must notify persons served at the 

sampling site for any individual tap 

sample that exceeds 15 mg/L, as soon as 

practicable but no later than 3 days after 

receiving the sampling results. This is in 

addition to the existing LCR 

requirement to provide a notice of the 

individual tap sample results from lead 

testing to persons served at the sampling 

site, which must be sent within 30 days 

of receiving results. For tap samples that 

do not exceed 15 mg/L, the 30-day 

consumer notice will remain in effect. 

In the final rule, water systems that have 

individual tap samples greater than 15 

mg/L must also implement the ‘‘findand-fix’’ provisions as described in 

section III.K of this preamble. 

EPA is requiring systems with lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines in 

their inventory to notify and provide 

public education materials to 

households served by a lead, galvanized 

requiring replacement, or lead status 

unknown service line. Targeted public 

education for persons served by a lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service line is 

intended to raise awareness of people in 

a household that may have higher lead 

exposures so that they may take actions 

to reduce exposure to lead and 

participate in LSLR programs. CWSs 

must provide this notification and 

public education annually until the LSL 

or galvanized requiring replacement 

service line is replaced or the lead status 

unknown service line is determined not 

to be an LSL. The notice is required to 

include a statement that the person 

served by the water system has an LSL, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service line, 

information on the health effects of lead, 

and actions they can take to reduce 

exposure to lead. For persons served by 

an LSL or galvanized requiring 

replacement service line, the notice 

must also provide information about the 

opportunities for LSLR, including the 

water system’s requirement to replace 

its portion of an LSL when notified by 

a property owner that they intend to 

replace their portion of the LSL. This 

notification must include a description 

of any programs that provide financing 

solutions for property owners seeking to 

replace their portion of an LSL, if such 

funding is available. For persons served 

by a lead status unknown service line, 

this notice must include information 

about ways that homeowners can verify 

the material of the service line. EPA is 

also requiring water systems with LSLs 

that exceed the lead trigger level of 10 

mg/L to provide information about their 

LSLR program and opportunities for 

LSLR to persons served by LSLs or lead 

status unknown service lines. Systems 

must send the notification within 30 

days of the end of the monitoring period 

in which the trigger level exceedance 

occurred and repeat it annually until the 

system is no longer in exceedance. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring water 

systems that cause a disturbance to a 

lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 

or lead status unknown service line to 

notify persons at the service connection 

and provide them with information to 

reduce their exposure to potentially 

elevated lead levels. This can include 

disturbances resulting in the water to an 

individual service line being shut off or 

bypassed, such as operating a valve on 

a service line or meter setter. It can also 

include disturbances caused by partial 

or full LSLR or those resulting from the 

replacement of an inline water meter, a 

water meter setter, or gooseneck, pigtail, 

or connector. 

EPA is requiring CWSs serving more 

than 10,000 persons that fail to meet 

their annual LSLR goal to conduct 

additional public outreach activities. 

Failure to meet the LSLR goal, by itself, 

will not be a violation of the treatment 

technique or monitoring and reporting 

requirements; however, failure to 

conduct public outreach activities will 

result in a treatment technique 

violation. To increase customer 

awareness of the potential higher 

exposure to lead from an LSL and 

advance customer interest in 

participating in the goal based LSLR 

program, water systems must conduct 

annual public outreach activities until 

the water system meets its replacement 

goal or a water system is no longer 

required to perform a goal based LSLR 

program. To enhance community 

engagement and allow water system 

flexibility as suggested by the NDWAC, 

EPA is providing options to meet this 

requirement, so water systems can 

conduct effective community 

engagement. A water system that does 

not meet its LSLR goal rate must select 

at least one of the following outreach 

activities to conduct in the following 

year: (1) Send certified mail to 

customers with lead or galvanized 

requiring replacement service lines 

inviting them to participate in the LSLR 

program, (2) conduct a town hall 

meeting, (3) participate in a community 

event to provide information on the 

LSLR program and distribute public 

education materials, (4) contact 

customers by phone, text message, 

email, or door hanger, or (5) use another 

method approved by the state to discuss 

the LSLR program and opportunities for 

LSLR. If the water system continues to 

fail to meet the annual replacement goal 

in the following year, the water system 

must conduct one of the above activities 

and at least two additional outreach 

activities per year from the following 

activities to promote participation in the 

LSLR program: (1) Conduct a social 

media campaign (e.g., Facebook, 

Twitter), (2) conduct outreach via 

newspaper, television, or radio, (3) 

contact organizations representing 

plumbers and contractors by mail to 

provide information about lead in 

drinking water including health effects, 

sources of lead, and the importance of 

using lead free plumbing materials, (4) 

visit targeted customers to discuss the 

LSLR program and opportunities for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4225 

replacement, or (5) obtain written 

refusal from all LSL or galvanized 

requiring replacement service line 

customers to participate in the LSLR 

program. A refusal includes a signed or 

verbal statement by the customer 

refusing LSLR, or documentation of no 

response after two good faith attempts to 

reach the customer. Water systems must 

provide written certification to the state 

that they have conducted the required 

outreach activities under this rule. 

In addition, EPA is requiring that 

CWSs conduct annual outreach to state 

and local health agencies to discuss the 

sources of lead in drinking water, health 

effects of lead, steps to reduce exposure 

to lead in drinking water, and 

information on find-and-fix activities. 

CWSs are expected to use this as an 

opportunity to collaborate with state 

and local health agencies. State and 

local health agencies include the state 

health department and city or county 

health department. For tribal systems, 

this would be the Indian Health Service 

Area, Division of Environmental Health 

Services program, or applicable tribal 

program if administered through selfdetermination contracts or compacts 

under the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act. This 

annual outreach will provide an 

opportunity for water utilities to 

participate in joint communication 

efforts, led by state health departments, 

state lead poisoning prevention 

agencies, and/or state drinking water 

primacy agencies (NDWAC, 2015). By 

working together, CWSs and health 

agencies can help ensure that caregivers, 

health care providers, and communities 

they serve hear and respond 

appropriately to information about lead 

in drinking water. CWSs may also use 

this as an opportunity to develop public 

education materials in consultation with 

health agencies. EPA is clarifying the 

content of the annual outreach to local 

and state health agencies in the final 

rule to include providing information 

about find-and-fix activities conducted 

in the previous calendar year, including 

the location of the tap sample site that 

exceeded 15 mg/L, the result of the 

initial tap sample, the result of the 

follow up tap sample, the result of water 

quality parameter monitoring and any 

distribution system management actions 

or corrosion control treatment 

adjustments made. EPA is also changing 

the reporting date from January 15 to 

July 1 to coincide with notifying local 

and state health agencies of school 

sampling results, consistent with the 

CCR. CWSs may send one letter that 

covers both find-and-fix activities and 

school sampling results to local and 

state health agencies. 

EPA is requiring that small CWSs and 

NTNCWSs that select POU devices as 

their compliance option in response to 

a lead action level exceedance must 

provide public education materials to 

inform users how to properly use POU 

devices to maximize the units’ 

effectiveness in reducing lead levels in 

drinking water. 

G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead 

and Copper in Tap Water Sampling 

1. Proposed Revisions 

Several changes to the LCR were 

proposed in the LCRR to improve tap 

sampling requirements in the areas of 

site selection tiering criteria, sample 

collection methods, and sampling 

frequency. In addition, to improve 

transparency and raise consumer 

awareness, EPA proposed that water 

systems make the results of these tap 

samples publicly available within 60 

days of the end of the tap sampling 

monitoring period. 

EPA proposed revisions to tiering 

criteria for selection of tap sampling 

sites to better target locations expected 

to have higher levels of lead in drinking 

water. Under the proposed LCRR, Tier 

1 sampling sites for CWSs consist of 

single-family structures (SFS) that are 

served by an LSL. When multiple-family 

residences (MFRs) comprise at least 20 

percent of the structures served by a 

water system, the water system may 

include these types of structures (served 

by an LSL) in its sampling pool as Tier 

1 sampling sites. However, a large 

apartment building would be unlikely to 

have an LSL. EPA proposed Tier 2 

sampling sites for CWSs to be buildings, 

including MFRs that are served by an 

LSL. EPA also proposed that Tier 3 

sampling sites for CWSs consist of SFSs 

that contain copper pipes with lead 

solder installed before the effective date 

of the applicable state’s lead ban. EPA 

proposed that NTNCWS Tier 1 sampling 

sites consist of buildings that are served 

by an LSL and the remaining tap 

samples be taken at buildings with 

copper pipe and lead solder installed 

before the effective date of the 

applicable state’s lead ban (Tier 3 sites). 

EPA did not modify the definition of a 

‘‘representative site’’ but referred to it as 

a ‘‘Tier 4’’ site in the proposal. 

EPA proposed additional 

requirements for water systems to 

enable prioritization of LSL sites in tap 

sampling. Under the LCRR proposal, all 

water systems with LSLs or potential 

LSLs must re-evaluate their lead 

sampling sites based on their LSL 

inventory. These water systems would 

be required to update their inventory 

annually and ensure tap sampling sites 

are served by an LSL. Under the current 

LCR, water systems with LSLs must 

collect at least half of their tap samples 

from sites with known LSLs. However, 

in the proposal, water systems with 

LSLs would be required to collect all tap 

samples from sites with known LSLs if 

possible. Under the proposal, water 

systems with an adequate number of 

LSL sites to meet the required minimum 

number of tap sampling sites must 

calculate their lead 90th percentile 

using only tap samples from LSL sites 

(100 percent LSLs). 

EPA proposed that if a water system 

does not have an adequate number of 

LSL sites to meet the minimum number 

of tap samples to calculate the 90th 

percentile level, it may collect the 

remainder of the samples from non-LSL 

sites only after all the LSL tap sampling 

sites are utilized. If the water system 

conducts tap sampling at non-LSL sites 

beyond what is required, EPA proposed 

that the water system could only 

include the tap samples with the highest 

lead concentrations to meet the number 

of requisite sites for the 90th percentile 

calculation. EPA also proposed that tap 

samples collected which are not used in 

the lead 90th percentile calculation 

must still be reported to the state. 

EPA proposed the use of 

grandfathered data to determine their 

tap sampling monitoring schedule if the 

data were from sites that met new 

requirements. Water systems that collect 

lead tap samples after the publication 

date of the final rule, but before the rule 

compliance date (three years after final 

rule publication), in accordance with 

the proposed tap sample site selection 

criteria, could use data to determine the 

tap sampling monitoring schedule. EPA 

proposed that water systems which do 

not have qualifying grandfathered data, 

must use the lead 90th percentile results 

from the first tap sampling monitoring 

period after the compliance date of the 

final rule. There were no proposed 

changes to the copper sampling 

requirements. However, due to the 

proposed increased tap sampling 

frequency requirements for lead, each 

tap sample collected may not need to be 

analyzed for both lead and copper as 

schedules may diverge for some water 

systems. 

EPA proposed a lead trigger level of 

10 mg/L which affects the tap sampling 

frequency. Under the proposal, water 

systems that exceed the lead trigger 

level of 10 mg/L but do not exceed the 

copper and lead action levels and are 

conducting tap sampling on a triennial 

basis, would begin annual tap sampling 

at the standard number of sites for lead 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

but may remain on triennial sampling 

for copper at the reduced number of 

sites. EPA proposed that water systems 

that do not exceed the lead trigger level 

for three consecutive years of annual 

monitoring could reduce their lead 

monitoring to triennial at the reduced 

number of sites. 

Under the proposal, qualification for 

reduced monitoring would be 

contingent upon several factors, 

including but not limited to, results of 

lead and copper tap sampling, the size 

of the water system, and maintaining 

water quality parameters (WQPs) for 

optimized CCT. The schedule for tap 

sampling may be affected when these 

factors change. Criteria for reduction in 

tap sampling frequency and number of 

sites were more stringent in the 

proposal compared to the current rule. 

A water system must not exceed the 

trigger level of 10 mg/L to be eligible for 

a triennial monitoring schedule at the 

reduced number of tap sample sites for 

lead, and large water systems are not 

eligible for triennial monitoring unless 

they meet the practical quantitation 

level (PQL). The proposed revisions to 

tap sampling frequency and locations 

were meant to ensure more frequent tap 

sampling would occur at sites more 

likely to have elevated lead levels. 

EPA proposed several changes to the 

tap sampling protocol, consistent with 

the Agency’s February 2016 

memorandum (USEPA, 2016d). 

Specifically, EPA proposed to prohibit 

tap sample instructions that include 

pre-stagnation flushing, aerator removal 

prior to tap sampling, and use of narrow 

mouth collection bottles. EPA also 

proposed that tap samples be collected 

in wide-mouth bottles that are one liter 

in volume. Wide-mouth bottles are 

advantageous for lead and copper tap 

samples because they allow for a higher 

water flow rate compared to a narrownecked bottle. Collection of tap samples 

using a wide-mouth bottle is more 

characteristic of faucet water flow when 

filling a glass of water. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA did not propose to change the 

current LCR sampling protocol 

requirement for samples to be one liter 

first draw tap samples. However, EPA 

did request comment on alternative tap 

sampling procedures for locations with 

an LSL; specifically, whether water 

systems with LSLs should collect a tap 

sample representative of water in 

contact with the LSL (i.e., the ‘‘fifth 

liter’’). EPA received a wide variety of 

comments on this topic, with many in 

support of the fifth liter and several 

opposed to it. Some commenters 

suggested collecting both a first liter and 

a fifth liter sample and using the highest 

copper and lead result in the 90th 

percentile calculation. Others 

commented on the method in EPA’s 

request for comment of collecting a first 

draw copper sample and a fifth liter 

lead sample. Those that supported 

collecting a fifth liter state that the 

current first liter tap sampling protocol 

does not capture lead from the highest 

source, the LSL, thereby providing a 

false sense of security to residents, 

while a fifth liter could more accurately 

capture the highest lead levels at the 

site. These commenters state that the 

first liter protocol fails to measure the 

impact of the greatest contributor to lead 

levels in the home, the LSL. 

Commenters emphasized that the first 

liter can capture lead from premise 

plumbing but does not effectively 

capture lead levels from the service line, 

since it may extend 50 feet or more from 

the building. Commenters stated the 

fifth liter sample will better identify 

systems that should take action to 

address elevated lead levels. The 

commenters that were opposed to the 

fifth liter sample, stated that this 

technique would be too complicated for 

residents to carry out, resulting in more 

confusion and sampling errors. 

Commenters noted that if the fifth liter 

sample option is finalized, samplers 

will need to be well trained in this 

method. Other commenters disagreed 

with the fifth liter sample, because they 

argue it is not consistent with how a 

consumer would use the water. 

Tap sampling is required under the 

LCR to evaluate the effectiveness of 

corrosion control treatment and to 

determine if additional actions 

including LSLR are needed to reduce 

drinking water lead exposure. EPA 

agrees with commenters who support 

the fifth liter sample option for locations 

with LSLs. EPA has determined that in 

locations with LSLs, first liter samples 

can underestimate system lead levels 

compared to a fifth liter sample. Such 

underestimation of system lead levels 

based on first-draw sampling could 

allow water systems to be unaware that 

their corrosion control treatment is not 

working well (Lytle et al., 2019). 

Without appropriate awareness from tap 

sampling, systems will not take actions 

to reduce lead exposure and 

communicate lead in drinking water 

risks to consumers. 

Numerous studies have evaluated the 

contribution of lead in drinking water 

from different sources (e.g., service 

lines, faucets, meters). A study 

published by American Water Works 

Association (AWWA) Water Research 

Foundation (2008) ‘‘Contributions of 

Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to 

Lead and Copper Rule Compliance 

Issues’’ (Sandvig et al., 2008) estimates 

that 50 percent to 75 percent of lead in 

drinking water comes from LSLs. Thus, 

when present, LSLs are the greatest 

contributor of lead in a home’s drinking 

water. Research using sequential tap 

sample collection techniques on homes 

with LSLs indicates that a first draw 

sample may not represent the significant 

contributions of LSLs to a home’s 

drinking water lead levels (Lytle et al., 

2019). Therefore, relying on first liter 

samples for lead could allow a situation 

in which there may be high lead levels 

in a system but a 90th percentile 

concentration below the trigger level or 

action level. 

Given that LSLs are the greatest 

contributor of lead in drinking water, 

EPA reviewed the sampling data in the 

AwwaRF, 2008, Del Toral, 2013, and 

Lytle et al., 2019 studies to determine 

the liter in any given sequential 

sampling profile that was most likely to 

contain the water that remained 

stagnant within a customer-owned LSL. 

Based on this information, EPA selected 

the fifth liter as the most likely to 

capture this water and any elevated 

levels of lead. Additionally, the fifth 

liter is more likely to capture the water 

from the customer-owned portion of the 

service line, which may remain in place 

from partial LSLRs conducted by 

systems under the previous rule. The 

first draw sample represents water that 

has traveled through the service line but 

that has sat in contact with the 

plumbing materials inside the home 

prior to the tap for the stagnation 

period. The first draw is an effective 

sampling technique to identify lead 

corrosion from taps, solder, pipes and 

fittings within the home but is not an 

effective sampling approach to capture 

corrosion from LSLs. Therefore, the 

final LCRR requires systems to collect 

fifth liter samples at LSL sites because 

the data gathered from fifth liter 

samples to calculate the 90th percentile 

is a better indicator of the effectiveness 

of corrosion control treatment in a 

system. 

EPA finds that requiring the fifth liter 

sample for tap sampling would be more 

representative of lead concentrations in 

service lines than the first liter sample, 

which will provide better information 

on the highest concentration of lead in 

the system’s drinking water. This better 

information will more appropriately 

identify the need for required actions 

designed to reduce lead and copper 

exposure by ensuring effective CCT and 

re-optimization of CCT when water 

quality declines; enhancing water 

quality parameter (WQP) monitoring; 

implementing a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ process 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4227 

to evaluate and remediate elevated lead 

at a site where the individual tap 

sample exceeds 15 mg/L; and making 

consumers aware of the presence of a 

LSL, if applicable, to facilitate 

replacement of LSLs. 

EPA disagrees with commenters who 

stated that a fifth liter sample option is 

too complicated for samplers to 

perform. To address commenters’ 

concern regarding the proposed fifth 

liter protocol, EPA modified it to no 

longer require the use of a gallon 

container as some customers may not be 

able to manage a gallon container of 

water. EPA also modified the protocol 

so that samplers collect five one liter 

bottles which allows for collection of a 

first liter for copper analysis and a fifth 

liter for lead analysis, thus reducing the 

potential need for two separate 

sampling events. Although there are 

additional steps in the fifth liter 

protocol for LSL sites, EPA will work 

with states and stakeholders to provide 

templates for sampling instructions that 

are clear and simple. Samplers will be 

able to collect samples in accordance to 

this new protocol with minimal error. 

The EPA disagrees with commenters 

who stated that the fifth liter sample 

option should not be required because 

it does not represent water that is 

typically consumed. The LCR tap 

sampling requirements are not intended 

to represent typical consumption; 

rather, the tap sampling is intended to 

determine the effectiveness of corrosion 

control treatment and to determine if 

additional actions are needed including 

LSLR to reduce drinking water exposure 

to lead. 

EPA received many comments on the 

proposed tiering criteria for selection of 

tap sampling sites. Some commenters 

stated the proposed tiers were biasing 

samples against copper sites and 

suggested EPA should diversify tap 

sample sites. Other comments suggested 

the removal of Tier 2 sites altogether 

due to the difficulty of reaching this 

population to carry out the sampling. 

EPA disagrees with these comments 

because the changes in the tiering 

requirements are designed to increase 

the likelihood of collecting tap samples 

at sites expected to have elevated lead 

levels. Many commenters recommended 

EPA modify the tiers to consider sites 

with plumbing materials other than 

LSLs, such as galvanized pipes, lead 

goosenecks, and other lead fittings. 

Some of these comments raised 

concerns about water systems with few 

or no LSLs, but that have galvanized 

service lines impacted by lead, or lead 

goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors in 

their distribution system. Several 

comments supported the proposed 

tiering criteria, while others offered 

alternative approaches. EPA agrees that 

galvanized service lines impacted by 

lead, or lead goosenecks, pigtails, or 

connectors should be considered in the 

tiering criteria for selecting tap samples 

and has modified the final rule to reflect 

this. 

Many commenters requested 

clarification on how the 90th percentile 

calculation should be performed when 

systems have a mix of Tier 1 through 4 

sites. Commenters suggest that for 

systems with a mix of Tier 1 through 4 

sites, they should not be permitted to 

‘‘dilute’’ the sampling pool with Tier 4 

sites if they have a sufficient number of 

Tier 3 sites, similar to how EPA 

proposed calculating the 90th percentile 

when there is a mix of Tier 1 and Tier 

2 sites. EPA agrees and notes this is 

addressed in the regulatory text under 

§ 141.86(a). For example, for a water 

system to use Tier 4 sites it must have 

an insufficient number of Tier 1 through 

3 sites: A CWS with insufficient Tier 1, 

Tier 2, and Tier 3 sampling sites shall 

complete its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 4 

sampling sites’’. 

Many commenters state that the rule 

does not capture worst-case scenario 

copper concentrations, since the 

proposed tiering criteria focus on high 

risk sites for lead. While EPA agrees 

more emphasis has been placed on LSL 

sites, water systems without LSLs will 

be focusing on sites with copper pipe 

with lead solder. 

Several commenters asked that the 

method for calculating the 90th 

percentile in the current rule be 

maintained. A commenter noted how 

follow-up samples from find-and-fix are 

not included in the 90th percentile 

calculation and suggested that if the 

follow-up sample provides information 

confirming that the initial sample was 

taken in error, the initial sample result 

should not be used in the 90th 

percentile calculation Several 

commenters also requested clarification 

whether follow-up samples taken after a 

partial or full LSLR are included in the 

90th percentile calculation. Some 

commenters disagree with this 

inclusion, stating it may deter water 

systems from carrying out replacement 

activities. EPA clarifies that follow-up 

samples collected under the find-and-fix 

provisions or after a LSLR are not 

included in the 90th percentile 

calculation but must be submitted to the 

state. The find-and-fix samples may be 

outside of the tap sampling monitoring 

period or collected using a different tap 

sample protocol. 

EPA received many comments on the 

tap sampling protocol in the proposed 

LCRR. EPA proposed the use of widemouth collection bottles and the 

prohibition of flushing the taps prior to 

the 6-hour stagnation period and 

cleaning or removing tap aerators in 

anticipation of sampling. Many 

commenters supported these updated 

provisions, stating it will limit these 

practices which were altering sample 

results and could make them lower, 

while others disagreed with them, 

stating it will negatively impact lead 

results. In addition, some commenters 

explained that there is confusion when, 

in certain cases, customers should be 

flushing stagnant water out of taps or 

cleaning aerators to prevent lead 

exposure. EPA disagrees with 

commenters who were in favor of 

allowing pre-stagnation flushing in LCR 

tap sampling. Flushing, or running taps, 

has long been understood to decrease 

water lead levels in a home, and thus 

has been a recommendation by Federal, 

state, and local authorities as a way to 

reduce lead exposure prior to water use, 

especially in residences of higher risk 

(e.g., houses containing LSLs) as well as 

a beneficial practice at homes that may 

have lead solder or faucets and fixtures 

that are not ‘‘lead-free’’. Flushing 

removes water that may be in contact 

with LSLs for extended periods of time, 

which is when lead typically leaches 

into drinking water (USEPA, 2016). As 

a general matter, EPA recommends 

consumers flush taps as a regular public 

health protective practice to reduce 

household exposure to lead in drinking 

water. However, in the case of collecting 

tap samples to determine whether 

corrosion control is effective or 

additional actions must be taken to 

reduce exposure, this practice may mask 

potential higher lead levels and is 

prohibited in this final rule. EPA also 

disagrees with commenters that 

supported removing and cleaning the 

faucet aerator prior to sampling. The 

taps used for monitoring likely contain 

an aerator as part of the faucet assembly, 

and particulate matter, including lead, 

may accumulate within these aerators. 

Thus, removing and/or cleaning these 

aerators just prior to sample collection 

could mask the contribution of 

particulate lead. It is advisable to 

regularly remove and clean faucet 

aerators to avoid particulate matter 

build-up. As a general matter, EPA 

recommends consumers clean faucet 

aerators as a regular public health 

protective practice to reduce household 

exposure to lead in drinking water. 

However, if customers only remove and 

clean the aerators before sample 

collection, the sample results will not be 

representative. Thus, EPA has 

prohibited the removal and/or cleaning 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

of the faucet aerator as part of the 

procedures for collection of lead and 

copper tap samples. 

EPA did not propose revisions to the 

requirement that tap samples be taken 

after the water has stood motionless in 

the plumbing system for at least six 

hours. Some commenters asked that a 

maximum stagnation time also be 

included in the protocol to avoid 

situations where water has been 

stagnant for such an extended period of 

time (i.e., vacation homes) that results 

would not be representative of regular 

use. EPA does not believe that a 

maximum stagnation period is 

necessary for the rule. Water systems 

can choose other sites from the same tier 

in the sample pool if they are aware that 

this is a problem. Therefore, EPA has 

not added a maximum stagnation time 

into the final rule requirements. 

Several commenters suggested that 

EPA include alternative sampling 

techniques such as random-daytime 

sampling or using filters to measure the 

lead levels after water is used under 

normal circumstances for a specified 

period of time. EPA considered 

suggestions for other sampling 

methodologies such as random-daytime 

sampling. EPA disagrees with these 

commenters. EPA determined that first 

liter samples at non-LSL sites and the 

fifth liter at LSL sites are the most 

appropriate means to evaluate CCT for 

both lead and copper. Suggested 

methods such as random-daytime 

sampling are too complex for 

compliance sampling that is 

implemented by customers and would 

require an increased cost and burden to 

water systems. Random daytime 

sampling is a practice that collects 

samples at random locations in the 

distribution system at random times 

throughout the day. Lead levels vary 

significantly from location to location 

based upon differing plumbing 

materials. Lead levels also vary over 

time based upon water use at a location. 

The LCRR controls for these variables by 

tiering sampling locations to select sites 

with leaded plumbing materials and by 

requiring a stagnation period prior to 

collecting a sample. These protocols 

will assure that elevated lead levels will 

be found, if present, which enables the 

system to evaluate corrosion. 

EPA proposed to expand to all 

systems the current LCR requirement 

applicable to most systems that change 

their source water or make a significant 

treatment change, to obtain approval 

from their primacy agency prior to 

making the change. EPA requested 

comment on whether the regulation 

should specify a minimum tap sampling 

frequency following the source water 

change or significant treatment change 

and if so, whether it should be annual 

or biannual tap sampling. EPA received 

substantial comments from this request. 

Some commenters asked EPA to define 

‘‘significant’’ as this can include a wide 

range of changes, some of which may 

not warrant increased sampling 

requirements. They noted that there are 

several factors that come into play that 

should determine the appropriate tap 

sampling frequency following the 

change, factors include: Full water 

quality parameter sampling of the new 

source, applicable saturation indices 

results, current or proposed corrosion 

control treatment, blending with 

existing sources, size of system, and 

previous LCR tap sampling. 

Some commenters expressed that this 

should be determined by the state based 

on these factors and the risk profile of 

the type of change proposed. Many 

commenters asked EPA to establish a 

minimum tap sampling frequency of 

every six months following these 

changes to fully account for the impact 

to water quality from the addition or 

change in source water or long term 

treatment while others stated annual 

monitoring would be appropriate 

because it is more feasible for water 

systems. Some requested six-month 

monitoring for new sources and annual 

monitoring for treatment changes. After 

a full evaluation of these comments, 

EPA has determined a minimum tap 

sampling frequency of once every six 

months following a change in source 

water or a significant treatment change 

is appropriate. Deterioration in water 

quality or unintended consequences of 

source water or treatment changes will 

be more quickly identified and therefore 

addressed when tap sampling occurs 

every six months. To provide additional 

clarification if a significant change 

would include any long-term change in 

treatment and the addition of a new 

source as specified in § 141.90(a)(3), 

which includes examples of long term 

treatment changes. States have the 

expertise to determine which changes 

qualify as significant to warrant 

standard 6-month monitoring. 

EPA received comments on customerrequested tap sampling. Many 

commenters disagreed with including 

the results of this sampling in the 90th 

percentile. They state that EPA should 

provide clear guidance on how to 

discard these samples before including 

them in the calculation. However, other 

commenters mention how carrying out 

customer-requested tap sampling is 

positive and can empower customers to 

take action upon receipt of results. 

Others assert that when samples are 

taken upon customer request, they 

should be collected with the standard 

compliance protocol to standardize the 

sampling process, especially if they are 

included in the 90th percentile 

calculation. Some commenters asked 

how to include these samples in the 

compliance pool and whether they 

should be included only if they are sites 

served by an LSL. Some asked for 

clarification on customer-requested 

samples that are collected outside of the 

compliance period or not in accordance 

with the tap sampling compliance 

protocol. EPA agrees that samples taken 

upon customer-request should be used 

in the 90th percentile calculation only 

if they are from known LSL sites (or 

appropriate tier if no LSLs), collected 

during the tap sampling period, and use 

the appropriate tap sampling protocol. 

EPA encourages water systems to create 

and maintain a program for testing at 

residences where customers request it 

and to share the sampling results with 

customers. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

The frequency of monitoring and 

number of samples to be collected and 

analyzed is based primarily on how 

many people the water system serves 

and previous tap water monitoring 

results. If residents are collecting tap 

samples, the water system must recruit 

volunteers at the sites that are most 

likely to have elevated lead based on the 

tiering criteria described in the section 

below. 

To the extent feasible, water systems 

are required to use the same tap sample 

sites each monitoring period. If a 

resident decides to discontinue 

participation in tap sampling, the water 

system must select a similarly ‘‘tiered’’ 

site. Due to potential non-response from 

resident volunteers, EPA recommends 

including more sampling sites in the 

pool of targeted sampling sites than is 

required. The water system is required 

to calculate a 90th percentile of the 

sampling results from all sites 

separately for lead and copper at the 

end of each monitoring period. This 

90th percentile value is reported to the 

state and used to determine whether the 

system must comply with other 

requirements of the rule, such as 

corrosion control treatment, source 

water monitoring, public education, and 

LSLR. Water systems with LSLs are 

required to collect samples from all LSL 

sites (Tier 1 and 2) unless there is an 

insufficient number to meet the 

minimum number of samples required. 

In those cases, the water system must 

use Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites, in that order. 

In the final rule, EPA revised the tap 

sample tiering criteria to include 5 tiers 

for several reasons. First, this revision 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4229 

ensures that priority is given to highest 

risk lead sources in the absence of LSLs; 

galvanized service lines that have been 

impacted by a lead source such as lead 

goosenecks, pigtails and connectors. 

Galvanized lines that are or were 

downstream of a lead source such as a 

LSL can contribute to lead in drinking 

water. These lines have zinc coating 

containing lead that can leach into 

drinking water when corroded. They 

also can capture lead from upstream 

lead sources and release lead if water 

quality changes or these pipes are 

disturbed. These sites have been 

designated as Tier 3. In this way, these 

materials are prioritized in tap sampling 

site selection and will be sampled for 

non-LSL systems that have these. In the 

final rule, Tier 4 sites will be comprised 

of single-family structures containing 

copper pipes with lead solder and Tier 

5 sites are representative of sites 

throughout the distribution system. 

NTNCWSs must sample at sites with 

LSLs (Tier 1), unless they have 

insufficient numbers to meet the 

minimum requirement of sites, then 

they can choose from Tier 3 sites and 

then Tier 5 sites. 

REVISED LEAD AND COPPER SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

Tier 

CWS NTNCWS 

Proposed rule Final rule Proposed rule Final rule 

Tier 1 ............... Collect samples from SFSs served 

by LSLs. Tier 1 samples can be 

collected from MFRs if they represent at least 20 percent of 

structures served by the water 

system.

Collect samples from SFSs served 

by LSLs. Tier 1 samples can be 

collected from MFRs if they represent at least 20 percent of 

structures served by the water 

system.

Collect samples from building 

served by LSL.

Collect samples from buildings 

served by LSL. 

Tier 2 ............... Collect samples from buildings and 

MFRs served by LSLs.

Collect samples from buildings and 

MFRs served by LSLs.

N/A ................................................. N/A. 

Tier 3 ............... Collect samples from SFSs with 

copper pipes with lead solder installed before the effective date 

of the state’s lead ban.

Collect samples from SFSs with 

galvanized service lines downstream of an LSL, currently or in 

the past or known to be downstream of a lead connector.

Collect samples from buildings 

with copper pipe and lead solder 

installed before the effective 

date of the state’s lead ban.

Collect samples from SFSs with 

galvanized service lines downstream of an LSL, currently or in 

the past or known to be downstream of a lead connector. 

Tier 4 ............... Representative sample where the 

plumbing is similar to that used 

at other sites served.

Collect samples from SFSs with 

copper pipes with lead solder installed before the effective date 

of the state’s lead ban.

Representative sample where the 

plumbing is similar to that used 

at other sites served..

N/A. 

Tier 5 ............... N/A ................................................. Representative sample where the 

plumbing is similar to that used 

at other sites served.

N/A ................................................. Representative sample where the 

plumbing is similar to that used 

at other sites served. 

Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LSL = lead service line; MFR = multi-family residence; N/A = not applicable; NTNCWS = non-transient non-community 

water system; SFS = single family structure. 

In the final rule, EPA made significant 

changes to the tap sample collection 

protocol under § 141.86(b). For LSL 

sites, a first liter and a fifth liter must 

be collected and analyzed. The first liter 

analyzed for copper and the fifth liter 

for lead. Water systems without LSL 

sites must collect a first draw one-liter 

sample for analysis for lead and copper. 

The fifth liter protocol requirements are 

described in § 141.86(b). This change to 

the overall protocol from first draw to 

fifth liter sample will increase the 

likelihood that the highest levels of lead 

will be captured, and appropriately 

trigger systems into improved corrosion 

control treatment, LSLR and public 

education programs to reduce drinking 

water lead exposure. Only sites served 

by an LSL will collect a fifth liter for 

lead analysis. A first-draw sample will 

be retained for copper analysis at these 

sites. For sites not served by an LSL, a 

first-draw sample will be collected and 

analyzed for lead and/or copper 

depending on the water system’s 

monitoring schedules for lead and 

copper. 

EPA is finalizing the modifications to 

the tap sampling protocol regarding the 

removal and cleaning of aerators and 

pre-stagnation flushing in anticipations 

of sampling efforts. EPA is also 

promulgating the requirement that all 

tap samples be collected in wide-mouth 

sample bottles so that collection is 

occurring when the faucet is flowing at 

a high rate, typical of normal water use 

such as pouring a glass of water. 

EPA added a requirement for tap 

sampling every six months following 

the addition of a new source water or a 

long-term change in treatment in the 

final rule unless the state determines 

that the addition of the new source or 

long term treatment change is not 

significant and therefore does not 

warrant more frequent monitoring. The 

new requirement is described in 

§ 141.86(d)(2)(iv). 

H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring 

1. Proposed Revisions 

Under the current LCR, water systems 

that have CCT monitor water quality 

parameters (WQPs) to ensure effective 

CCT. WQP samples must be collected at 

taps every six months and at entry 

points to the distribution system every 

six months prior to CCT installation and 

every two weeks thereafter. EPA 

proposed several revisions to the WQP 

monitoring requirements. EPA proposed 

to eliminate calcium carbonate 

stabilization as a potential option for 

CCT and thus, to remove the WQPs 

associated directly with this CCT option 

(e.g., all parameters related to calcium 

hardness (calcium, conductivity, and 

water temperature)). 

EPA proposed additional WQP 

monitoring samples be collected by 

water systems that have CCT and that 

have any individual tap sample(s) with 

lead results exceeding 15 mg/L. The 

additional WQP monitoring is a part of 

proposed provisions for ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

(see section III.K. of this preamble), 

which would require water systems to 

collect follow-up lead tap samples at 

every sampling site that has an 

individual lead sample greater than 15 

mg/L within 30 days of obtaining results 

of the individual sample greater than 15 

mg/L. EPA also proposed a WQP sample 

be collected at a location on the same 

size water main located within a half 

mile of the residence with the lead 

result greater than 15 mg/L. This WQP 

monitoring was proposed to be 

completed within five days of receiving 

results of the individual lead sample 

greater than 15 mg/L. Water systems 

with existing distribution system WQP 

monitoring sites that meet the main 

size/proximity requirements could 

conduct the sampling at that location. 

EPA proposed that any water system 

which adds sites for the purposes of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

WQP monitoring specified in this 

paragraph include those additional sites 

in future WQP monitoring. 

EPA also proposed that both CCT and 

WQPs be assessed during sanitary 

surveys for water systems with CCT. 

EPA proposed that states conduct a 

periodic review of WQP results and 

other data to ensure the water system is 

maintaining the optimal CCT and to 

assess if there should be modifications 

to the CCT to further reduce lead and 

copper levels in tap samples. 

In addition to the updates for WQP 

requirements previously specified, EPA 

proposed several supplementary 

changes to the current rule. EPA also 

proposed revisions to the requirements 

for water systems to reduce the number 

of sites sampled and the frequency of 

WQP sampling. As a prerequisite to 

reducing the number of sites used in 

water quality parameter monitoring, the 

current rule requires the water system to 

maintain the range of water quality 

parameters for two 6-month monitoring 

periods. EPA proposed that water 

systems would also need to meet the 

lead 90th percentile trigger level for 

those two 6-month monitoring periods 

to be eligible for a reduction in the 

number of sites for WQP sampling. As 

a prerequisite to reducing the frequency 

of monitoring for water quality 

parameters, under the current rule, the 

water system must maintain the range of 

WQP values for three consecutive years 

to reduce to annual monitoring. Under 

the proposal, the water system would 

need to also meet the lead 90th 

percentile trigger level for those three 

consecutive years in order to be eligible 

for yearly monitoring. Under the current 

rule, if the water system meets the WQP 

requirements determined by the state 

and the lead 90th percentile trigger level 

for three additional annual monitoring 

periods, it may reduce its WQP 

monitoring frequency to once every 

three years. EPA also proposed that for 

every phase of potential reduced WQP 

monitoring (i.e., semi-annual, annual 

and triennial), the water system would 

also be required to meet the lead trigger 

levels. This would ensure that the 

required WQP monitoring sites and 

frequency continue when water systems 

have high lead levels. For a water 

system on reduced monitoring, EPA 

proposed that grandfathered data may 

be used if collected in accordance with 

the proposed revisions and its 90th 

percentile in either grandfathered data 

or initial tap sampling is at or below the 

trigger level. 

2. Public Comments and EPA Response 

As noted in Section III.B, EPA 

received mixed comments on its 

proposal to delete calcium carbonate 

stabilization as a mandatory corrosion 

control treatment and the removal of 

calcium, temperature, and conductivity 

as mandatory water quality parameters 

when it was selected as the corrosion 

control treatment. EPA has removed 

calcium carbonate stabilization and its 

associated unique water quality 

parameters from the final rule as options 

for systems that are optimizing or reoptimizing CCT. However, for systems 

that have previously been deemed 

optimized using this treatment 

approach, the key water quality 

parameters of pH and alkalinity are 

being maintained in the final rule and 

states will be allowed to designate 

additional water quality parameters to 

reflect optimal corrosion control 

(provided the system does not exceed 

the trigger level or action level). 

EPA received many comments about 

the number of water quality parameter 

sites that could be added as a result of 

the proposed find-and-fix requirements. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

added WQP sites could not be removed 

and could over time become too 

numerous. The systems that will be 

subject to optimal water quality 

parameter monitoring are all large 

systems, medium systems that continue 

to exceed an action level, and small 

systems that exceed an action level and 

have selected optimal corrosion control 

treatment under the small system 

flexibility. EPA agrees with commenters 

that suggested there should be a limit on 

the number of water quality parameter 

locations that may be added and has 

determined the maximum sites should 

be two times the standard number of 

water quality parameter sites. EPA 

determined that this is a sufficient 

number of sites to ensure water quality. 

When a system exceeds this upper 

threshold for the number of sites, the 

State has discretion to switch out sites 

that have been added if the newer site 

can better assess the effectiveness of the 

corrosion control treatment and to 

remove sites during sanitary survey 

evaluation of OCCT. 

Several commenters stressed that the 

final rule should require all systems to 

conduct regular monitoring of the 

optimal water quality parameters. EPA 

agrees with these commenters that 

triennial monitoring does not provide 

enough data on water quality in the 

distribution system. Significant changes 

in distribution system water quality can 

occur over a three-year period and water 

systems need to conduct more frequent 

WQP sampling to assure CCT is being 

effectively maintained. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

The final rule includes the proposed 

revision to the WQP monitoring 

requirements with two modifications. 

Section 141.82(j)(1)(vi) of the final rule 

limits the number of WQP sites that 

must be added through the find-and-fix 

process to two times the standard 

number of WQP sites. The final rule 

allows states to determine which sites 

will be retained if a system exceeds the 

find-and-fix threshold of two times the 

standard number of water quality 

parameter sites. This is summarized in 

the table below. 

NUMBER OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETER SITES IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

System size 

(number people served) 

Standard 

monitoring 

(number WQP sites) 

Reduced 

monitoring 

(number WQP sites) 

Find-and-fix 

threshold 

(number WQP sites) 

>100,000 ........................................................................................................ 25 10 50 

10,001–100,000 ............................................................................................. 10 7 20 

3,301–10,000 ................................................................................................. 3 3 6 

501–3,300 ...................................................................................................... 2 2 4 

101–500 ......................................................................................................... 1 1 2 

≤100 ............................................................................................................... 1 1 2 

As an example, if a system that serves 

more than 100,000 persons reached the 

find-and-fix threshold of 50 water 

quality parameter locations, the state 

has the discretion to determine which 

added find-and-fix sites to retain if new 

locations are needed to assess corrosion 

control treatment. States have the 

flexibility to decide that it is necessary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4231 

to retain all the WQP sites and exceed 

the find-and-fix maximum if it deems it 

necessary to demonstrate optimal 

corrosion control treatment. 

Second, the final rule requires all 

WQP locations to be sampled at least 

annually and specifies that samples 

should be taken throughout the 

monitoring period to reflect seasonal 

variability and triennial monitoring 

does not provide sufficient data. 

I. Source Water Monitoring 

1. Proposed Revisions 

The 1991 LCR required water systems 

to conduct source water monitoring 

following an action level exceedance. 

Based on the results of the source water 

monitoring, the state must decide 

whether it is necessary for the water 

system to install source water treatment 

to reduce lead and/or copper tap levels. 

Regardless of whether a state decides 

that treatment is needed or not, the 

water system is still required to conduct 

source water monitoring following the 

state decision. EPA proposed to 

discontinue additional source water 

monitoring requirements if (a) a water 

system has conducted source water 

monitoring for a prior lead and/or 

copper action level exceedance, (b) the 

state has determined that source water 

treatment is not required, and (c) a 

water system has not added any new 

water source(s). 

EPA proposed these changes to 

eliminate monitoring requirements that 

are not necessary to protect public 

health. Lead and copper are rarely 

found in the source water in significant 

quantities (Chin, D., Karalekas, P.C.J., 

1985; USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); 

thus, where the state has decided that 

source water treatment is not needed, 

EPA proposed to allow the state to 

waive source water monitoring for any 

subsequent action level exceedance 

under the conditions listed above and to 

eliminate the regular monitoring 

currently required for source water lead 

and copper. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Several commenters expressed 

support for waiving source water 

monitoring as outlined in the proposed 

LCRR. One commenter specifically 

expressed support for source water 

monitoring waivers to be issued by the 

state in the case of subsequent action 

level exceedances as outlined in the 

proposed LCRR. Other commenters 

opposed the waiver, citing lack of 

public access to data that lead can occur 

naturally in source water in some 

geologic settings, and that they have 

‘‘more than a dozen public water 

systems that treat for naturally 

occurring, elemental lead found in their 

source water and even more systems 

with low levels of lead that do not 

require treatment.’’ The Agency does 

not dispute that lead may be found in 

source water in certain geologic settings; 

however, the final LCRR requires that 

any system which adds a new source 

shall collect an additional source water 

sample from each entry point to the 

distribution system during two 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods until the system demonstrates 

that drinking water entering the 

distribution system has been maintained 

below the maximum permissible lead 

and copper concentrations specified by 

the state. EPA disagrees that source 

water monitoring results should be 

made publicly available because source 

water sampling results are not 

representative of water quality at the 

tap. 

3. Final Rule Revisions 

The final LCRR eliminates source 

water lead and copper monitoring that 

is not necessary to protect public health. 

Lead and copper are rarely found in the 

source water in significant quantities 

(Chin, D., Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985; 

USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); thus, 

where the state has decided that source 

water treatment is not needed, the state 

may waive source water monitoring for 

any subsequent action level exceedance 

under certain conditions. The final 

LCRR includes the provision for 

discontinued additional source water 

monitoring requirements if (a) a water 

system has conducted source water 

monitoring for a prior lead and/or 

copper action level exceedance, (b) the 

state has determined that source water 

treatment is not required, and (c) a 

water system has not added any new 

water source(s). 

J. Public Education and Sampling at 

Schools and Child Care Facilities 

1. Proposed Requirements 

EPA proposed a new requirement for 

all CWSs to sample for lead at schools 

and child care facilities they serve and 

to provide public education for those 

facilities. The intent of the requirement 

is to inform and educate targeted CWS 

customers and users about risks for lead 

in premise plumbing at schools and 

child care facilities since large 

buildings, such as schools, can have 

higher potential for elevated lead levels 

due to complex premise plumbing and 

inconsistent water use patterns. While 

schools are not likely to be served by 

LSLs, they may have lead in premise 

plumbing; therefore, EPA proposed 

these requirements because public 

education and water system sampling 

would provide schools and child care 

facilities with assurance in the process 

and benefits of managing a drinking 

water testing program and the 

information necessary for them to take 

actions to reduce lead risk. While, prior 

to this rule, EPA did not require public 

water systems to conduct sampling in 

schools and child care facilities, the 

Agency had established a voluntary 

program: 3Ts for Reducing Lead in 

Drinking Water in Schools and Child 

Care Facilities—A Training, Testing and 

Taking Action Approach (3Ts) (EPA– 

815–B–18–007). The purpose of this 

program is to assist states, schools, and 

child care facilities with conducting 

their own testing programs, conducting 

outreach, and taking action to address 

elevated levels of lead. Some states and 

localities have established mandatory 

and voluntary programs to test for lead 

in schools and child care facilities. 

However, many schools and child care 

facilities have not been tested for lead. 

A 2018 survey by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) found that 

41 percent of school districts had not 

tested for lead and an additional 16 

percent did not know if they had been 

tested (GAO, 2018). 

EPA proposed these requirements 

because students and young children 

are especially vulnerable to lead 

exposure and spend a large portion of 

their day in schools and child care 

facilities. Lead in drinking water can be 

a significant contributor to overall 

exposure to lead, particularly for infants 

whose diets often include foods or 

formula made with water from public 

water systems (i.e., baby food, juice, or 

formula). Young children and infants 

are particularly vulnerable to lead 

because the physical and behavioral 

effects of lead occur at lower exposure 

levels in children than in adults. In 

children, low levels of exposure have 

been linked to damage to the central and 

peripheral nervous system, learning 

disabilities, shorter stature, impaired 

hearing, and impaired formation and 

function of blood cells. 

Children spend on average over six 

hours per day at school ((U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

National Center for Education 

Statistics), with many spending more 

time at on-site before- or after-school 

care or activities. Children consume 

water in these facilities through 

drinking and as part of food preparation. 

Across the country, about 100,000 

schools participate in the national 

school lunch program, serving daily 

lunch to approximately 30 million 

students (USDA, National School Lunch 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Program, 2019). Ninety thousand 

schools serve breakfast to 14.8 million 

students every day (USDA). The 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

(HHFKA), which authorizes funding 

and sets policy for USDA’s child 

nutrition programs, requires schools 

participating in federally funded meal 

programs to make water available 

during meal periods at no cost to 

students (section 202 of HHFKA (42 

U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A))). The Act also 

mandates that child care facilities 

provide free drinking water throughout 

the day (section 221 of HHFKA (42 

U.S.C. 1766 (u)(2))). The combination of 

potential higher lead levels in large 

buildings, vulnerability of children to 

lead, and the length of time spent at 

schools and child care facilities presents 

lead risks to children that can be 

mitigated through public education, 

sampling, and voluntary remediation 

actions. 

Furthermore, the requirement for 

water systems to conduct sampling at 

schools and child care facilities 

provides an added measure of 

protection, above the other elements of 

the treatment technique rule, in light of 

the vulnerabilities of the population 

served and the potential variability of 

lead levels within the system and 

within a school or child care facility 

over time. Large buildings such as 

schools can have a higher potential for 

elevated lead levels because, even when 

served by a water system with well 

operated OCCT, there may be longer 

periods of stagnation due to complex 

premise plumbing systems and 

inconsistent water use patterns. In such 

situations, there may not be technical 

improvements that can be made to the 

OCCT. However, risk can be mitigated 

through public education and voluntary 

remediation actions such as 

replacement of premise plumbing. 

Water systems have developed the 

technical capacity to conduct sampling 

for lead in operating their system and 

complying with current drinking water 

standards. 

EPA proposed that the CWS be 

required to provide information about 

the health risks and sources of lead in 

drinking water and collect samples from 

five drinking water outlets at each 

school and two drinking water outlets at 

each child care facility within its 

distribution system once every five 

years. It would share results with the 

facility, local and state health 

departments, and the state primacy 

agency. Samples would be first draw 

after at least 8-hours but not more than 

18-hours stagnation in the building and 

be 250 ml in volume. EPA proposed this 

sampling protocol to be consistent with 

the recommended sampling protocols 

under the Agency’s 3Ts Toolkit. The 

smaller sample size is more 

representative of the amount of water 

consumed per serving and the 

stagnation time is representative of daily 

water use within these facilities. These 

samples would serve as a preliminary 

screen for lead risks within the facility 

and are not necessarily representative of 

lead levels in other outlets. 

EPA proposed that the CWS compile 

a list of schools and child care facilities 

served by the water system to conduct 

outreach and sampling, including 

distributing the 3Ts for Reducing Lead 

in Drinking Water Toolkit (EPA–815–B– 

18–007), or subsequent guidance issued 

by EPA that provides information on 

identifying lead risks, follow-up 

sampling procedures, stakeholder 

communication, and remediation 

options. A CWS’s distribution of the 3Ts 

would initiate or contribute to active 

communication with schools and child 

care facilities, who are critical 

customers that serve a vulnerable 

population. EPA also proposed that the 

CWS provide results to schools and 

child care facilities, the drinking water 

primacy agency, and the local and state 

health department where the facility is 

located no more than 30 days after 

receipt of results. The results of the 

samples would not be used as part of 

the CWS’s calculation of the 90th 

percentile value because these samples 

are being collected in a manner to 

inform whether action is needed at a 

specific school or child care facility and 

not whether corrosion control is 

effective system-wide. EPA did not 

propose requirements for CWSs to take 

remediation actions at facilities 

following the sampling and notification 

requirements. The managers of these 

facilities have established lines of 

communication with the occupants of 

these buildings (and their parents or 

guardians) and have control over 

routine maintenance and plumbing 

materials that may need to be addressed. 

The managers of the schools and child 

care centers can use the sampling 

results and the 3Ts to make decisions 

about additional voluntary actions to 

reduce lead risks in their facilities, 

including implementing their own 3Ts 

program. 

EPA proposed a process for a water 

system to opt out of the sampling 

requirements. In the preamble, EPA 

described a process for a state or 

primacy agency to waive these 

requirements for individual CWSs to 

avoid duplication of effort with existing 

drinking water testing requirements in 

schools and child care facilities. EPA 

proposed that if a state has a program 

that requires schools and child care 

facilities to be sampled in a manner 

consistent with the proposed 

requirements, the state may use that 

program in lieu of the proposed 

requirements. 

2. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Response 

EPA requested comment on an 

alternative to the proposed requirements 

for public education and sampling at 

schools and child care facilities 

described in this section. Under the 

proposed alternative, a CWS would be 

required to conduct annual outreach to 

school and child care facilities about the 

health risks and source of lead and 

drinking water, and would test at school 

and child care facilities as described in 

the proposal only when requested by a 

facility in their service area. Under this 

alternative, EPA assumed that 5 percent 

of schools and child care facilities in a 

water system service area would request 

testing per year (see Economic Analysis 

Chapter 5, section 5.3.2.5 for additional 

detail). 

EPA received many comments on the 

proposed school and child care 

sampling requirements spanning a 

variety of topics. These included 

comments on the proposed and 

alternative options, requests for 

clarification on aspects of the 

requirements that relate to CWS 

compliance, the required number of 

samples, requests for exemptions, and 

comments on waivers for existing 

sampling programs. 

EPA specifically asked for public 

comment on the proposed option that 

CWSs be required to sample for lead in 

school and child care facilities once 

every five years or if CWSs should be 

required to sample in facilities on 

request only. Some commenters 

supported the proposed requirements 

citing the importance of testing in these 

facilities, while others supported the 

alternative option citing the benefits of 

providing public education materials to 

interested schools and child care 

facilities and reduced burden to CWSs. 

Conversely, some commenters objected 

to the alternative proposal citing 

concerns that facilities may not request 

testing due to lack of knowledge about 

lead risks, the importance for testing for 

lead, or fear of testing results. Some 

commenters also argued that the 

requirements should be removed from 

the final rule stating that CWSs should 

not be the entity responsible for testing 

in schools and child care facilities and 

citing concerns about costs and 

resources, while others argued that the 

proposed requirements would not 

provide benefits to schools or child care 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4233 

facilities. A few commenters also stated 

that sampling of school or child care 

facilities would be more effective if led 

by the Department of Education or the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Based upon comments, EPA has 

decided to combine the proposed and 

alternative options by incorporating 

both mandatory and on request 

sampling into the final rule. CWSs must 

conduct sampling in elementary schools 

and child care facilities as described in 

the proposed requirements for one 

sampling cycle (5 years) and will offer 

sampling to secondary schools on 

request. After the first cycle is complete, 

CWSs must continue to conduct 

outreach to schools and child care 

facilities and must sample at the request 

of a facility. These requirements are 

intended to educate schools and child 

care facilities about the risks of lead in 

drinking water and inform them of ways 

to mitigate lead risks. The initial 

sampling accompanied by continued 

lead in drinking water outreach will 

provide elementary schools and child 

care facilities with an understanding of 

how to create and manage a drinking 

water testing program that is 

customizable to their needs and an 

appreciation of the benefits of such a 

program. The cycle of sampling is 

intended to reinforce the importance 

and benefits of lead testing in 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities. Children under the age of 7 

are at the greatest risk of drinking water 

lead exposure, and prioritizing sampling 

in those facilities with the greatest risks 

will reduce burden on CWSs and will 

enable them to focus upon those schools 

and child care facilities with the most 

susceptible populations. This construct 

will also allow CWSs, following the 

initial cycle of sampling, to focus 

resources on sampling in schools and 

child care facilities that request 

assistance. EPA anticipates that after the 

first sampling cycle, elementary schools 

and child care facilities will better 

understand the process and benefits of 

lead testing and be more likely to 

implement their own 3Ts programs. 

However, facilities interested in further 

assistance will have the opportunity to 

be tested for lead by the CWS on request 

prompted through annual outreach. 

CWSs will not be required to sample 

more than 20 percent of the schools and 

child care facilities they serve in a given 

year. 

EPA disagrees that the requirements 

for testing in schools and child care 

facilities should be removed from the 

final rule or that the requirements 

provide no benefits. Individual outlets, 

such as water fountains, can leach lead 

even when a water system has OCCT. 

The requirements are part of a targeted 

public education effort to educate 

schools and child care facilities and 

their users of the risks from lead in 

premise plumbing, the importance of 

testing for lead in drinking water, and 

to help them make decisions to mitigate 

lead risks. The requirement for CWSs to 

conduct sampling and public education 

for this vulnerable subset of consumers 

is within EPA’s authority to promulgate 

a treatment technique rule to ‘‘prevent 

known or anticipated adverse effects on 

the health of persons to the extent 

feasible’’ (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). School 

and child care facility sampling 

contributes to increased public 

awareness of the potential for elevated 

levels of lead in premise plumbing 

independent of a water system’s 90th 

percentile value. EPA also anticipates 

that increased familiarity with the 3Ts 

will assist facilities in taking steps to 

reduce lead risks to vulnerable 

populations. 

EPA also disagrees that the 

requirements would be more effective if 

led by another Federal agency. Few 

existing mandatory and voluntary 

programs are administered by state or 

local departments of education (Cradock 

et al., 2019). EPA notes that the 

Department of Education and the 

Department Health and Human Services 

are signatories to the 2019 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

on Reducing Lead Levels in Schools and 

Child Care Facilities along with other 

Federal partners and organizations. The 

signatories to the MOU agree to work 

together to encourage schools and child 

care facilities to take actions to address 

lead in their facilities. This includes 

testing for lead in drinking water, 

disseminating results, and taking 

corrective actions. EPA intends for the 

requirements to complement these 

efforts and not replace ongoing 

initiatives to address lead risks in 

schools and child care facilities. EPA 

concluded that CWSs have the technical 

expertise to assist in schools and child 

care facilities in drinking water testing. 

EPA also received many comments 

requesting clarification on achieving 

CWS compliance. Some commenters 

suggested that a CWS would be in 

violation of the proposed requirements 

if a school or child care facility did not 

respond to outreach for testing. 

Similarly, commenters suggested that 

meeting the requirement to sample in 20 

percent of schools and 20 percent of 

child care facilities per year depended 

on facilities responding to CWS 

outreach. Some commenters cited these 

concerns as a rationale for supporting 

the alternative on request option. EPA 

notes that some schools and child care 

facilities may not respond to CWS 

outreach, meaning a CWS would not be 

able to obtain a refusal. EPA agrees that 

further clarification was needed and 

revised § 141.92(a)(3) to document a 

non-response after a CWS has made two 

separate good faith attempts to reach the 

facility. EPA also clarified in § 141.92(c) 

that non-responses and refusals may be 

accounted for in the annual 20 percent 

testing requirement for elementary 

schools and child care facilities during 

the mandatory sampling. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

sampling requirements be expanded to 

include more samples per facility and 

more frequent sampling. Commenters 

argued that limited sampling may fail to 

detect elevated lead levels and some 

schools and child care facilities may 

infer from results that there is no lead 

risk. Other commenters noted that some 

schools and child care facilities do not 

follow the 3Ts and may not conduct 

follow-up sampling or take remediation 

actions. Some commenters further 

suggested that the 3Ts Toolkit is not 

sufficient for addressing lead issues. 

EPA disagrees that sampling 

requirements be expanded, as the intent 

is to provide a preliminary screen for 

lead in schools and child care facilities 

and an improved understanding of the 

importance of lead testing, and is not a 

replacement for comprehensive testing 

as detailed in the 3Ts. EPA further 

disagrees with comments regarding the 

effectiveness of the 3Ts. The GAO 

indicated in a 2018 report that 60 

percent of school districts were not 

familiar with the 3Ts guidance, but for 

those that were, 68 percent reported 

finding the guidance helpful in reducing 

lead risks in their facilities (GAO, 2018). 

Requiring distribution of the 3Ts along 

with testing results is intended to both 

increase awareness of the need for lead 

testing and provide schools and child 

care facilities with information and 

tools they can use to reduce lead risks 

in their drinking water. 

Conversely, some commenters 

suggested that facilities be exempted 

from testing based on construction dates 

(e.g., 1986 ban on lead solder) or that 

repeat testing is not necessary if a 

facility is tested once, or all outlets are 

tested once, and results show no or low 

lead levels. The proposed requirements 

exempt CWSs from sampling in schools 

and child care facilities constructed 

after 2014 (consistent with Section 1417 

of the SDWA), as these facilities will 

have been constructed with lead free 

plumbing components. Prior to the 

amendment of Section 1417 of the 

SDWA by the Reduction of Lead in 

Drinking Water Act, fixtures could 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

contain up to 8 percent of lead by 

weighted average and be classified as 

lead free. Changing the exemption date 

to 1986 would therefore be less 

protective of public health. EPA also 

disagrees with allowing exemptions 

based on previous low and non-detected 

lead levels. Lead levels at an outlet or 

within a building have been shown to 

vary over time, with lead levels at one 

outlet not necessarily characterizing 

lead levels at other others in the 

building. Therefore, exempting water 

systems from testing in facilities based 

on the previous results of samples taken 

at a limited number of outlets is not 

appropriate. 

EPA received many comments on the 

alternative school and child care 

sampling programs in § 141.92(d). 

Commenters noted an inconsistency 

between the preamble in the November 

2019 notice, which described the state 

providing waivers to CWSs where 

existing school and child care sampling 

requirements are at least as stringent as 

§ 141.92, and the proposed requirement 

which stated ‘‘the water system may 

execute that program [existing state or 

local regulations] to comply with the 

requirements of this section,’’ implying 

a different mechanism. As noted above, 

EPA recognizes this inconsistency and 

has updated § 141.92(d) to describe the 

conditions by which a state may issue 

a full or partial waiver to CWSs. In 

addition, commenters encouraged EPA 

to accommodate sampling protocols of 

existing state and local programs, stating 

that programs using different stagnation 

times or sample volumes should not be 

excluded if they require more sampling 

more outlets more frequently and 

include remediation activities. EPA 

agrees that there are a variety of 

programs that may differ from the 

proposed requirements but may 

otherwise be sufficient or more 

comprehensive. In response, the final 

rule provides additional flexibility for 

existing programs to reduce duplicative 

testing by CWSs. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

EPA is requiring CWSs to sample for 

lead in the elementary schools and child 

care facilities they serve once during the 

first five years after the compliance date 

for the final rule, and to sample for lead 

in the secondary schools they serve on 

request. After all elementary schools 

and child care facilities are tested once, 

the CWS will be required to conduct 

sampling at all the schools and child 

care facilities they serve when requested 

by a facility. EPA is retaining the 

exemption for schools and child care 

facilities constructed after January 1, 

2014. However, in response to public 

comment, EPA has revised this 

exemption to include facilities built 

after the date of state adopted standards 

that meet the definition of lead free in 

accordance with Section 1417 of the 

SDWA, as amended by the Reduction of 

Lead in Drinking Water Act, to account 

for localities that adopted lead free 

standards earlier than 2014. These 

requirements apply to all CWSs 

regardless if they receive water from a 

wholesale system. 

EPA is retaining the proposed 

requirement that all CWSs compile a list 

of schools and licensed child care 

facilities served by the system to 

conduct public education outreach and 

sampling. EPA notes that pursuant to 

§ 141 90(i)(1)(i), the CWS shall use a 

good faith effort to identify facilities in 

their service area, such as reviewing 

water system billing and other records 

to identify service connections for 

schools and child care facilities and by 

requesting information from appropriate 

state agencies. During the first five years 

after the rule compliance date, the CWS 

is required to contact the elementary 

schools and child care facilities 

identified and provide them information 

about health risks of lead in drinking 

water at least annually, schedule 

sampling, and provide the 3Ts Toolkit 

(or subsequent EPA guidance). The CWS 

must also contact the secondary schools 

identified in the list at least annually 

and provide them with health 

information, and information on how to 

request sampling. As the list is updated, 

new schools and child care facilities 

will be identified and included in the 

annual outreach. In the first cycle of 

sampling, an elementary school or child 

care facility may decline or not respond 

to sampling. In response to comments, 

EPA has revised the requirement to 

allow the CWS to document nonresponses in addition to refusals. 

The CWS is required to contact 20 

percent of elementary schools and 20 

percent of child care facilities per year 

such that all facilities are sampled once 

(over the 5 years). In response to 

comments on flexibility, the final rule 

will allow an alternative schedule to be 

approved by the state, as long as all 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities are sampled once within a 5- 

year period. EPA has also clarified that 

non-responses and refusals may be 

accounted for in the 20 percent testing 

rate. CWSs are also required to sample 

secondary schools at the request of the 

facility during the 5-year period of 

mandatory sampling for elementary 

schools and child care facilities. If a 

CWS receives requests from more than 

20 percent of the secondary schools it 

serves during a year, it may defer 

additional requests to the following 

year. A CWS is not required to conduct 

sampling in more than 20 percent of the 

secondary schools it serves in any year 

during the cycle of mandatory sampling 

for elementary schools and child care 

facilities. 

Once the CWS has completed the 

requirements for all elementary schools 

and child care facilities once, EPA is 

requiring the CWS to sample both 

elementary and secondary schools and 

child care facilities on request. When 

offering sampling on request, the CWS 

shall continue to distribute annual 

information on the health risks of lead 

in drinking water and is required to 

provide annual information to schools 

and child care facilities about the 

opportunity to request sampling. At 

least 30 days prior to sampling, the CWS 

must provide instructions to facilities 

on how to identify outlets for sampling. 

If the CWS receives requests from more 

than 20 percent of the schools and 20 

percent of the child care facilities it 

serves in a given year, the CWS may 

defer additional requests to the 

following year. The CWS is not required 

to complete sampling in more than 20 

percent of the schools and 20 percent of 

the child care facilities it serves in a 

given year, and may sample the other 

facilities in the following year. The CWS 

is also not required to sample any 

individual school or child care facility 

more than once every five years. While 

not required, EPA recommends that 

CWSs consider factors such as age of 

students, building construction date, 

socioeconomic indicators, presence of 

LSLs, and Federal funding through Title 

1 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and Head Start 

(42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.) to prioritize 

sampling in facilities that serve 

vulnerable or disadvantaged 

populations. 

EPA is retaining the sampling 

protocol and the provisions to provide 

sample results to schools and child care 

facilities along with remediation 

information within 30 days of receipt of 

results. EPA has clarified that the 

remediation information is detailed in 

the 3Ts. Schools and child care facilities 

are encouraged to use the testing results 

and 3Ts Toolkit to inform follow-up 

activities and remediation actions. For 

consistency across other reporting 

requirements, the final rule includes 

provisions for CWSs to report all results 

to the primacy agency and local and 

state health departments as part of 

annual reporting. 

EPA is retaining the proposed process 

for a state to waive school and child 

care facility sampling requirements for 

individual CWSs to avoid duplication of 

effort and has clarified this in the final 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4235 

rule. During the cycle of mandatory 

sampling in elementary schools and 

child care facilities, a state may issue a 

CWS a written waiver if there is a state 

or local program to sample for lead in 

drinking water at schools or child care 

facilities that meets the requirements of 

this rule. This also may include schools 

or child care facilities that are sampling 

for lead through facility or district 

policy. If the sampling meets the final 

rule requirements, with the exception of 

stagnation time and sample volume, a 

waiver may be granted if remediation 

actions are required as part of the 

program. Likewise, programs with less 

frequent sampling (e.g., every six years) 

that sample more outlets and require 

remediation, will meet the requirements 

for a waiver. A state may also issue 

waivers for voluntary sampling 

programs that meet the requirements for 

CWSs to offer sampling on request to 

secondary schools during the cycle of 

mandatory sampling in elementary 

schools and child care facilities, and to 

all schools and child care facilities 

thereafter. Some mandatory and 

voluntary programs are or have 

previously been funded, wholly or in 

part, under grant programs for school 

and child care testing established by the 

WIIN Act. Therefore, waivers may also 

be granted if sampling is conducted in 

accordance with a grant awarded under 

Section 1464(d) of the SDWA. A state 

may not issue a waiver to extend past 

the time period covered by the 

mandatory or voluntary program. 

If a program is limited to a subset of 

schools and child care facilities defined 

in § 141.92(a)(1) of this final rule, a state 

may issue a partial waiver. For example, 

if a state has a required program for 

testing lead in drinking water in both 

elementary and secondary public 

schools but not in other types of schools 

or child care facilities, then a CWS 

serving only public schools can receive 

a full waiver. If a CWS serves both 

public and non-public schools and child 

care facilities, then the CWS would be 

required to notify and sample at the 

non-public schools and child care 

facilities and could receive a partial 

waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is 

not responsible for sampling in public 

schools. A state may issue full or partial 

waivers for existing voluntary programs. 

For example, if a state agency offers 

testing to all public schools when 

requested, the state could grant a partial 

waiver such that a CWS would not be 

required to offer sampling to public 

secondary schools in its service area 

during the time the CWS is conducting 

mandatory sampling in elementary 

schools and child care facilities. When 

the CWS is offering sampling on request 

to all schools and child care facilities, 

a state could then grant a waiver such 

that the CWS would not be required to 

offer sampling to the elementary and 

secondary public schools in its service 

area for the duration of the voluntary 

program. 

K. Find-and-Fix 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

approach that would require water 

systems to perform additional actions 

when an individual tap sample exceeds 

15 mg/L. Water systems would be 

required to collect a follow-up sample 

for each tap sample site that exceeded 

15 mg/L within 30 days of receiving the 

tap sample result. The results of these 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ follow-up samples would 

be submitted to the state but would not 

be included in the system’s 90th 

percentile calculation because multiple 

investigatory samples at locations with 

high lead levels would bias results. If 

the water system is unable to collect a 

follow-up sample at a site, the water 

system would have to provide 

documentation to the state for why it 

was unable to collect a follow-up 

sample. The water system would be 

required to provide the follow-up tap 

sample results to consumers within 30 

days of receiving the result (consistent 

with the current rule), unless that 

follow-up sample also exceeds 15 mg/L, 

in which case, EPA proposed the water 

system must notify the consumer within 

24 hours of learning of the result. EPA 

proposed that water systems with CCT 

that have an individual tap sample that 

exceeds the lead action level, would be 

required to collect an additional WQP 

sample within five days of obtaining the 

lead tap sample result. For a CWS, this 

WQP sample must be collected from a 

site in the same water pressure zone, on 

the same size or smaller water main 

within 0.5 miles of the residence with 

the tap sample exceeding the lead action 

level. Water systems with an existing 

WQP site that meets these criteria 

would be able to sample at that location. 

Any water system that is unable to 

regain access to the same site to collect 

a follow-up tap sample may decide to 

sample at another site within close 

proximity of the original site and with 

similar structural characteristics. 

EPA proposed that WQP samples be 

collected within 5 days, since WQP sites 

are more accessible sites and do not 

require coordination with customers. 

The proposal included requirements to 

sample WQPs as close to the lead tap 

sample site as possible so that the water 

quality will more closely match the 

conditions at the site that exceeded 15 

mg/L. The intent of the proposed 

requirements for a follow-up tap sample 

collected for lead was to help the water 

system determine the potential source of 

lead contamination (e.g., premise 

plumbing, LSL) and the intent of the 

required WQP sample for water systems 

with CCT was to help determine if CCT 

is optimized, if additional WQP sites are 

needed, and/or if WQPs set by the state 

are being met. Such steps would help 

identify the source of the elevated lead 

to initiate appropriate mitigation. EPA 

proposed that when a water system is 

unable to identify and/or mitigate the 

risk, it must submit a justification to the 

state. 

Under the proposal, the water system 

would be required to determine if 

problems with the CCT are leading to 

elevated levels of lead in the tap 

samples and then implement a 

mitigation strategy if necessary. In 

addition to the follow-up tap sample 

and the WQP sampling, the water 

system could review distribution system 

operations or other factors to determine 

the cause of the elevated lead level. CCT 

adjustment may not be necessary to 

address every exceedance. Water 

systems would note the cause of the 

elevated lead level if known in their 

recommendation to the state. Mitigation 

strategies could include a water systemwide adjustment to CCT, flushing 

portions of the distribution system, or 

other strategies to improve water quality 

management to reduce lead levels. 

Under this proposal, water systems 

would be required to confirm the findand-fix steps were completed and 

recommend water system actions, such 

as spot flushing, to the state for approval 

within six months of the end of the 

monitoring period in which the site(s) 

first exceeded 15 mg/L and the state 

would have six months to approve the 

recommendation. EPA proposed 

implementation requirements for water 

systems that do not have CCT and 

recommends installation of it and for 

water systems with CCT that 

recommends re-optimization of CCT. 

A water system may identify a fix that 

is out of its control. For example, if the 

source of lead in drinking water was an 

old faucet owned by the customer, and 

the customer did not wish to replace the 

faucet, the water system would provide 

documentation to the state under this 

proposal. All other fixes recommended 

by a water system would be 

implemented on a schedule specified by 

the state. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA received a number of comments 

that expressed concerns that a single 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4236 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

elevated tap lead sample could trigger a 

system-wide corrosion control 

installation or re-optimization. One 

commenter stated that requiring the 

installation of corrosion control 

equipment for the entire utility if the 

cause of a sample exceedance is listed 

as corrosive water in one home, is 

excessive. Others commented that this 

provision is unwarranted, 

inappropriate, or a disproportionate 

response which could result in 

expensive and time-consuming 

distribution system evaluations. EPA 

disagrees that the find-and-fix 

provisions are unwarranted. These 

requirements initiate sampling and 

other activities that will assess the 

potential cause of the elevated levels of 

lead and will prompt additional feasible 

actions that will reduce the risks to 

persons at the locations where there 

may be elevated levels of lead. Many 

commented that corrosion control 

adjustments should only be made in 

response to data demonstrating that 

current corrosion control is deficient 

throughout the distribution system, and 

not in response to a small number of 

individual tap samples. Many 

commenters also interpreted the rule to 

require corrosion control treatment 

modifications to be the typical response 

to address a site that exceeded 15 mg/L. 

In response to these comments, the final 

rule emphasizes localized distribution 

system management as the likely fix. 

Mitigation strategies could include, 

flushing or other strategies to improve 

water quality management. However, in 

some instances where the find and fix 

corrosion control assessment monitoring 

finds that optimal water quality 

parameters are not being maintained in 

a portion of the distribution system, 

systems may need to implement 

localized or centralized adjustment of 

corrosion control treatment. A system 

that does not have existing corrosion 

control treatment is not required to 

conduct a corrosion control study or to 

install treatment as a result of find-andfix unless the state determines it is 

necessary. 

Some commenters noted that small 

water systems without corrosion control 

treatment may not be able to collect 

water quality parameter samples within 

five days as these systems may not have 

ready access to instruments and 

laboratories that can perform these 

analyses. EPA agrees and is allowing 

small water systems without corrosion 

control treatment up to 14 days to 

perform this monitoring. Many 

commenters also requested clarity on 

the purpose and location of the samples, 

with several interpreting the proposed 

rule as requiring the water quality 

parameter monitoring to be conducted 

at the site with the lead result above 15 

mg/L. Many commenters also questioned 

the recommendation in the proposed 

rule to take a lead sample at a nearby 

site of similar plumbing characteristics, 

if the system was unable to take a 

follow-up sample at the site that was 

above 15 mg/L. EPA agrees that sampling 

at a different site in the vicinity will not 

help assess the lead source at the site 

that was above15 mg/L, so the final rule 

does not require systems to do this. If 

the water system is unable to collect a 

follow-up sample at a site, the water 

system must provide documentation to 

the State, explaining why it was unable 

to collect a follow-up sample. EPA also 

agrees that clarification is needed and 

has provide more details in the final 

rule of where and when follow up 

samples must be collected. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

For the final rule, EPA is clarifying 

that the water quality parameter 

monitoring (Step 1) is intended to assess 

the corrosion control treatment at a 

nearby location in the distribution 

system and the follow-up sample at the 

tap sampling site above 15 mg/L (Step 2) 

is intended to identify the lead source 

at the site. 

Step 1 of the process is the corrosion 

control assessment step in which water 

quality parameter sampling must be 

done within five days of the system 

receiving the tap sample results 

exceeding 15 mg/L, except for small 

water systems (serving 10,000 people or 

fewer persons) without corrosion 

control treatment that may perform the 

sampling within 14 days. The sampling 

is to replicate as closely as possible the 

water quality conditions at the time 

when the tap exceeded 15 mg/L. The 

water quality parameter sampling 

location is not at the tap that exceeded 

15 mg/L but must be within the same 

pressure zone, on the same size main 

and within a half-mile from the tap 

sample site. Section 141.82(j)(1)(v) of 

this final rule allows systems with an 

existing WQP site that meets these 

criteria to sample at that site. Section 

141.82.(j)(1)(vi) requires that a system 

that does not have an existing WQP site 

that meets the criteria to add the 

additional WQP site to its routine 

monitoring. Since the monthly total 

coliform sampling for large systems 

vastly exceeds the water quality 

parameter monitoring in the distribution 

system for the lead and copper rule, 

EPA expects coliform sampling 

locations should be available that are in 

the same pressure zone, on the same 

size main, and within a half mile of the 

site that exceeded 15 mg/L in many large 

systems. Medium-size systems may also 

find that total coliform sampling sites 

are available and can meet the criteria 

for sampling location when the existing 

water quality parameter sites are not 

located in that area of the distribution 

system. The maximum WQP sites that a 

system would have to sample are two 

times the standard number sites 

required. When a system exceeds this 

upper threshold for the number of sites, 

the state has discretion to determine if 

the newer sites can better assess the 

effectiveness of the corrosion control 

treatment and may remove existing 

WQP sites during sanitary survey 

evaluation of OCCT. 

Step 2 is designated as site assessment 

in the final rule. In Step 2, water 

systems are required to conduct followup sampling at the tap sampling site 

above 15 mg/L. This is intended to help 

the system identify the source of the 

lead, such as the service line, brass 

faucet, lead solder, and/or gooseneck/ 

pigtails, if possible. The final rule 

allows tap sample collection of a 

different volume or using a different 

protocol (if needed to better identify the 

source of lead) than samples collected 

under the tap monitoring and therefore 

the sample is not included in the 90th 

percentile calculation. If the water 

system is unable to carry out follow-up 

tap sampling (i.e., the customer refuses 

a follow-up tap sample or there is a lack 

of response), the water system is 

responsible for documenting the reason 

for not carrying out the sampling. Water 

systems must note the cause of the 

elevated lead level, if known from the 

site assessment. 

In Step 3, water systems evaluate the 

results of the monitoring from Steps 1 

and 2 to determine if the cause of the 

lead tap sample above 15 mg/L is due to 

a source of lead at the sampling 

location, to corrosive water quality 

parameters or is unknown. If the water 

system determines the cause of the 

elevated level of lead is solely due to a 

source of lead at the sampling location, 

or is unknown, the system is not 

required to recommend an action to fix 

the cause of the elevated lead. If the 

water system finds that corrosive water 

quality parameters are the cause, the 

system must determine if distribution 

system management changes such as 

flushing to reduce water age or 

adjustment of the corrosion control 

treatment are necessary to restore 

optimal water quality parameters in that 

portion of the system. Adjustment of 

corrosion control treatment could 

include changing the feed rates for the 

corrosion inhibitor for a portion of the 

distribution system or for the entire 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4237 

system to ensure that optimal water 

quality parameters are maintained for 

optimal corrosion control. The system 

must submit the recommendation to the 

state within six months after the end of 

the tap sampling period in which the 

site(s) exceeded 15 mg/L. Systems in the 

process of optimizing or re-optimizing 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(a)–(f)) do not need to submit a 

recommendation for find and fix as they 

are currently adjusting corrosion control 

treatment. 

L. Water System Reporting 

Requirements 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed changes to water 

system reporting requirements in 

conjunction with corresponding 

proposed changes to the regulatory 

requirements. These changes in 

reporting requirements were proposed 

to inform state decision-making and 

improve implementation and oversight. 

In addition to the proposed tap 

sampling protocol revisions, EPA 

proposed that a water system would 

also be required to submit for state 

approval its tap sampling protocol that 

are provided to residents or individuals 

who are conducting tap sampling. The 

sampling protocol would be required to 

be written in accordance with new rule 

requirements. EPA proposed that the 

state would review the protocol to 

ensure that it does not include 

prohibited instructions for prestagnation flushing, and cleaning and/or 

removing the faucet aerator prior to 

sample collection and ensures the use of 

wide-mouth collection bottles. Under 

the proposal, water systems would also 

need to provide certification to the state 

that the approved sampling protocol has 

not been modified within 10 days of the 

end of the tap sampling monitoring 

period, and to submit an updated 

version if any modifications are made. 

EPA also proposed to include new 

reporting requirements in conjunction 

with the revisions to the LSLR 

requirements in the final rule. By the 

rule’s compliance date, the water system 

would be required to submit to the state 

an inventory of service lines. The water 

system would have to submit an 

updated inventory annually thereafter 

that reflects LSLs replaced and lead 

status unknown service lines that have 

been identified in the distribution 

system. 

EPA also proposed that any water 

system with LSLs and 90th percentile 

tap sampling data that exceeds the lead 

trigger level would be required to 

annually certify to the state that it 

conducted notification in accordance 

with proposed LSL customer 

notification provisions. The notification 

would ensure customers were properly 

alerted about the trigger level 

exceedance, potential risks of lead in 

drinking water, and informed about the 

water system’s goal based LSLR 

program. 

In addition, under the proposal, a 

CWS must certify that it has completed 

the notification and sampling 

requirements at a minimum of 20 

percent of schools and child care 

facilities served by the water system 

annually. The certification would 

include the number of schools and child 

care facilities served by the water 

system, the number of schools and child 

care facilities sampled in the calendar 

year, and the number of schools and 

child care facilities that have refused tap 

sampling. In addition, the proposal 

required that a CWS must certify that 

individual sampling results were shared 

with the respective school and child 

care facility, and with local or state 

health departments. If a CWS does not 

serve any school or licensed child care 

facilities, the water system would have 

to annually certify to the state that it 

made a good faith effort to identify 

schools and child care facilities and 

confirm that no schools or child care 

facilities are served by the water system. 

The good faith effort could include 

reviewing customer records and 

requesting lists of schools and child care 

facilities from the state or other 

licensing agency. Certification was to be 

sent to the state by July 1 of each year 

for the previous calendar year’s activity. 

EPA also proposed reporting 

requirements for small CWSs using the 

point-of-use compliance flexibility 

option. These systems would need to 

report their sampling results and 

corrective actions taken if a POU sample 

exceeded 10 mg occurred. In addition, 

they would certify the maintenance of 

the POUs if requested by the state. 

Additionally, calcium results were no 

longer subject to reporting requirements 

under the proposed rule, because 

calcium was eliminated as a CCT option 

and thus not a regulated OWQP. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA received many comments on the 

various reporting requirements. Many of 

the commenters expressed concern 

about the increased burden the 

proposed reporting requirements could 

impose and several offered suggestions 

such as an online tool, using existing 

opportunities such as sanitary surveys 

for reporting, or allowing the water 

system to self-certify instead of 

certifying that certain requirements are 

complete to the state. Commenters 

expressed that these burdens range from 

administrative to financial, and that 

small systems are likely to be impacted 

most. Some commenters argue against 

some of the reporting requirements to 

certify or re-submit material annually, 

stating that systems could track this on 

their own but provide to the state upon 

request. Many commenters were 

worried there would not be an adequate 

tracking tool or data system such as 

EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information 

System (SDWIS) to manage the 

reporting requirements of the proposal. 

Some commenters state that they would 

need to create tracking systems of their 

own and would need additional staff 

and data management systems. EPA 

agrees that new reporting requirements 

create a burden for water systems and 

states and has made changes to 

streamline reporting in the final rule as 

described below. EPA intends to 

support the data management needs of 

primacy agencies for the LCRR through 

the SDWIS Modernization development 

project, and to have a product available 

for state use by the compliance date of 

the LCRR. EPA will work closely with 

state program and information 

technology staff on LCRR database 

needs and on overall SDWIS 

modernization. 

Regarding LSL reporting 

requirements, some commenters asked 

that reporting of updates to the service 

line inventory cease after all LSLs have 

been identified in the inventory as none 

would be installed in the future. EPA 

does not agree since updated 

inventories also reflect LSLR which 

include customer initiated and required 

LSLR following a trigger level and 

action level exceedance. The state needs 

to have this information to track 

compliance of LSLR requirements. 

Several commenters stated it is 

redundant to require water systems to 

submit a service line inventory and 

replacement plans after an action level 

exceedance because water systems are 

already submitting these. However, 

other commenters stated that LSLR 

plans should be submitted to the state 

regardless of the 90th percentile results. 

Based on commenter input, EPA has 

modified the requirement in the final 

rule; water systems will not be required 

to submit the inventory and 

replacement plans after an action level 

exceedance since they are submitted at 

the rule compliance date and updated 

inventories are submitted according to 

their tap sampling monitoring frequency 

(i.e., annually or triennially) thereafter, 

thereby reducing the frequency of 

reporting inventory updates. In 

addition, there are off-ramps for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

submitting inventory updates for those 

systems that can verify they no longer 

have LSLs, galvanized lines requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines in their distribution. 

Some commenters requested that the 

final rule retain the reporting deadlines 

in the current rule. For instance, 

reporting lead and copper results within 

10 days of the end of the tap sampling 

monitoring period instead of before the 

tap sampling period ends (for systems 

where the state calculates the 90th 

percentile) which was proposed. Many 

commenters had concern about the 

school and child care sampling and 

public education reporting 

requirements. Several commenters 

asked why after sampling results are 

reported, they also must be certified that 

they completed this requirement to the 

state. Several commenters offer 

suggestions on how to reduce the 

burden of these requirements or 

streamline them, such as submitting an 

annual report, or maintaining the 

records on hand and submitting upon 

request from the state. Many 

commenters had concerns about the 

number of attempts and documenting 

refusals when a facility simply does not 

respond. EPA has made changes to 

§ 141.92(a)(3) regarding schools and 

child care facility refusals and 

nonresponse and the reporting 

§ 141.90(i) so that CWSs certify once per 

year that they have met the schools and 

child care facility requirements for the 

previous calendar year. In addition, the 

annual certification is due July 1 of each 

year consistent with the timing for 

annual CCR certification. 

Regarding the proposed reporting 

requirements for the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

provision, several commenters state it is 

impractical to maintain lists and 

tracking of all the ‘‘fixes’’ done by the 

water system and that this gives rise to 

privacy concerns for homeowners. Some 

commenters suggested a requirement for 

water systems to include ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

activities in an annual or monthly 

report. Several commenters asked for 

guidance such as a template or checklist 

for the find-and-fix provisions states 

review. EPA evaluated public comments 

and agrees that clear steps, be included 

in the find-and-fix requirements and has 

made modifications to the final rule 

accordingly. This should also streamline 

find-and-fix reporting. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

Many of the reporting requirements 

from the proposal have been retained in 

the final rule. However, EPA has taken 

into consideration all of the comments 

and has modified several sections to 

reduce burden, enhance efficiency of 

reporting and/or to include new 

necessary provisions. Many changes 

were made for clarification and 

organizational purposes in § 141.90, 

while others were made to reflect 

changes made to corresponding sections 

of the rule proposal. 

The lead service line reporting 

requirements have been updated to 

allow systems to discontinue inventory 

updates when they no longer have 

service lines that need to be replaced or 

materials verified (i.e., no remaining 

lead status unknown). In addition, the 

inventory requirements are now linked 

to the tap sampling monitoring 

schedules in § 141.86(d) to streamline 

dates for reporting. Also, systems must 

report annually that they completed any 

customer-initiated LSLR, in addition to 

requesting an extension to complete a 

customer-initiated LSLR. 

The final rule clarifies that all water 

systems must report to the state an 

addition of a new source or long-term 

treatment change prior to adding the 

source or modifying treatment. In 

addition, this final rule includes a 

requirement for water systems to submit 

a tap site sample plan prior to the 

compliance date of the rule with tap 

sampling sites that meet the new site 

selection tiering criteria based on their 

LSL inventory to ensure states can 

verify the tap sampling sites comply 

with the requirements in the final rule 

and can track changes in the tap 

sampling pool. 

Regarding reporting for small system 

compliance flexibility options, an 

additional reporting requirement was 

added for systems who have opted to 

remove lead-bearing plumbing from 

their distribution system; they must 

certify within one year that the material 

has been eliminated. Under reporting 

for schools and childcare facilities, EPA 

has made several changes, including 

reporting requirements for elementary 

and childcare facilities in the first five 

years of monitoring and reporting 

requirements for school and childcare 

sampling that is performed on-request. 

IV. Other Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141 

A. Consumer Confidence Report 

In 1996, Congress amended the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among 

other things, this amendment added a 

provision requiring that all CWSs 

deliver to their customers a water 

quality report annually called a 

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). 

CCRs summarize information water 

systems collect to comply with 

regulations. The CCR includes 

information on source water, the levels 

of any detected contaminants, 

compliance with drinking water rules 

(including monitoring requirements), 

and some educational language, 

including a mandatory health effects 

statement regarding lead. 

1. Proposed Revisions 

As recommended by the NDWAC (see 

section VII.L.2 of this preamble), EPA 

consulted with risk communication 

experts to propose revised mandatory 

health effects language for the CCR. In 

addition, EPA proposed to use 

consistent mandatory lead health effects 

language in PE, CCR, and Public 

Notification materials. To improve 

clarity, EPA proposed to require CWSs 

to include a revised mandatory health 

effects statement that would inform 

consumers that lead is harmful for all 

age groups and to include a mandatory 

statement about LSLs (e.g., their 

presence and how to replace them) for 

water systems with LSLs. The proposed 

statement is below. 

Exposure to lead can cause serious 

health effects in all age groups. Infants 

and children who drink water 

containing lead could have decreases in 

IQ and attention span and increases in 

learning and behavior problems. Lead 

exposure among women who are 

pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead 

exposure among women who later 

become pregnant has similar risks if 

lead stored in the mother’s bones is 

released during pregnancy. Recent 

science suggests that adults who drink 

water containing lead have increased 

risks of heart disease, high blood 

pressure, kidney or nervous system 

problems. To increase transparency and 

improve public access to information, 

EPA also proposed to require CWSs to 

report the range of lead tap sample 

results in addition to the currently 

required 90th percentile and the number 

of samples that are greater than the lead 

action level for each monitoring period. 

Reporting the range of tap sample lead 

levels would allow consumers to 

understand how high tap sample levels 

were at individual sites. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Several commenters suggested 

revisions to the informational health 

effects statement on lead in drinking 

water that would be required in the CCR 

to make the language more readable and 

useful to consumers. Some commenters 

recommended requiring the CCR to 

include information on LSLs and the 

LSL inventory, including the number of 

LSLs, the number of lead status 

unknown service lines, the total number 

of service lines in the water system, and 

a statement that a service line inventory 

has been prepared and is available for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4239 

review. They also recommended 

requiring the CCR to notify consumers 

that complete lead tap sampling data are 

available for review and how to access 

the data. EPA agrees this is important 

information to consumers and has 

incorporated these recommendations in 

the final rule requirements for the CCR. 

A few commenters expressed concern 

that the CCR is no longer an effective 

method to communicate drinking water 

contaminant related issues and 

suggested use of other platforms such as 

social media. EPA supports using 

diverse methods of communication to 

reach consumers and provided recent 

guidance on electronic delivery of CCRs. 

In the final rule, EPA has increased the 

number and forms of public education 

materials. EPA has also worked to 

improve risk communication by 

consulting with risk communication 

experts, adopting clearer and more 

concise health effects language, and 

keeping the health effects language 

consistent across the CCR, 24 hour 

public notice for a lead action level 

exceedance, and all public education 

materials. In addition, the Agency has 

recommended that systems use social 

media to provide public education and 

outreach, for example to convey 

information about their LSLR program. 

3. Final Revisions 

EPA is finalizing the requirement for 

reporting tap sampling results in the 

CCR as proposed, while clarifying the 

meaning of ‘‘round of sampling’’ for 

systems on six-month monitoring given 

the new sampling requirements in the 

LCRR. The final rule requires water 

systems to include in the CCR the 90th 

percentile concentration of the most 

recent round(s) of sampling, the number 

of sampling sites exceeding the action 

level, and the range of tap sampling 

results for lead and copper. These 

results should be provided for each 

sampling event completed in the 

reporting period. This means that water 

systems on six-month monitoring will 

be required to include both rounds of 

lead and copper results. In response to 

comments, EPA added a new provision 

requiring water systems to include 

information in the CCR on how to 

access the service line inventory. EPA 

also added a new provision requiring 

water systems to include information in 

the CCR on how to access the results of 

all tap sampling. EPA incorporated 

some of the commenters’ suggested 

revisions to increase the clarity and 

accuracy of both the lead informational 

statement and mandatory health effects 

statement required in the CCR. The 

mandatory health effects statement for 

the final rule reads as follows and is also 

required in the public notice of an 

action level exceedance and in public 

education materials: 

Exposure to lead in drinking water 

can cause serious health effects in all 

age groups. Infants and children can 

have decreases in IQ and attention 

span. Lead exposure can lead to new 

learning and behavior problems or 

exacerbate existing learning and 

behavior problems. The children of 

women who are exposed to lead before 

or during pregnancy can have increased 

risk of these adverse health effects. 

Adults can have increased risks of heart 

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 

nervous system problems. 

B. Public Notification 

The current Public Notification Rule 

(PN) is part of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act 1996 Right To Know provisions. 

The rule is designed to ensure that 

consumers will know if there is a 

problem with their drinking water. 

These notices alert consumers if there is 

risk to public health. They also notify 

customers: If the water does not meet 

drinking water standards; if the water 

system fails to test its water; if the 

system has been granted a variance (use 

of less costly technology); or if the 

system has been granted an exemption 

(more time to comply with a new 

regulation). In 2000, EPA revised the 

existing Public Notification Rule. (40 

CFR part 141, subpart Q) The revisions 

matched the form, manner, and timing 

of the notices to the relative risk to 

human health. The revised rule makes 

notification easier and more effective for 

both water systems and their customers. 

In 2016, section 2106 of the WIIN Act 

amended section 1414(c)(1) of the 

SDWA to require water systems to 

provide to persons served by the system 

‘‘[n]otice that the public water system 

exceeded the lead action level under 

section 141.80(c) of title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or a prescribed 

level of lead that the Administrator 

establishes for public education or 

notification in a successor regulation 

promulgated pursuant to section 1412).’’ 

The WIIN Act also amended section 

1414(c)(2) of the SDWA to require EPA’s 

public notification regulations to require 

systems to notify the public no later 

than 24 hours after a system learns of an 

exceedance of the lead action level if it 

’’ ‘‘has the potential to have serious 

adverse effects on human health as a 

result of short-term exposure’’ just as 

section 1414(c)(2) has applied to 

violations of drinking water standards 

that have the potential to have serious 

adverse effects on human health as a 

result of short-term exposure. These 

situations are currently categorized as 

‘‘Tier 1’’ under the current public 

notification rules (see Table 2 to 

§ 141.201). Tier 1 notices must ‘‘be 

distributed as soon as practicable, but 

not later than 24 hours, after the public 

water system learns of the violation or 

exceedance’’ pursuant to section 

1414(c)(2)(C)(i) of the SDWA. The WIIN 

Act also amended section 1414(c)(2)(iii) 

to require that such notifications be 

provided to the Administrator in 

addition to the head of the state agency 

that has primary enforcement 

responsibility under section 1413 of the 

SDWA, as applicable, as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 24 hours 

after the public water system learns of 

the violation or exceedance.’’ In a State 

with primacy, EPA interprets the notice 

to the Administrator ‘‘as applicable’’ 

only when there is an action level 

exceedance; it would not apply to other 

Tier 1 situations where a State has 

primacy. This notice allows EPA to 

identify whether it must provide notice 

as required in section 1414(c)(2)(D), 

which was added to Section 1414(c)(2) 

as part of the WIIN Act. It provides that 

if a State with primary enforcement 

responsibility or the water system has 

not issued a notice for an exceedance of 

a lead action level that has the potential 

to have serious adverse effects on 

human health as a result of short-term 

exposure, the Administrator is required 

to issue the required notice. Because 

EPA does not have any obligation to 

issue a Tier 1 notice for violations of 

drinking water standards in states with 

primacy, there is no need for EPA to be 

notified of those Tier 1 situations. 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed to incorporate these 

requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs 

with a lead ALE as part of proposed 

revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule 

(LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule 

incorporated the amendments to section 

1414 of the SDWA in 40 CFR part 141, 

subpart Q-Public Notification of 

Drinking Water Violations (and as 

necessary into any provisions crossreferenced therein), and added 

exceedances of the lead AL under 

§ 141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 violations 

subject to the new 24-hour notice 

requirements discussed above. EPA 

proposed to categorize a lead AL 

exceedance as Tier 1 based on the 

conclusion that such exceedances ‘‘have 

the potential to have serious adverse 

health effects on human health as a 

result of short-term exposure.’’ Since 

exposure to lead can result in serious 

health effects as a result of short-term 

exposure in some circumstances, EPA 

proposed that any lead AL exceedance 

result in Tier 1 public notification. In 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4240 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

addition, EPA proposed to update the 

mandatory health effects statement for 

PN to be consistent with the proposed 

CCR revisions. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

EPA received many comments 

expressing concerns about the ability of 

water systems to meet the proposed 24- 

hour distribution requirement for 

notification of an AL exceedance. Many 

commenters requested that water 

systems be allowed at least two business 

days to deliver the public notice. EPA 

acknowledges commenters’ concerns; 

however, the Agency disagrees that 

systems would not be able to provide 

the notice within 24 hours. For several 

years, water systems have been required 

to provide Tier 1 notification for certain 

violations of drinking water standards 

within 24 hours of learning of the 

violation. Systems can prepare to 

provide the notice by creating a 

notification template in advance and 

may choose from several options for 

distribution of a public notification that 

make it feasible to provide the notice to 

all persons served by the system within 

24 hours of learning of the exceedance. 

These options are specified in 

§ 141.202(c) of the rule and include 

broadcast media such as radio and 

television, posting the notice in 

conspicuous locations throughout the 

area served by the water system, hand 

delivery of the notice to persons served 

by the water system, or another delivery 

method approved by the primacy 

agency. 

Many commenters questioned the 

categorization of a lead AL exceedance 

as a Tier 1 violation, particularly given 

it is not a health-based value. Some 

suggested that it be categorized as a Tier 

2 violation. However, as described 

above, Section 2106 of the 2016 WIIN 

Act amended section 1414(c)(2) of the 

SDWA to require EPA’s public 

notification regulations to require 

systems to notify the public no later 

than 24 hours after a system learns of an 

exceedance of the lead AL if it ‘‘has the 

potential to have serious adverse effects 

on human health as a result of the 

customer did not wish to replace the 

faucet exposure.’’ The scientific 

evidence demonstrates that exposure to 

lead is associated with increased risk of 

serious adverse health effects. The 

strongest evidence is for cognitive 

effects from prenatal and childhood 

exposure. Also of concern are studies 

showing increases in risk of cancer and 

cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, 

immunological, and neurological effects 

in adults (USEPA, 2013; National 

Toxicology Program, 2012; USEPA, 

2004a). Given there is no safe level of 

lead, and there are life stages (e.g., early 

childhood) where any lead exposure is 

especially problematic, lead AL 

exceedances could have serious adverse 

health consequences. Accordingly, to 

avoid these impacts, consumers must be 

notified as soon as possible as required 

under the SDWA. 

3. Final Revisions 

The final rule adds exceedances of the 

lead AL of 15 mg/L to the list of Tier 1 

violations subject to the new 24-hour 

distribution requirement for notification 

of an AL exceedance. This is based on 

the conclusion that such exceedances 

have the potential to have serious 

adverse health effects on human health 

as a result of short-term exposure. 

Therefore, the final rule requires CWSs 

and NTNCWSs with a lead ALE to 

provide public notice to persons served 

by the system within 24 hours of 

learning of the ALE; that is, within 24 

hours of the system receiving and 

calculating the 90th percentile value. A 

copy of the notice must also be sent to 

both the primacy agency and the 

Administrator in accordance with the 

requirements of §§ 141.4(c)(2)(iii) and 

141.31(d). EPA has also updated the 

mandatory health effects language 

required in the public notice of a lead 

ALE as well as the CCR and public 

education materials to enhance clarity 

and accuracy. The mandatory health 

effects language in the final rule reads 

as follows: 

Exposure to lead in drinking water 

can cause serious health effects in all 

age groups. Infants and children can 

have decreases in IQ and attention 

span. Lead exposure can lead to new 

learning and behavior problems or 

exacerbate existing learning and 

behavior problems. The children of 

women who are exposed to lead before 

or during pregnancy can have increased 

risk of these adverse health effects. 

Adults can have increased risks of heart 

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 

nervous system problems. 

C. Definitions 

1. Proposed Revisions 

Under the Proposed Lead and Copper 

Rule Revisions, EPA proposed new and 

revised definitions under § 141.2. 

Definitions for ‘‘aerator,’’ ‘‘prestagnation flushing,’’ ‘‘wide-mouth 

bottle,’’ and ‘‘tap sampling protocol,’’ 

were added to correspond with 

proposed rule changes regarding tap 

sampling methods. In addition, EPA 

proposed changes to population size 

criteria for small and medium-size water 

systems to reflect the 1996 changes to 

SDWA for small-system flexibility, 

where small water systems serve 10,000 

or fewer customers. 

Definitions were added in the 

proposal to ensure readers understood 

the criteria for identifying a ‘‘child care 

facility,’’ and a ‘‘school,’’ in relation to 

new sampling requirements for these 

facilities. In addition, definitions for 

‘‘trigger level,’’ ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ 

‘‘customer,’’ and ‘‘consumer’’ were 

included in the proposal because 

‘‘trigger level’’ and ‘‘find-and-fix’’ were 

new requirements under the proposal, 

while ‘‘customer’’ and ‘‘consumer’’ 

referred to defined groups impacted by 

aspects of the proposal such as public 

education under § 141.85. Further, in 

the proposal, terms related to LSLs, 

such as ‘‘galvanized service line,’’ 

‘‘trenching,’’ ‘‘potholing,’’ 

‘‘hydrovacing,’’ and ‘‘gooseneck, pigtail, 

or connector,’’ were defined because 

these are processes or materials 

associated with the LSLR requirements 

of the proposal. EPA also modified the 

definition of a ‘‘lead service line’’ to 

better fit the rule requirements in the 

proposal. These changes included 

removing lead goosenecks, pigtails, and 

connectors from the definition and 

specifying when galvanized lines are 

considered an LSL for purposes of 

conducting LSLR. EPA made these 

modifications to align with rule 

requirements which prioritize the 

identification, replacement, and tap 

sampling at sites with LSLs, as they are 

the primary source of lead in drinking 

water when present. The definition of a 

lead service line does not include lead 

goosenecks, pigtails or connectors to 

avoid water systems replacing only lead 

connectors to meet goal rate and 

mandatory LSLR requirements. 

‘‘Sampling period’’ was also added in 

reference to the months of the year that 

sampling is permitted under § 141.86, 

while ‘‘monitoring period’’ was added 

and defined, to refer to the tap sampling 

frequency the water system is required 

to conduct. To ensure appropriate 

implementation of rule requirements, 

definitions for ‘‘pitcher filter’’ and 

‘‘point-of-use’’ (POU) device were also 

included in the proposal. Definitions for 

a ‘‘method detection limit’’ (MDL) and 

a ‘‘practical quantitation level’’ (PQL) 

were provided in the proposed rule to 

better explain analytical methods in the 

current and proposed rules. 

2. Public Comment and EPA Response 

Many commenters were concerned 

about the new definitions of 

‘‘consumer’’ and ‘‘customer’’ and 

explained that they were misused or 

used interchangeably throughout the 

rule. For instance, in the proposal, 

‘‘customer’’ was defined as paying users 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4241 

of the water system, whereas 

‘‘consumer’’ included all users, 

including those paying the water bill. 

Commenters noted there was confusion 

about their use for LSL notification and 

public education purposes and 

interpreted a requirement to notify 

‘‘consumers’’ to mean any person who 

may have used the water and 

questioned how a water system can 

notify transient populations. 

Commenters also noted that owners of 

the service line were not explicitly 

included in either definition and that 

they are an important group that should 

be contacted under certain 

circumstances. EPA agrees that the 

proposed definitions may be confusing 

and has not included them in § 141.2 of 

the final rule. EPA instead modified the 

regulatory text to specify the group of 

people affected in each section of the 

rule in lieu of using ‘‘consumer’’ and 

‘‘customer’’ (e.g., ‘‘persons served water 

by a lead service line’’) throughout this 

final rule. 

Many comments suggested 

modifications to the proposed 

definitions for ‘‘pitcher filter’’ such as 

specifying if EPA intends only the filter 

or the pitcher and the filter. Other 

suggestions included requiring pitcher 

filters to meet a standard by a certifying 

body that the device reduces lead. EPA 

agreed with some of the commenters’ 

concerns and has included in the 

definition that a pitcher filter must be 

certified by an American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) certifying 

body to reduce lead. 

Many commenters requested 

clarification on definitions for ‘‘child 

care facility’’ and ‘‘school’’. Several 

were opposed to including ‘‘licensed’’ 

with respect to child care facilities 

while others stated they should be 

limited to state-licensed child care sites. 

Some commenters asked EPA to remove 

‘‘or other location’’ from the definition 

of ‘‘school’’. Some commenters asked if 

higher education centers like 

universities and technical schools are 

included in the school definition and 

therefore in school sampling 

requirements. EPA modified the 

proposed school testing requirements to 

distinguish testing required at child care 

facilities and elementary schools versus 

those for secondary schools. In response 

to this, EPA has added new definitions 

for ‘‘elementary school’’ and ‘‘secondary 

school’’, so that it is clear which 

facilities are referred to in the 

requirements under § 141.92. These 

definitions are consistent with the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Glossary (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ 

coe/glossary.asp). 

After evaluations of public comments, 

EPA agrees and has modified the 

definitions of ‘‘school’’ and ‘‘child care 

facility’’ in the final rule to reduce any 

ambiguity as it was not EPA’s intent to 

include locations such as museums or 

athletic facilities in the definition of 

‘‘school’’ while EPA has maintained that 

licensed facilities are included in the 

‘‘child care facility’’ definition. 

Commenters asked for more detail on 

‘‘wide-mouth bottle’’ and EPA has 

included a specific diameter to define a 

wide mouth bottle in the final rule. 

Many commenters disagreed with 

how EPA defined ‘‘sampling period’’ 

and ‘‘monitoring period’’ stating that 

EPA did not use these terms 

consistently throughout the rule. They 

also note these definitions may conflict 

with other NPDWRs. In the final LCRR, 

EPA has uniquely defined these in 

regard to tap sampling for purposes of 

the LCRR. The LCRR includes 

definitions for ‘‘tap sampling 

monitoring period’’ to describe 

frequency and ‘‘tap sampling period’’ to 

describe the time period in which 

samples must be collected. 

Some of the comments requested 

clarification on ‘‘unknown’’ service 

lines, which prompted EPA to create 

new definitions such as ‘‘lead status 

unknown service line’’ to clearly 

delineate a category for unknown 

service lines. EPA agrees that 

clarification is needed and has included 

descriptions both in the LSL inventory 

requirements and as a new definition in 

§ 141.2. EPA received significant 

comment on the definition of an LSL, 

specifically, whether it is appropriate 

for a galvanized service line to be 

considered an LSL if it ever was or is 

currently downstream of an LSL. Many 

of these commenters expressed that 

water systems will not have records to 

demonstrate if a galvanized service line 

‘‘ever was or is currently downstream of 

any lead service line or service line of 

unknown material,’’ some stating that 

galvanized service lines should be 

included regardless of what is upstream. 

Other commenters stated that 

galvanized service lines should not be 

included to reduce burden to the water 

system. As proposed, most galvanized 

service lines would be deemed an LSL 

because of lack of information about 

upstream LSLs. In addition, commenters 

questioned why the proposal requires 

replacement of galvanized lines, but 

they cannot be used for tap sampling 

sites. EPA determined that a galvanized 

service line that is or ever was 

downstream from an LSL requires 

replacement but is not included in the 

LSL definition to reduce confusion and 

because it has its own definition. In 

addition, EPA included sites served by 

a galvanized requiring replacement in 

the tap sample site selection criteria 

(tier 3) in the final rule. This also helps 

clarify that while galvanized service 

lines that were or are upstream of an 

LSL require replacement, they are not 

appropriate sites for tap sampling. 

Many commenters were opposed to 

the exclusion of lead connectors 

(goosenecks, pigtails, etc.) from the 

proposed definition of an LSL, some 

stating this was violating SDWA’s antibacksliding provision under Section 

1412(b)(9). Some commenters reference 

the SDWA definition of an LSL as well 

as an LSL as defined by the California 

and Michigan regulations. Commenters 

provided input about what should and 

should not be included in the LSL 

definition and noted where there were 

contradictions in the rule between tap 

sampling, LSL inventory and 

replacement requirements regarding an 

LSL. EPA agreed that clarity was needed 

in the definition of an LSL due to its 

importance related to LSL inventory, 

LSLR outreach, and selection of tap 

sample sites and has clarified this in 

section III.C of this preamble. EPA has 

modified the definition to simplify it 

and to specify that it is for the purposes 

of the LCRR only, to prioritize tap 

sampling sites and replacement of full 

LSLs. EPA excluded the lead connector 

portion of the LSL definition and has 

clarified the lead connector definition 

itself. For purposes of this rule, lead 

connectors are not a part of the service 

line and are required to be replaced only 

when identified while conducting other 

maintenance and replacement activities. 

EPA has kept these connectors out of 

the LSL definition to ensure water 

systems are conducting LSLR on service 

lines and not counting replacement of 

connectors as a replaced LSL. A 

commenter noted that the definition for 

‘‘service line sample’’ should be 

removed since the LCRR no longer 

allows test out of LSLs. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

As stated above, EPA has made many 

changes to the definitions in the 

Proposed Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions, including modifying the 

proposed definitions, removing some 

additional terms and defining other 

additional terms. Definitions that were 

modified in the final rule include: 

‘‘action level,’’ ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ ‘‘first 

draw sample,’’ ‘‘galvanized service 

line,’’ ‘‘gooseneck, pigtail or connector,’’ 

‘‘lead service line,’’ ‘‘pitcher filter,’’ 

‘‘point-of-use device,’’ ‘‘pre-stagnation 

flushing,’’ ‘‘school,’’ ‘‘child care 

facility,’’ ‘‘tap sampling protocol,’’ 

‘‘wide-mouth bottle,’’ and changing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4242 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘trigger level’’ to ‘‘lead trigger level.’’ 

EPA revised definitions for ‘‘monitoring 

period’’ and ‘‘sampling period’’ to ‘‘tap 

sampling monitoring period’’ and ‘‘tap 

sampling period.’’ 

In addition, EPA has added the 

following definitions to improve the 

final rule: ‘‘Full lead service line 

replacement,’’ ‘‘lead status unknown 

service line,’’ ‘‘partial lead service line 

replacement,’’ ‘‘elementary school,’’ 

‘‘secondary school’’ and ‘‘system 

without corrosion control treatment.’’ 

These were added to ensure consistent 

implementation for LCRR requirements 

for preparing a service line inventory, 

LSLR, carrying out school sampling and 

conducting CCT studies. In addition, 

‘‘hydrovacing,’’ ‘‘trenching,’’ and 

‘‘potholing’’ have been removed because 

of their minimal use in the rule. 

EPA has also no longer included the 

terms ‘‘consumer’’ and ‘‘customer’’ in 

the definitions and has instead been 

more specific in each part of the rule 

about the impacted person or group. 

EPA removed the definition for ‘‘service 

line sample’’ because test outs of LSLs 

are not allowed in the LCRR. EPA has 

maintained the current definitions of 

‘‘small water system’’ and ‘‘medium-size 

water system’’ in § 141.2 consistent with 

the proposal. 

V. Rule Implementation and 

Enforcement 

A. What are the state recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements? 

1. Proposed Revisions 

EPA proposed requirements that 

would improve oversight and 

enforcement of the LCRR by the state. 

The proposal was consistent with a 

recommendation from GAO which 

recommended in its report ‘‘Drinking 

Water: Additional Data and Statistical 

Analysis May Enhance EPA’s Oversight 

of the Lead and Copper Rule,’’ that EPA 

require states to report available 

information about lead pipes to EPA’s 

SDWIS (or a future redesign) database 

and should require states to report all 

90th percentile sample results for small 

water systems (GAO–17–424, 2017). 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Commenters noted the burdensome 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of the proposed rule. The 

many proposed transactions between 

water systems and states, and between 

states and the EPA, would cause 

significant costs for primacy agencies. 

Many commenters noted that data 

management is critical for the final 

LCRR and inquired about the 

development of SDWIS Prime. 

EPA has accounted for the costs to 

states to implement and enforce the rule 

requirements in the proposed and final 

rules. While the costs to states have 

increased in the final rule relative to the 

previous rule, public health is better 

protected under the revised LCRR. The 

increased costs result from several 

improvements in the final rule that will 

benefit public health, such as additional 

LSLR and better implementation of 

CCT. These benefits are monetized and 

presented in the final rule’s economic 

analysis. 

EPA is intending to provide states 

with LCRR data management 

capabilities through the SDWIS 

Modernization system development 

project. EPA worked with states to form 

the SDWIS Modernization Board in 

January 2020. The Board is not an 

advisory group reaching consensus, the 

Board provided input into the third 

party-led SDWIS Modernization 

Alternatives Analysis through the end of 

June 2020. State members of the Board 

are expected to convey option 

recommendations to EPA by the end of 

July 2020, with EPA expected to select 

an option in August 2020. 

Following option selection, EPA is 

intending to engage with states in the 

development and testing of the SDWIS 

Modernization data system through 

Spring 2022. EPA will then provide 

assistance to states in their adoption of 

the new system. The system will 

include functions for ensuring data 

quality as well as for primacy agencies 

to be able to connect the system to 

locally run applications, such as the 

Drinking Water Application running on 

a state server. 

EPA is intending to provide LCRR 

Data Entry Instructions (DEIs) by Fall 

2021. The LCRR DEIs will provide 

detailed guidance to Primacy Agencies 

regarding the LCRR monitoring, record 

keeping, and reporting requirements. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

EPA is requiring that the state retain 

all record keeping requirements from 

the current LCR. In addition, EPA is 

requiring the state to maintain a record 

of all public water system’s LSL 

inventories and annual updates. This 

information is necessary for the state to 

calculate goal and mandatory LSLR 

rates, as well as verify correct tap 

sample site selection tiering. EPA is also 

requiring the state to maintain a record 

of the state’s decision and approval 

related to water system changes to 

source water or treatment. The state is 

required to maintain records regarding 

the required steps water systems must 

complete as required under the final 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ requirements. 

Finally, the state is also required to 

maintain records of the small system 

flexibility compliance alternative the 

state approved for non-transient nonCWS s and small CWSs. This 

information allows the state to track 

water systems’ progress with corrosion 

control treatment, complete LSLR, use 

of POU devices, and replacement of 

leaded premise plumbing, as 

appropriate. 

EPA is requiring states to report 

additional data elements to EPA. The 

state is required to report the OCCT 

status of all water systems, including 

the parameters that define the 

optimization (for example, 

orthophosphate residual or target pH 

and alkalinity values). EPA is requiring 

that all 90th percentile value be 

reported for all size systems. EPA has 

found that many states already 

voluntarily report 90th percentile lead 

values for all systems to the SDWIS. 

EPA also requires that states report 

the current number of LSLs at every 

water system. National information 

about the numbers of LSLs in public 

water systems will support EPA 

oversight of the LCR as well as EPA and 

other Federal agencies in targeting 

programs to reduce lead exposure, such 

programs established by the WIIN Act 

(WIINA, 2016) and America’s Water 

Infrastructure Act (AWIA, 2018). 

B. What are the special primacy 

requirements? 

1. Proposed Revisions 

The proposed revision added new 

primacy requirements to match new 

requirements in other rule sections, 

such as state designation of a goal LSLR 

rate. The proposed rule also included a 

provision that would give EPA the 

authority to set an alternative goal rate 

where it determines an alternative rate 

is feasible. The new school sampling 

requirement for water systems resulted 

in a proposed state requirement to 

define a school or child care facility and 

determine if any existing testing 

program is at least as stringent as the 

Federal requirements. States must also 

verify compliance with find-and-fix 

requirements. 

2. Public Comment and EPA’s Response 

Many commenters noted the 

increased data management demands of 

the proposed rule. Some commenters 

noted that the state flexibilities could 

create additional work for the states. For 

example, some commenters preferred 

EPA to set a national goal-based LSLR 

rates instead of the state. Some 

commenters disagreed that EPA should 

have authority to supersede a stateVerDate Sep<11>2014 06:31 Jan 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4243 

approved LSLR goal rate. See section 

III.D.2. of this document for EPA’s 

response to these comments. States had 

many other comments about the level of 

burden on the states required by the 

rule. EPA acknowledges the increased 

burden for states but notes that the 

additional requirements are feasible and 

will improve implementation and 

enforcement of the LCRR. EPA received 

several comments requesting Agency 

guidance on implementation of the 

revised rule. EPA understands this is a 

critical component to ensure the rule’s 

effectiveness in protecting public 

health. The Agency intends to develop 

implementation guidance targeting the 

areas of the rule that are most likely to 

support compliance. In addition to 

guidance, EPA will also provide training 

and other supporting materials that will 

help states and water systems 

implement the revised rule, reduce state 

transaction costs, and promote greater 

national consistency. 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

For the final rule EPA clarified that 

because water systems that serve 10,000 

or fewer people do not need to 

recommend a goal LSLR rate to the 

state, states do not need to approve a 

goal LSLR rate for these systems. Water 

systems below this threshold will follow 

the small system flexibility and will not 

engage in a goal-based LSLR program 

after exceeding the lead trigger level. In 

response to comments, the final rule 

does not include provisions for the 

Regional Administrator to establish an 

LSLR goal rate that would supersede a 

state decision. EPA also included a 

special primacy requirement that states 

must establish a higher mandatory LSLR 

rate where feasible for all water systems. 

VI. Economic Analysis 

This section summarizes the final rule 

Economic Analysis (EA) supporting 

document (USEPA, 2020a) for the Lead 

and Copper Rule (LCR) revisions, which 

is prepared in compliance with section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA and under 

Executive Order 12866. Section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA states that 

when proposing a national primary 

drinking water regulation (NPDWR) that 

includes a treatment technique, the 

Administrator shall publish and seek 

comment on an analysis of the health 

risk reduction benefits and costs likely 

to be experienced as the result of 

compliance with the treatment 

technique and the alternative treatment 

techniques that are being considered, 

taking into account, as appropriate, the 

factors required under section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(i). EPA is also using the 

health risk reduction cost analysis 

(HRRCA) in the development of this 

final rule for purposes of Section 

1412(b)(4), (5), and (7) of the SDWA 

(i.e., to determine the feasibility of the 

treatment techniques). Clause (i) lists 

the following analytical elements: (1) 

Quantifiable and non-quantifiable 

health risk reduction benefits; (2) 

quantifiable and non-quantifiable health 

risk reduction benefits from reductions 

in co-occurring contaminants; (3) 

quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs 

that are likely to occur solely as a result 

of compliance; (4) incremental costs and 

benefits of rule options; (5) effects of the 

contaminant on the general population 

and sensitive subpopulations including 

infants, children, pregnant women, the 

elderly, and individuals with a history 

of serious illness; (6) any increased 

health risks that may occur as a result 

of compliance, including risks 

associated with co-occurring 

contaminants; and (7) other relevant 

factors such as uncertainties in the 

analysis and factors with respect to the 

degree and nature of the risk. 

Costs discussed in this section are 

presented as annualized present values 

in 2016 dollars, which is consistent 

with the timeframe for EPA’s water 

system characteristic data used in the 

analysis. EPA estimated the year or 

years in which all costs occur over a 35- 

year time period. Thirty-five years was 

selected to capture costs associated with 

rule implementation as well as water 

systems installing and operating 

corrosion control treatment and 

implementing LSLR programs. EPA then 

determined the present value of these 

costs using discount rates of 3 and 7 

percent. Benefits, in terms of health risk 

reduction from the LCR revisions, result 

from the activities performed by water 

systems, which are expected to reduce 

risk to the public from exposure to lead 

and copper in drinking water at the tap. 

EPA quantifies and monetizes some of 

this health risk reduction from lead 

exposure by estimating the decrease in 

lead exposure accruing to children from 

0 to 7 years of age from the installation 

and re-optimization of corrosion control 

treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the 

implementation of point-of-use (POU) 

filter devices and by quantifying and 

monetizing the resulting change in 

intelligence quotient (IQ) in children. 

A. Public Comments on the Economic 

Analysis of the Proposed Rule and EPA 

Response 

EPA published an economic analysis 

for the proposed rule in accordance 

with SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) 

(USEPA, 2019f and 2019g). The 

proposed rule EA and the appendices to 

the proposed rule EA can be found in 

the rule docket, under the docket ID 

numbers EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300– 

0003 and EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300– 

0002 respectively). EPA solicited 

comment on all aspects of the economic 

analysis for the proposed LCRR. In 

particular, the Agency requested 

comment on the five drivers of costs 

identified in its economic analysis: (1) 

The existing number of LSLs in PWSs; 

(2) the number of PWS above the AL or 

TL under the previous rule and 

proposed rule monitoring requirements; 

(3) the cost of installing and optimizing 

corrosion control treatment; (4) the 

effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead 

concentrations; and (5) the cost of LSLR. 

EPA received a number of comments 

and data submissions associated with 

these five topics that the Agency has 

considered to reevaluate and refine the 

cost estimates. As a result of the new 

information submitted by commenters 

and additional data obtained by EPA in 

response to comments, the Agency has 

improved the estimates of costs and 

benefits for the final rule. 

EPA received a number of comments 

regarding the estimates of the existing 

number of LSLs in PWSs. Commenters 

provided state level summary data on 

the specific systems with LSLs from 

Indiana, Wisconsin, and Nevada. EPA 

has evaluated these comments and is 

using this data in combination with new 

data collected from states that have LSL 

inventory requirements (e.g., Michigan, 

Maryland, Ohio), to update the dataset 

of systems with LSLs. With this updated 

data, EPA has significantly expanded, 

from proposal, the number of systems 

with known LSL status to determine the 

baseline proportion of systems below or 

equal to the TL, above the TL and below 

or equal to the AL, and above the AL for 

both the low and high cost scenarios 

evaluated in the economic analysis. The 

impact of the expanded dataset of 

systems with known LSL status was 

found to have a small impact on the low 

and high scenario baseline proportion of 

systems that exceeded the TL or AL 

between the proposed and final rule 

analyses. 

EPA also received comments on the 

estimates of the number of water 

systems that would exceed the TL and 

AL in the economic analysis for the 

proposal. EPA received information 

from the states of Wisconsin, Indiana, 

Ohio, Connecticut, North Dakota and 

Nevada about the expected number of 

water systems that would exceed the TL 

and AL in those states given a first liter 

sampling protocol. EPA revised the 

estimates of systems without LSLs that 

would exceed the TL and AL based 

upon first liter sample results and used 

data provided by these states to assess 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4244 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the representativeness of the revised 

estimates for the final economic 

analysis. After considering the 

comments on the alternative fifth liter 

sampling technique for systems with 

LSLs described in section III.G of this 

document, EPA prepared revised 

estimates of the number of systems with 

LSLs that would exceed the AL and TL 

as a result of the fifth liter sample 

requirements in the final rule. EPA used 

the revised data set of systems with 

known LSLs to estimate the number of 

systems that will be required to collect 

fifth liter samples. In addition, EPA 

obtained more detailed data from the 

State of Michigan. The Michigan data 

represents 2019 lead tap sample 

compliance data that includes both first 

and fifth liter lead tap samples from 

homes with LSLs. EPA estimated the 

number of systems that would exceed 

the TL and the AL using the ratio 

between the first liter and fifth liter 90th 

percentile values from 133 Michigan 

systems. This new data from Michigan, 

along with the expansion of the number 

of systems with known LSL status, 

resulted in a larger proportion of 

systems with ALEs under the low cost 

scenario and a smaller proportion of 

systems with ALEs in the high cost 

scenario in the final rule analysis than 

was estimated in the proposed rule. 

This would tend to increase the 

estimated cost of the final rule low cost 

scenario compared to the proposal 

analysis and lower the cost for the final 

rule high cost scenario compared to the 

proposal. See Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of 

the final rule EA for additional detail 

(USEPA, 2020a). 

EPA received comments on the 

proposed rule’s cost estimates for the 

installation and operation and 

maintenance of CCT. The Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

provided cost estimates representing 

four of the state’s water systems. Based 

on the reported information EPA was 

able to compare the capital and 

operations and maintenance (O&M) 

costs of one of the small groundwater 

systems that had installed a zinc 

orthophosphate feed system with the 

EPA Work Breakdown Structure Zinc 

Orthophosphate Model and the cost 

curves used in the LCR analysis. Capital 

cost of the Nevada system fell close to 

the mid-point of the range between the 

low and high estimated cost curves used 

in the proposed regulatory analysis, and 

the system’s O&M costs fell well below 

the costs estimated by the EPA cost 

curves. After considering the comments, 

the Agency has determined that cost 

estimates for installing and operating 

CCT in the proposal are accurate for 

purposes of a national cost estimate and 

is retaining the methodology for the 

final rule. 

In response to EPA’s request for 

comment about the effectiveness of 

CCT, the Agency received general 

comments that CCT is very effective 

with caveats such as: The water in the 

distribution system must be used on a 

regular basis, and sampling should be 

required to check on proper operation of 

CCT. The Agency agrees with 

commenters that CCT can be effective in 

reducing drinking water lead levels if 

carefully operated and monitored. The 

Agency did not receive any comments 

on how to improve the estimates of the 

effectiveness of CCT from the proposed 

economic analysis and is therefore 

maintaining the same assumptions used 

in the proposed rule analysis. 

EPA received comments on the cost of 

LSLR, primarily dealing with the need 

for more current data. EPA agrees with 

the commenters that new information 

has become available since the time of 

proposal that would provide better 

estimates of LSLR unit costs for the final 

rule analysis. In the analysis of the 

proposed rule EPA had developed a 

dataset of 24 utility reported estimates 

of LSLR costs. EPA evaluated this 

dataset along the other replacement cost 

survey information and selected the 

American Water Works Association 

(AWWA) 2011 survey (Cornwell et al., 

2016) as the primary source of data for 

LSLR unit cost estimates for the 

proposed rule. Since proposal, EPA has 

identified cost data in news reports, 

press releases, and utility websites that 

has allowed the Agency to expand the 

utility data collected during the 

proposed rule analysis. The Agency’s 

search found additional cost estimates 

from 63 utilities. EPA then selected only 

the subset of data values that represent 

reported actual replacement costs from 

pilot studies and/or recent or on-going 

LSLR projects. This resultant dataset 

provides costs estimates across full, 

customer-side, and system-side 

replacements from 38 systems, which 

represent costs and practices from 2016 

to 2020 (only two cost values from the 

proposal dataset remain in the revised 

dataset). The cost information in the 

updated dataset are variable in the 

reported replacement costs covered by 

the various programs, but a number of 

the data sources specifically indicate 

they include surface restoration cost. 

Therefore, the cost analysis for the final 

rule includes surface restoration. The 

estimated mean costs for utility-side, 

customer-side, and full LSLR have 

increased by 122, 26, and 13 percent, 

respectively, using the newly developed 

data as compared with the AWWA 2011 

values used for proposal. For the final 

rule, EPA used the 25th and 75th 

percentile values from the new dataset 

in the low and high cost scenarios, 

respectively. All utility-side, customerside, and full LSLR unit costs under 

both the low and high cost scenarios are 

larger than those used in the proposed 

rule analysis except for full replacement 

in the high cost scenario. 

In addition to the more specific 

comments received on the cost of LSLR, 

public commenters raised concerns 

about the proposed rule requirement 

that systems would have to replace, 

within 45 days, the utility-owned 

portion of an LSL if they become aware 

that a customer has replaced their 

portion of the line. Commenters 

indicated concern that the number of 

‘‘customer initiated’’ LSLR might at 

times become too numerous for systems 

to complete the replacement within the 

45 days allowed. In response to these 

comments, EPA conducted a search for 

new data on the number of customer 

initiated LSLR occurring at water 

systems. EPA found data from DC Water 

(2016) that could be used to determine 

a rate of customer initiated 

replacements. This new data allowed 

the Agency to provide quantified costs 

for customer initiated LSLR in the final 

rule analysis which were not available 

at the time of proposal. See Chapter 5, 

section 5.3.4 of the final rule EA for 

additional detail (USEPA, 2020a). The 

inclusion of these new quantified cost 

categories increases final rule estimated 

total cost compared to the proposed 

rule’s total cost. 

EPA asked for comment on the 

assumptions regarding labor required to 

comply with the proposed rule. The 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA) provided EPA 

with a version of their Costs of States 

Transactions Study (CoSTS) model 

which estimated the first five years of 

total and incremental burden to states 

for implementing the proposed LCRR (a 

number of individual States and some 

PWSs also indicated in comments that 

EPA review the ASDWA CoSTS model). 

Burden totals from this model were 

significantly higher for some state 

oversight activities than those estimated 

by EPA for the proposed LCRR. EPA 

carefully evaluated the information and 

assumptions in the CoSTS model and 

used them to develop revised state 

burden estimates for the cost analysis of 

the final rule. EPA revised cost 

estimates for a number of state activities 

including: Administrative activities, 

technical assistance, review of LSLR 

plans and LSL inventories, approval of 

systems’ LSLR goals, review and 

approval of tap sampling site plans, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4245 

review of school and child care testing 

programs, review of annual reports on 

school and child care testing programs, 

and review and approval of small 

system flexibility recommendations. 

EPA also added a new one-time cost 

element for both states and PWSs to 

initially confer on the system’s 90th 

percentile status and new requirements 

under the LCRR based on the system’s 

first two 6-month monitoring periods 

under the revised tap sampling 

requirements of the LCRR. These 

increases in burden to states will result 

in higher estimated total costs for the 

final rule when compared to the burden 

estimates used in the analysis of the 

proposed rule. 

EPA solicited peer reviewed 

information on the evidence relevant to 

quantifying the incremental 

contribution of blood lead 

concentrations (especially at blood lead 

level (BLL) less than 5 mg/dL) to 

cardiovascular disease (and associated 

mortality) relative to other predictors 

such as diet, exercise, and genetics that 

may be useful in a future benefits 

analysis. EPA received a number of 

comments that cited studies which EPA 

had identified in the proposed rule 

analysis, as well as one additional study 

by Chowdhury et al. (2018). Chowdhury 

et al. is a systematic review on 

cardiovascular morbidity endpoints that 

concludes that lead is associated with 

an increased risk of cardiovascular 

disease. EPA has added this reference to 

its qualitative discussions on the health 

impacts of lead in Appendix J of the 

final rule EA. 

Although the EPA did not quantify or 

monetize changes in adult health 

benefits for the proposed LCRR, the 

Agency estimated the potential changes 

in adult drinking water exposures and 

thus blood lead levels to illustrate the 

extent of lead reduction to the adult 

population as a result of the proposed 

LCRR. Commenters indicated that the 

Agency should include quantification 

and monetization of the adult 

cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits 

associated with reductions in water lead 

concentrations in the health risk 

reduction and cost analysis (HRRCA 

referred to in this notice as the final rule 

economic analysis or final rule EA) for 

the LCRR. Some of the commenters have 

indicated that EPA has a legal obligation 

to include this benefit in the HRRCA 

under section 1412(b)(3) of SDWA. EPA 

does not agree with these commenters 

that a quantified assessment of CVD 

benefits is necessary in this HRRCA. 

EPA conducts a HRRCA when 

proposing any NPDWR, as required in 

section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) of the 

SDWA. SDWA Section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(I) requires the inclusion 

of quantifiable and nonquantifiable 

health risk reduction benefits for which 

there is a factual basis in the rulemaking 

record to conclude such benefits are 

likely to occur as a result of the rule. 

SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C)(iii) 

provides that ‘‘[t]he Administrator may 

identify valid approaches for the 

measurement and valuation of benefits’’ 

for the HRRCA. EPA exercised its 

discretion to identify the validity of the 

approaches used to measure and value 

CVD benefits and determined not to 

quantify CVD benefits for this 

rulemaking because the methodology 

which links changes in adult blood lead 

levels to CVD health endpoints, 

including mortality, has not yet 

undergone the necessary panel peer 

review. There remains uncertainty about 

the best quantitative relationship to 

describe the impacts of changes in 

current adult blood lead levels on the 

risk of CVD mortality. The studies 

currently available to the Agency which 

quantitatively describe the risk 

relationship attempt to control for a 

variety of potential confounders that 

may affect CVD risk as well as exposure 

to lead. EPA needs additional scientific 

guidance on which studies sufficiently 

control for potential confounding factors 

that might introduce bias into the 

estimated lead CVD risk relationship. 

The Agency will also seek input from an 

expert peer review panel on the 

modeling of the lead cessation lag (i.e., 

the time between the lead exposure 

reduction and the reduction in CVD 

risk). For additional information on the 

uncertainties associated with the 

assessment of the CVD mortality health 

endpoint which need to be clarified 

through the panel peer review process 

see Appendix J of the final rule EA. 

However, EPA has considered the 

substantial unquantified benefits to the 

rule, including those associated with 

reductions in adverse cardiovascular 

effects that are described in the HRRCA. 

Some commenters asserted that if the 

Agency monetized the benefits of CVD, 

the Agency would have proposed more 

stringent requirements because greater 

quantified benefits would justify more 

burdensome regulation. EPA disagrees. 

The Agency considered information 

from the HRRCA at proposal to 

determine, as required by SDWA section 

1412(b)(4)(C) ‘‘whether the benefits . . . 

justify, or do not justify, the costs.’’ The 

Agency found that the quantified and 

non-quantified benefits justified the cost 

of the proposed rule requirements. EPA 

considered costs and benefits in its 

rulemaking process, as required by 

SDWA. The Agency established the 

treatment technique requirements in the 

rule to ‘‘prevent known or anticipated 

adverse effects on the health of persons 

to the extent feasible’’ consistent with 

section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA, 

while also ensuring that ‘‘[a]ny revision 

of a national primary drinking water 

regulation shall . . . maintain, or 

provide for greater, protection of the 

health of persons’’ as required in section 

1412(b)(9) of the SDWA. EPA is not 

employing the discretionary provision 

of SDWA section 1412(b)(6) that allows 

the Agency to promulgate an NPDWR 

that ‘‘maximizes health risk reduction 

benefits at a cost that is justified by the 

benefits.’’ Therefore, the Agency’s 

decision to not monetize CVD benefits 

did not affect the stringency of the final 

rule. EPA conducted an analysis of 

quantifiable and non-quantifiable 

benefits that meets the statutory 

requirements and EPA considered both 

quantified and non-quantified benefits 

in the rulemaking. 

EPA received a number of comments 

that encouraged the Agency to obtain 

more data to better estimate the costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule. EPA 

engaged in additional data collection in 

response to comments improving upon 

the analysis conducted for the proposed 

rule. The Agency collected information 

post proposal from state and Federal 

websites, new reports, independent and 

drinking water system developed 

reports, and vendor information 

resulting in updates to: The number of 

systems with known LSL status; the unit 

cost of LSLR; the rate of customer 

initiated LSLR; the cost of scavenged 

pipe-loop and coupon CCT studies; the 

number of schools and child cares; and 

the current amount of state required 

school and child care testing. 

EPA reexamined the profile data set 

that was used by the Agency to estimate 

the reductions of lead levels as a result 

of CCT and LSLR. EPA reviewed the 

CCT designations made in the profile 

dataset and changed the designations 

based on new information. Re-running 

the model that simulates the water lead 

concentrations for various combinations 

of CCT and LSL presence for the final 

rule analysis resulted in increased lead 

concentrations for the no-LSL present 

scenarios and lower lead concentrations 

for the cases where full and partial LSLs 

are present and there is no or partial 

CCT present as compared to the 

estimated values used in the proposed 

rule analysis (see Exhibit 6–15 for the 

complete list of estimated 

concentrations used in the final rule 

analysis). The new estimates for lead 

concentration result in smaller changes 

in exposure as compared with the 

proposed rule. So, relative to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4246 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed rule a unit improvement in 

CCT or LSLR will result in smaller 

changes in lead concentration 

reductions, BLL reductions, and 

monetized IQ benefits. 

Exhibit 6–1 summarizes the data 

improvements made in response to 

comments received on the proposed 

rule analysis that have an impact of the 

estimated costs and benefits for the final 

rule. These impacts are separate from 

and irrespective of changes to the 

regulatory requirements. The exhibit 

indicates the impact the data change 

had on estimated costs. 

EXHIBIT 6–1—DATA IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED LCRR ANALYSIS

Data Impact on cost/benefit estimate from proposal 

Expanded dataset of systems with known LSL status ............................ • Small impact on estimated cost for previous rule (baseline). 

2019 State of Michigan lead compliance data used in conjunction with 

expanded dataset of systems with known LSL status.

• Increase low cost scenario estimated cost. 

• Decrease high cost scenario estimated cost. 

Lead Service Line Replacement unit costs .............................................. • Increase estimated costs. 

Estimate for customer initiated LSLR ....................................................... • Increase estimated cost (only qualitatively considered in the proposal). 

Updated state burden estimates based on ASDWA CoSTS model ........ • Increase estimated costs. 

Revised tap water lead concentration values .......................................... • Decrease estimated benefit. 

B. Affected Entities and Major Data 

Sources Used To Characterize the 

Sample Universe 

The entities potentially affected by 

the LCR revisions are public water 

systems (PWSs) that are classified as 

either CWSs or NTNCWSs. These water 

systems can be publicly or privately 

owned. In the economic analysis 

modeling performed in support of this 

rulemaking, EPA began with the 50,067 

CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWSs in the Safe 

Drinking Water Information System Fed 

Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) as its 

foundational data set. 

EPA used a variety of data sources to 

develop the drinking water industry 

characterization for the regulatory 

analysis. Exhibit 6–2 lists the major data 

sources, describes the data used from 

each source, and explains how it was 

used in the final rule EA. Additional 

detailed descriptions of these data 

sources and how they were used in the 

characterization of baseline industry 

conditions can be found in Chapter 4 of 

the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

EXHIBIT 6–2—MAJOR DATA SOURCES USED TO DEVELOP THE BASELINE INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION

Data source Baseline data derived from the source 

SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016 ‘‘frozen’’ dataset 1 ................................... • Public water system inventory, including population served, number 

of service connections, source water type, and water system type. 

Also used to identify NTNCWSs that are schools and child care facilities. 

• Status of CCT, including identification of water systems with CCT 

and the proportion of water systems serving ≤ 50,000 people that installed CCT in response to the previous LCR. 

• Analysis of lead 90th percentile concentrations to identify water systems at or below the TL of 10 μg/L, above the TL, and above the AL 

of 15 μg/L at the start of rule implementation by LSL status, i.e., 

presence or absence of LSLs for the previous rule and LCRR. Used 

in concert with data from Michigan described below for the LCRR.2 3

• The proportion of water systems that are on various reduced monitoring schedules for lead and copper tap and WQP monitoring. 

• The frequency of source and treatment changes and those source 

changes that can result in additional source water monitoring. 

• Length of time that water systems replace LSLs if required under the 

previous LCR. 

2006 CWSS (USEPA, 2009) .................................................................... • Number of distribution system entry points per system. 

• PWS labor rates. 

Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water Systems (USEPA, 

2000a).

• Design and average daily flow per water system. 

1988 AWWA Lead Information Survey .................................................... • LSL inventory, including the number of water systems with LSLs, 

and the average number of LSLs per water system, as reported in 

the 1991 LCR RIA (Weston and EES, 1990). 

2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of Lead Service Line Occurrence (as 

summarized in Cornwell et al., 2016).

• LSL inventory, including the number of water systems with LSLs and 

the average number of LSLs per water system. 

Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking Water Standards (2006–2011) ............... • Baseline distribution of pH for various CCT conditions. 

• Baseline orthophosphate dose for CCT. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4247 

EXHIBIT 6–2—MAJOR DATA SOURCES USED TO DEVELOP THE BASELINE INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION—Continued 

Data source Baseline data derived from the source 

2019 State of Michigan Lead and Copper Compliance Monitoring Data 

(Michigan EGLE, 2019).

• Analysis of the ratio of fifth to first liter lead tap samples to estimate 

the increase in lead 90th percentile levels based on the use of fifth 

liter samples. Ratios are applied to SDWIS/Fed lead 90th percentile 

data to identify systems at or below the TL of 10 μg/L, above the TL, 

and above the AL of 15 μg/L under the final LCRR by LSL status. 

• Percent of individual samples exceeding 15 μg/L for the final LCRR. 

Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association; CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water 

System Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LCRR = Lead and Copper Rule revisions; LSL = lead service line; Michigan EGLE = Michigan 

Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy; NTNCWS = non-transient non-community water system; public water system; RIA = regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

NOTE: 1 Contains information reported through June 30, 2016. 

2As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), a system’s lead 90th percentile 

level is a key factor in determining a system’s requirements under the previous rule and final LCRR. 3 In the analysis of lead 90th percentile concentrations at PWSs EPA used SDWIS/Fed data for systems with known LSL status. This sub-set 

of systems with known LSL status was identified using data from 12 states (including data received in public comments from Indiana, Wisconsin, 

and Nevada), Region 9 tribal systems, and web searches identifying individual systems including the systems serving greater than 1,000,000 

persons. See Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of the Economic Analysis for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for additional detail. 

C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model 

Under the regulatory provisions of the 

final rule, PWSs will face different 

compliance scenarios depending on the 

size and type of water system, the 

presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion 

controls. In addition, PWSs will also 

face different unit costs based on water 

system size, type, and number of entry 

points (e.g., labor rates and CCT capital, 

and O&M unit costs). PWSs have a great 

deal of inherent variability across the 

water system characteristics that dictate 

both compliance activities and cost. 

Because of this variability, to 

accurately estimate the national level 

compliance costs (and benefits) of the 

final LCR revisions, as well as describe 

how compliance costs are expected to 

vary across types of PWSs, the costbenefit model creates a sample of 

representative ‘‘model PWSs’’ by 

combining the PWS-specific data 

available in SDWIS/Fed with data on 

baseline and compliance characteristics 

available at the PWS category level. In 

some cases, the categorical data are 

simple point estimates. In this case, 

every model PWS in a category is 

assigned the same value. In other cases, 

where more robust data representing 

system variability are available the 

category-level data includes a 

distribution of potential values. In the 

case of distributional information, the 

model assigns each model PWS a value 

sampled from the distribution, in order 

to characterize the variability in this 

input across PWSs. The model follows 

each model PWS in the sample through 

each year of analysis—determining how 

the PWS will comply with each 

requirement of the final rule, estimating 

the yearly compliance cost, and tracking 

the impact of the compliance actions on 

drinking water lead concentrations. It 

also tracks how other events, such as 

changing a water source or treatment 

affect the water system’s compliance 

requirements for the next year. 

The model’s detailed output provides 

results for 36 PWS categories, or strata. 

Each PWS reporting category is defined 

by the water system type (CWS and 

NTNCWS), primary source water 

(ground and surface), and size category 

(there are nine). The following subsections present summarized national 

cost and benefit totals by regulatory 

categories. The detailed output across 

the 36 PWS categories can be found in 

Appendix C of the final rule EA 

(USEPA, 2020a). 

In constructing the initial model PWS 

sample for the cost-benefit analysis, 

EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 

17,589 NTNCWS in SDWIS/Fed. Also, 

from SDWIS/Fed, EPA knows each 

water system’s type (CWS or NTNCWS); 

primary water source (surface water or 

groundwater); population served; CCT 

status (yes/no); ownership (public or 

private); and number of connections. 

The available LCR data limited EPA’s 

ability to quantify uncertainty in the 

cost-benefit model. During the 

development of the model, it became 

clear that not only were many of the 

inputs uncertain, but for many LCR 

specific inputs, EPA only has limited 

midpoint, high, and low estimates 

available and does not have information 

on the relative likelihood of the 

available estimates. This includes major 

drivers of the cost of compliance 

including: The baseline number of 

systems with LSLs and the percent of 

connections in those system that are 

LSLs; the number of PWSs that will 

exceed the AL and/or TL under the 

revised tap sampling requirements; the 

cost of LSL replacement; the cost of 

CCT; and the effectiveness of CCT in 

PWSs with LSLs. Therefore, EPA 

estimated final LCRR compliance costs 

under low and high bracketing 

scenarios. These low and high cost 

scenarios are defined by the assignment 

of low and high values for the set of 

uncertain cost drivers listed above. 

Detailed descriptions of these five 

uncertain variables and the derivation of 

their values under the low and high cost 

scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, 

Section 5.2.4.2 of the final rule EA 

(USEPA, 2020a). With the exception of 

the five uncertain variables which 

define the difference between the low 

and high cost scenarios the remaining 

baseline water system and compliance 

characteristics are assigned to model 

PWSs, as described above, and remain 

constant across the scenarios. This 

allows EPA to define the uncertainty 

characterized in the cost range provided 

by the low and high scenarios and 

maintains consistency between the 

estimation of costs for the previous and 

final rules (e.g., percentage of lead tap 

water samples that will be invalidated). 

Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA 

describe in greater detail the baseline 

and major cost driving data elements, 

their derivation, and the inherent 

sources of uncertainty in the developed 

data elements. Section 5.3 and 5.4 of the 

final rule EA discuss how each data 

element is used in the estimation of 

costs and provides examples and 

references to how these data were 

developed. 

Because PWS baseline characteristics 

are being assigned from distributional 

source data to capture the variability 

across PWS characteristics, EPA needed 

to ensure that its sample size was large 

enough that the results of the costbenefit model were stable for each of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4248 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

36 PWS categories. To ensure stability 

in modeled results, EPA oversampled 

the SDWIS/Fed inventory to increase 

the number of water systems in each 

PWS category. For every PWS category, 

EPA set the target minimum number of 

model PWSs to 5,000. To calculate the 

total estimated costs for each PWS 

category, the model weights the 

estimated per water system costs so that 

when summed the total cost is 

appropriate for the actual number of 

water systems known to be in the 

category. 

The exception to the assignment of 

water system characteristics discussed 

above are the 21 very large water 

systems serving more than one million 

people. Because of the small number of 

water systems in this size category, the 

uniqueness of their system 

characteristics, and the potential large 

cost for these systems to comply with 

the regulatory requirements, using the 

methods described above to assign 

system attributes could result in 

substantial error in the estimation of the 

national costs. Therefore, EPA 

attempted to collect information on very 

large water systems’ CCT practices and 

chemical doses, pH measurements and 

pH adjustment practices, number of 

LSLs, service populations, and average 

annual flow rates for each entry point to 

the distribution system. EPA gathered 

this information from publicly available 

data such as SDWIS/Fed facility-level 

data, Consumer Confidence Reports, 

and water system websites. In addition, 

the AWWA provided additional data 

from member water systems to fill in 

gaps. When facility-specific data was 

available, EPA used it to estimate 

compliance costs for the very large 

water systems. If data was not available, 

EPA assigned baseline characteristics 

using the same process as previously 

described. See Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.3 

of the final rule EA for a summary of the 

data EPA collected on these very large 

systems (USEPA, 2020a). 

The cost model estimates the 

incremental cost of the LCR revisions 

over a 35-year period. In accordance 

with EPA’s policy, and based on 

guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), when 

calculating social costs and benefits, 

EPA discounted future costs (and 

benefits) under two alternative social 

discount rates, 3 percent and 7 percent. 

When evaluating the economic 

impacts on PWSs and households, EPA 

uses the estimated PWS cost of capital 

to discount future costs, as this best 

represents the actual costs of 

compliance that water systems would 

incur over time. EPA used data from the 

2006 Community Water System Survey 

(CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of 

capital. EPA calculated the overall 

weighted average cost of capital (across 

all funding sources and loan periods) for 

each size/ownership category, weighted 

by the percentage of funding from each 

source. The cost of capital for each CWS 

size category and ownership type is 

shown in Exhibit B–3 in Appendix B of 

the final rule EA. Since similar cost of 

capital information is not available for 

NTNCWSs, EPA used the CWS cost of 

capital when calculating the annualized 

cost per NTNCWS. Total capital 

investment may be greater than costs 

water systems bear when complying 

with future regulatory revisions because 

financing support for lead reduction 

efforts is available from State and local 

governments, EPA programs, and other 

Federal agencies. The availability of 

funds from government sources, while 

potentially reducing the cost to 

individual PWSs, does not reduce the 

social cost of capital to society. See 

Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA for 

a discussion of uncertainties in the cost 

estimates. 

EPA projects that rule implementation 

activities will begin immediately after 

rule promulgation. These activities will 

include one-time PWS and State costs 

for staff to read the revised rule, become 

familiar with its provisions, and 

develop training materials and train 

employees on the revised rule. States 

will also incur burden hours associated 

with adopting the rule into state 

requirements, updating their LCR 

program policies and practices, and 

modifying data management systems. 

PWSs will incur costs to comply with 

the LSL materials inventory 

requirements and develop an initial 

LSLR plan in years one through three of 

the 35-year analysis period. EPA expects 

that water systems will begin complying 

with all other LCRR rule requirements 

three years after promulgation, or in 

year four of the analysis. 

Some requirements of the final rule 

must be implemented by water systems 

regardless of their water quality and tap 

sampling results (e.g., CWS school and 

child care facilities sampling programs), 

however, most of the major cost drivers 

are a function of a water systems 90th 

percentile lead tap sample value. The 

90th percentile value, if it exceeds the 

lead trigger level or action level, 

dictates: The tap sampling and water 

quality parameter (WQP) monitoring 

schedules, the installation/reoptimization of CCT, ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

adjustments (triggered when a single 

lead tap sample exceeds 15 mg/L, which 

has an increasing likelihood in the 

model as 90th percentile tap sample 

results increase) which include 

potential changes to CCT, the 

installation of point-of-use filters at 

water systems selecting this treatment 

option as part of the small water system 

flexibilities under the final rule, the 

goal-based or mandatory removal of 

LSLs and water system and state 

administrative costs. Because of 

uncertainty in the estimation of the 90th 

percentile lead values the Agency 

developed low and high estimates for 

this cost driving variable. EPA used 

both the minimum and maximum 90th 

percentile tap sample values from 

SDWIS/Fed over the period from 2007 

to 2015, to assign a percentage of PWSs 

by size, and CCT and LSL status to each 

of three groups, those at the trigger level 

(TL) or below, those above the lead 

trigger but at or below the action level 

(AL), and those above the lead AL. 

These assignments represent the status 

of systems under the previous rule. See 

Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA for 

additional information (USEPA, 2020a). 

Because the tap sampling 

requirements for LSL water systems 

under the final LCR revisions call for 

100 percent of lead tap samples to be 

taken from sites with LSLs and for those 

samples to be fifth liter samples, 

representing the lead concentration 

from the LSL, the likelihood that a PWS 

would have a lead 90th percentile 

greater than the TL or AL is higher 

under the final rule compared to the 

previous LCR. In order to assess this 

higher likelihood of TL or AL 

exceedances under the LCRR tap 

sampling requirements EPA used 

information from Slabaugh et al. (2015) 

to develop adjustment factors to capture 

the impact of taking 100 percent of lead 

tap samples from sites with LSLs. To 

account for the fifth liter sampling 

requirement at LSL sites EPA used 2019 

State of Michigan compliance sampling 

data that was received as part of the 

public comment process on the 

proposed rule. This dataset had paired 

first and fifth liter sampling data for 133 

LSL systems (Michigan state law 

requires that both first and fifth liter 

samples be taken at LSL sites) that 

allowed the Agency to calculate a set of 

ratios representing the relationship 

between first and fifth liter lead 90th 

percentile values. EPA assigned the LSL 

systems to the three 90th percentile 

value groups, those without a TL or AL 

exceedance, those with a TL but not an 

AL exceedance, and those with an AL 

exceedance utilizing the adjustment 

factors derived from the Slabaugh et al. 

(2015) data and the calculated ratios 

from the Michigan dataset. The use of 

the Michigan data results in large 

numbers of systems being assigned to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4249 

the AL exceedance category for the low 

cost scenario and fewer systems being 

assigned to the AL exceedance category 

in the high cost scenario that would 

have occurred using the proposed rule 

assignment methodology. A detailed 

discussion of the development of the 

90th percentile value initial group 

placement, the adjustments made for the 

LSL water systems given the tap 

sampling requirements, and the 

percentages of systems assigned to the 

90th percentile value groups under both 

the previous and final LCRR for the low 

and high cost scenarios are found in 

Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA. Once water 

systems are assigned to the groupings 

based on their CCT and LSL status, 

individual 90th percentile lead tap 

sample values are assigned from the 

distribution of 90th percentile values 

within each grouping. 

Several regulatory compliance 

activities are assumed to not affect a 

water system’s 90th percentile value. 

These include, for example, developing 

an inventory of LSLs, CWS sampling at 

schools and child care facilities, and 

public education. In the model, the only 

compliance activities that will change a 

water system’s 90th percentile lead tap 

sample are installation of CCT; reoptimization of existing CCT; removal of 

LSLs; and a water system-wide ‘‘findand-fix’’ activity (assumed to be 

equivalent to a system-wide increase in 

pH). In addition to these rule 

compliance activities, changing a water 

source or treatment technology can also 

result in a change in a water system’s 

90th percentile tap sample value. 

Because a water system’s 90th 

percentile lead value is so important to 

determining regulatory requirements 

and cost under the rule revisions, the 

cost model, under both the low and high 

cost scenarios, tracks each water 

system’s 90th percentile lead value over 

each annual time step in the model. 

Based on the initial 90th percentile lead 

values, a number of rule compliance 

actions are triggered. With the 

implementation of CCT, LSLR, and 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ corrections, 90th 

percentile lead tap sample values are 

expected to decrease. The model allows 

for future increases in 90th percentile 

lead values as a result of changes in 

source water and treatment. The 

likelihood of these events occurring 

have been derived from SDWIS/Fed 

data (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.8 of the 

final rule EA). When a change in source 

or treatment occurs in a modeled year, 

a new 90th percentile value is assigned 

to the water system. This value may be 

higher or lower than the current value 

thus potentially triggering new 

corrective actions. In the model, if a 

water system already has ‘‘optimized’’ 

CCT in place, it is assumed that no 

additional action is needed and that the 

current treatment is adequate, therefore 

the 90th percentile will not change. 

D. Cost Analysis 

This section summarizes the cost 

elements and estimates total cost of 

compliance for the previous LCR, the 

final LCR revisions and the incremental 

cost of the final rule, under both the low 

and high cost scenarios, by the major 

regulatory components and discounted 

at 3 and 7 percent. These components 

include implementation and 

administrative costs, sampling costs, 

CCT costs, LSL inventory and 

replacement costs, POU costs, and 

public education and outreach costs for 

water systems and states. Note that 

reporting costs are represented in the 

cost totals provided in the estimates 

below, but a separate summary of the 

reporting costs, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, can be found 

in section VII.C of this preamble. This 

section also quantifies the potential 

increase in phosphates that would result 

from the increased use of corrosion 

inhibitors under the rule, the resulting 

cost for treating to remove the 

additional phosphates at downstream 

waste water treatment plants that may 

be constrained by nutrient discharge 

limits, and discusses the ecological 

impacts that may result from increased 

phosphorus loads to surface waters. 

1. Drinking Water System 

Implementation and Administrative 

Costs 

All water systems will have one-time 

start-up activities associated with the 

implementation of the LCRR. These 

compliance costs include water system 

burden to read and understand the 

revised rule; water systems assigning 

personnel and resources for rule 

implementation; water system 

personnel time for attending trainings 

provided by the state; and clarifying 

regulatory requirements with the state 

during rule implementation. This 

category of cost is not impacted by the 

variables that define the low and high 

cost scenarios, therefore only one set of 

estimated costs exist in the category. 

The estimated annualized national PWS 

implementation and administrative 

costs for the LCR revisions are 

$2,576,000 at a 3 percent discount rate 

and $4,147,000 at a 7 percent discount 

rate. Since there are no costs in this 

category under the previous LCR, the 

PWS implementation and 

administrative incremental costs are 

also $2,576,000 at a 3 percent discount 

rate and $4,147,000 at a 7 percent 

discount rate. Additional information 

on the estimation of water system 

implementation and administrative 

costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 

5.3.1 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 

2020a). 

2. Sampling Costs 

The final LCR revisions affect most of 

the LCR’s sampling requirements, 

including lead tap sample monitoring, 

lead WQP monitoring, copper WQP 

monitoring, and source water 

monitoring. The revised rule also 

includes new requirements for CWSs to 

sample at schools and child care 

facilities within their distribution 

systems. The copper tap sampling 

requirements of the previous rule are 

not impacted by the regulatory revisions 

and therefore do not appear in the 

summarized sampling costs. Additional 

lead WQP monitoring and lead tap 

sampling that is specifically required by 

the previous rule and the LCRR after the 

installation or re-optimization of 

corrosion control treatment is accounted 

for in the CCT costs and not in the WQP 

monitoring or tap sampling costs. 

Lead tap sampling site selection 

tiering requirements have been 

strengthened under the revised rule, 

increasing the cost to water systems 

with LSLs for the development of a tap 

sampling pool that consists of all LSL 

sites. Also, the sampling protocol 

requiring fifth liter samples from LSL 

sites will impact the cost of materials 

used to collect the tap sample at each 

LSL location. The other cost 

components of lead tap sampling 

remain generally unchanged and 

include sample collection (apart from 

fifth liter testing kit costs), analysis, and 

reporting cost. The frequency of 

required lead tap sampling will also 

increase based on lead tap sample 90th 

percentile values calculated with fifth 

liter tap samples. 

Both the lead and copper WQP 

monitoring cost totals represent 

collection and lab analysis cost of 

samples both at entry points to and taps 

within the distribution system, as well 

as PWS reporting costs. The schedules 

for conducting these activities at 

modeled water systems are dependent 

on a water system’s projected lead 90th 

percentile value, the presence of CCT, 

and past tap sampling results. 

The final rule requires source water 

monitoring the first time a PWS has an 

action level exceedance. This 

monitoring is not required again unless 

the water system has a change in source 

water. 

Sampling at schools and child care 

facilities represents new requirements 

for CWSs under the LCR revisions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4250 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Unlike the other sampling requirements 

of the rule, school and child care facility 

sampling is not affected by a water 

system’s 90th percentile lead tap sample 

value. The final rule requires that all 

schools and child care facilities 

(constructed prior to January 1, 2014 or 

the date the state adopted standards that 

meet the definition of lead free in 

accordance with Section 1417 of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended by 

the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water 

Act, whichever is earlier) must be 

sampled once every five years (schools 

and child care facilities may refuse the 

sampling or be non-responsive, but the 

water system must document this 

refusal or non-response to the state) for 

two consecutive rounds of sampling. 

After the initial sampling at all 

elementary school and child care 

facilities in their service area (over a five 

year period) CWSs are only required to 

provide sampling upon request from the 

school or child care facility. CWSs must 

conduct sampling at secondary schools 

at any time on request. This program’s 

costs are presented with sampling cost, 

but they also represent public education 

costs of the LCRR. The costs of 

complying with the rule include water 

systems: (1) Identifying schools and 

child care facilities in their service area 

and preparing and distributing an initial 

letter explaining the sampling program 

and the 3Ts Toolkit, (2) coordinating 

with the school or child care facility to 

determine the sampling schedule and 

the logistics of collecting the samples, 

(3) conducting a walkthrough at the 

school or child care facility before the 

start of sampling, (4) sample collection 

from the school or child care facility, (5) 

sample analysis, and (6) providing 

sampling results to the school or child 

care facility, the state, and the local and/ 

or state health department. 

Exhibit 6–3 and 6–4 show the 

national annualized sampling costs for 

both the low and high estimate 

scenarios, under the previous LCR, the 

final LCRR, and the incremental cost, 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 

respectively. Additional information on 

the estimation of sampling cost can be 

found in the Chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of 

the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

EXHIBIT 6–3—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED SAMPLING COSTS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring ................................................. $34,536,000 $46,775,000 $12,239,000 $36,604,000 $55,386,000 $18,782,000 

Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ............................. 7,265,000 8,225,000 959,000 8,311,000 10,211,000 1,900,000

Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring .......................... 140,000 152,000 13,000 134,000 150,000 16,000 

Source Water Monitoring .......................................................... 20,000 9,419 ¥11,000 50,000 31,000 ¥18,000 

School Sampling ....................................................................... 0 12,582,000 12,582,000 0 12,960,000 12,960,000 

Total Annual Sampling Costs ............................................ 41,962,000 67,744,000 25,782,000 45,099,000 78,739,000 33,641,000 

EXHIBIT 6–4—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED SAMPLING COSTS—ALL PWS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring ................................................. $33,746,000 $47,597,000 $13,851,000 $36,573,000 $58,566,000 $21,993,000 

Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ............................. 6,986,000 7,980,000 995,000 8,397,000 10,683,000 2,286,000

Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring .......................... 133,000 145,000 12,000 128,000 143,000 15,000 

Source Water Monitoring .......................................................... 25,000 13,000 ¥12,000 66,000 45,000 ¥20,000 

School Sampling ....................................................................... 0 14,461,000 14,461,000 0 14,969,000 14,969,000 

Total Annual Sampling Costs ............................................ 40,890,000 70,197,000 29,307,000 45,164,000 84,407,000 39,243,000 

3. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs 

Under the LCRR, drinking water 

systems are required to install CCT or 

re-optimize their existing CCT if their 

lead tap sample 90th percentile exceeds 

the trigger level or action level. A 

system may be required to perform a 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ adjustment to their CCT 

based on their current level of CCT in 

place if an individual lead tap samples 

exceed 15 mg/L. In the cost model, 90th 

percentile lead tap sample exceedances 

are initially determined using SDWIS/ 

Fed historic data which is adjusted to 

account for sampling at 100 percent LSL 

sites in LSL systems and the fifth liter 

sampling methodology changes. In 

subsequent model periods a 90th 

percentile lead tap sample exceedance 

can be triggered by a change in water 

system source water or treatment. Small 

CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people 

and all NTNCWSs may also elect to 

conduct LSLR or implement a POU 

program as part of the regulatory 

flexibilities in the LCRR. See section 

III.E of this preamble for additional 

information on the compliance 

alternatives available to small CWSs and 

NTNCWSs, and section VI.D.5 for a 

discussion of the modeling and a 

summary of the number of systems 

estimated to select each alternative 

compliance option. 

The capital and O&M costs for water 

systems installing or optimizing CCT are 

based on the assumption that water 

systems will install and operate CCT 

that achieves finished water 

characteristics of 3.2 mg/L of 

orthophosphate and pH at or above 7.2 

(for water systems with starting pH 

values less than 8.4). For those water 

systems assigned higher initial pH 

values in the model, between 8.4 and 

9.2, EPA assumed the CCT optimization 

would require adjusting pH to meet or 

exceed 9.2 (no orthophosphate addition 

would be needed). The distributions of 

water system starting values for 

orthophosphate and pH, used in the cost 

model, are both drawn from SDWIS/Fed 

and Six-Year Review Information 

Collection Request (ICR) dataset (see 

Chapter 4, section 4.3.6 of the final rule 

EA). 

All capital cost equations are a 

function of design flow, and all O&M 

costs are a function of average daily 

flow. Since CCT is conducted at the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4251 

water system’s entry points (EPs), the 

cost model calculates the design flow 

and average daily flow of each EP. The 

cost model uses two different sets of 

unit cost functions representing the low 

and high capital cost scenarios 

developed in the engineering Work 

Breakdown Structure models for CCT 

(see EPA’s report: Technologies and 

Costs for Corrosion Control to Reduce 

Lead in Drinking Water (USEPA, 

2020b)). Using these bracketing capital 

cost values is designed to characterize 

uncertainty in the cost model estimates 

and when combined with O&M costs 

and EP flow values, are used to 

calculate the low and high CCT cost 

estimates per model PWS. Note that 

optimization O&M costs are obtained 

through an incremental cost assessment. 

The cost model calculated the O&M 

existing cost and subtracts them from 

the optimized O&M cost to obtain the 

incremental re-optimization costs. 

In the cost model, water systems are 

assumed to always install and optimize 

their CCT, to the standards described 

above, before making any adjustment to 

CCT as a result of being triggered into 

the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ requirements of the 

rule. Each time a model PWS has 

individual lead tap samples exceeding 

15 mg/L in a monitoring period, costs for 

follow-up lead tap and WQP sampling 

are applied. In the case of corrective 

actions, there are four stages 

implemented with each successive 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ trigger. In the first 

period, where a tap sample is above 15 

mg/L, the model assumes there was a site 

specific sample issue and no water 

quality adjustments are needed. The 

second period having an exceedance 

results in the implementation of a spot 

flushing program to reduce water age in 

affected areas of the distribution system. 

With the third ‘‘find-and-fix’’ trigger, 

one of two things are assumed to occur 

at a single-entry point: A water system 

that has orthophosphate dosing and the 

pH target of 7.2 or greater will increase 

pH to 7.5, or a water system that 

previously optimized to a pH value of 

9.2 will increase pH to 9.4. If ‘‘find-andfix’’ is triggered for a fourth time, a 

water system is assumed to adjust all 

EPs to the new target pHs of 7.5 or 9.4, 

depending on the current treatment in 

place. 

Using O&M cost functions estimated 

for ‘‘find-and-fix’’ (see the Technologies 

and Costs for Corrosion Control to 

Reduce Lead in Drinking Water 

(USEPA, 2020b)), the cost model, when 

triggered into stage 3 and 4 CCT 

adjustment, first calculates the total 

annual O&M cost for treating to the 

‘‘find-and-fix’’ standards previously 

listed as if no CCT was installed, then 

subtracts the PWS’s current CCT annual 

O&M cost from the new ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

annual O&M cost, to derive the share of 

the PWS’s annual CCT O&M costs 

attributable to ‘‘find-and-fix’’ actions. 

The model also calculates the capital 

cost to retrofit the CCT water system for 

additional pH adjustment under both 

the low and high cost model scenarios. 

If a water system is triggered into a 

fourth round of ‘‘find-and-fix’’ CCT 

adjustment, the 7.5 or 9.4 pH 

requirements will be applied to all entry 

points. Individual entry point costs are 

summed to obtain total water system 

costs under the low and high model 

runs. 

In addition to the capital and O&M 

cost of CCT installation, reoptimization, or ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ water 

systems will also face several ancillary 

costs associated with changes in CCT 

status. Before the installation or reoptimization of CCT at a water system, 

a CCT study may need to be conducted 

or revised and the water system would 

need to consult with the state on the 

proposed changes to CCT (these costs 

also apply to water systems undergoing 

source water or treatment changes). 

After the change in CCT, a water system 

would conduct follow-up tap sampling 

and WQP monitoring at entry points 

and at taps in the distribution system, 

report the results of the initial post-CCT 

adjustment findings to the state, and 

review WQP data with the state on an 

ongoing basis as part of the water 

system’s sanitary surveys. See the final 

rule EA Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3.3 for 

additional detail on these requirements 

(USEPA, 2020a). 

Exhibits 6–5 and 6–6 show the range 

of estimated national costs for CCT 

under the previous LCR, the LCR 

revisions, and the incremental cost, 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 

respectively. Note that a range of CCT 

capital costs are used in this assessment, 

but the total range in Exhibits 6–5 and 

6–6 is impacted by all five of the 

uncertain variables which enter the 

model as low and high estimates. See 

Section VI.C of this preamble and 

Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.2 of the final 

rule EA, for additional information on 

the variables that define the low and 

high cost scenarios. The CCT Operation 

and Maintenance (Existing) category in 

these exhibits are EPA’s estimate of the 

ongoing cost of operating corrosion 

control at PWS where CCT was in place 

at the beginning of the period of 

analysis. Additional information on the 

estimation of CCT costs can be found in 

Chapter 5, section 5.3.3 of the final rule 

EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

EXHIBIT 6–5—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COSTS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing) ........................... $327,171,000 $327,171,000 $0 $327,490,000 $327,490,000 $0 

CCT Related Sanitary Survey and Source or Treatment 

Change Notification Activities ................................................ 1,356,000 1,735,000 379,000 1,355,000 1,719,000 363,000 

CCT Installation ......................................................................... 13,424,000 7,138,000 ¥6,286,000 41,261,000 19,392,000 ¥21,869,000 

CCT Installation Ancillary Activities .......................................... 43,000 122,000 80,000 119,000 754,000 635,000 

CCT Re-Optimization (Due to ALE) .......................................... 2,479,000 6,575,000 4,096,000 15,374,000 33,425,000 18,051,000 

CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to ALE) ........... 11,000 1,449,000 1,438,000 81,000 27,261,000 27,180,000 

CCT Re-Optimization (Due to TLE) .......................................... 0 5,452,000 5,452,000 0 20,724,000 20,724,000 

CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to TLE) ............ 0 98,000 98,000 0 444,000 444,000 

Find and Fix Installation ............................................................ 0 8,271,000 8,271,000 0 31,688,000 31,688,000 

Find and Fix Ancillary Activities ................................................ 0 5,884,000 5,884,000 0 8,190,000 8,190,000 

Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs ........... 344,483,000 363,894,000 19,412,000 385,681,000 471,087,000 85,407,000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4252 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 6–6—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COSTS—ALL PWS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing) ........................... $306,521,000 $306,521,000 $0 $306,822,000 $306,822,000 $0 

CCT Related Sanitary Survey and Source or Treatment 

Change Notification Activities ................................................ 1,293,000 1,662,000 368,000 1,293,000 1,641,000 348,000 

CCT Installation ......................................................................... 12,499,000 6,623,000 ¥5,876,000 40,703,000 18,919,000 ¥21,783,000 

CCT Installation Ancillary Activities .......................................... 57,000 168,000 111,000 160,000 1,034,000 875,000

CCT Re-Optimization (Due to ALE) .......................................... 2,299,000 5,664,000 3,365,000 15,724,000 33,041,000 17,317,000 

CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to ALE) ........... 15,000 1,913,000 1,898,000 107,000 35,996,000 35,888,000 

CCT Re-Optimization (Due to TLE) .......................................... 0 4,784,000 4,784,000 0 20,888,000 20,888,000 

CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to TLE) ............ 0 140,000 140,000 0 633,000 633,000 

Find and Fix Installation ............................................................ 0 6,986,000 6,986,000 0 29,911,000 29,911,000 

Find and Fix Ancillary Activities ................................................ 0 5,848,000 5,848,000 0 8,668,000 8,668,000 

Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs ........... 322,684,000 340,307,000 17,623,000 364,809,000 457,554,000 92,745,000 

4. Lead Service Line Inventory and 

Replacement Costs 

The LCR revisions require all water 

systems to create an LSL materials 

inventory during the first three years 

after rule promulgation or demonstrate 

to the state and make publicly available 

the information that the water system 

does not have LSLs. Because many 

water systems have already complied 

with state inventory requirements (e.g., 

Michigan, see https://

www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/ 

egle-dwehd-PDSMISummaryData_

682673_7.pdf) that are at least as 

stringent as those required under the 

LCRR, EPA adjusted the likelihood of 

conducting a new inventory to reflect 

state requirements. Water system 

inventory costs also reflect the 

development, by all water systems with 

LSLs, of an initial LSLR plan. The LSLR 

plan would include a strategy for 

determining the composition of ‘‘lead 

status unknown’’ service lines in its 

inventory, procedures to conduct full 

LSLR, a strategy for informing 

customers before a full or partial LSLR, 

a LSLR goal rate in the event of a lead 

trigger level exceedance for systems 

serving more than 10,000 persons, a 

procedure for customers to flush service 

lines and premise plumbing of 

particulate lead, a LSLR prioritization 

strategy, and a funding strategy for 

conducting LSLR. 

Depending on a water system’s 90th 

percentile lead tap sample value, it may 

be required to initiate an LSLR program. 

Small CWSs, serving 10,000 or fewer 

persons, and NTNCWSs have flexibility 

in the selection of a compliance option 

if the trigger or action levels are 

exceeded. These water systems may 

elect to implement either the LSLR, 

CCT, or POU compliance options. See 

section III.E of this preamble for 

additional information on the 

compliance alternatives available to 

small CWSs and NTNCWSs. Under both 

the low and high cost scenarios, the 

model estimates the cost for 

implementing LSLR, CCT, and POU for 

each water system that meets the small 

water system flexibility criteria and 

maintains only the cost associated with 

the least costly option for each system. 

The cost model under both the low and 

high cost scenarios applies the 

estimated LSLR costs to those CWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer persons and any 

NTNCWSs for which the LSLR option is 

determined to be the least cost 

compliance alternative. Systems where 

CCT or POU are found to be less costly 

compliance alternatives than LSLR do 

not receive LSLR costs in the model. See 

section VI.D.5 of this preamble for a 

discussion of the modeling and a 

summary of the number of systems 

selecting each alternative compliance 

option. 

Prompted by public comment on the 

proposed rule indicating that the 

Agency should utilize new LSLR unit 

cost data that has recently become 

available, EPA collected information 

from state and system websites, and 

media reports. The dataset provides 

costs estimates across full, customerside, and system-side replacements from 

38 systems that have publicly reported 

actual replacement costs from pilot 

studies and recent or on-going LSLR 

projects. This dataset, though more 

representative of current unit costs than 

the survey data used for the proposed 

rule analysis, still has a small number 

of observations and is an opportunity 

sample based on public availability of 

the information and was not collected 

using a systematic sampling technique 

that would allow for a statistical 

assessment of representativeness. The 

resultant estimates of replacement costs 

based on these data are uncertain. 

Therefore, EPA developed low- and 

high-end LSLR cost values that are used 

in the cost model to provide a low/high 

cost range to inform the understanding 

of uncertainty (note: Four other factors 

used to produce the low and high cost 

estimates also influence the LSLR total 

cost estimates). EPA uses the 25th and 

75th percentile values from the new 

dataset to develop the low/high unit 

costs for utility-side, customer-side, and 

full LSLR. These values are larger than 

those used in the proposed rule analysis 

except for full replacement in the high 

cost scenario. See Chapter 5, Section 

5.3.4.3 and Appendix A, Section 2 of 

the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for 

more information on the development of 

the LSLR unit cost range. 

LSLR cost includes not only the 

physical replacement of the service line 

but also the development and 

distribution of LSLR program outreach 

materials; contacting customers and site 

visits to confirm service line material 

and site conditions before replacement; 

providing customers with flushing 

procedures following a replacement; 

delivering pitcher filters and cartridges 

concurrent with the LSLR, and 

maintenance for six months; collecting 

and analyzing a tap sample three to six 

months after the replacement of an LSL 

and informing the customer of the 

results; and, reporting program results 

to the state. 

Under the final rule, water systems 

with a 90th percentile lead tap sample 

value greater than 10 mg/L and less than 

or equal to 15 mg/L are considered to 

have a trigger level exceedance. These 

water systems are required to develop 

and implement a ‘‘goal-based’’ LSLR 

program where the annual replacement 

goal is set locally through a water 

system and state determination process. 

This program is required to operate for 

at least two annual monitoring periods 

after the system’s lead 90th percentile 

tap sample has returned to levels at or 

below the trigger level. Ancillary costs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4253 

incurred by these water systems include 

the development and delivery of 

outreach materials to known and 

potential LSL households and 

submitting annual reports to the state on 

program activities. For water systems 

that do not meet the annual ‘‘goalbased’’ replacement rate, the final rule 

requires that additional outreach to LSL 

customers and other consumers be 

conducted. The additional outreach 

conducted is determined in conjunction 

with the state and is progressive, 

increasing when a water system misses 

an additional annual goal. 

The Final LCRR provides compliance 

flexibility to water systems with 90th 

percentile tap sample data that exceeds 

15 mg/L (the lead action level). These 

systems are required to implement a 

mandatory LSLR program replacing a 

rolling 2 year average of 3% per year 

using a baseline number of LSLs equal 

to the number of LSLs and galvanized 

requiring replacement service lines at 

the time the system first exceeds the 

lead trigger or action level plus the 

number of unknowns at the beginning of 

each year of the system’s LSLR program. 

This rolling average allows systems that 

experience LSLR rate fluctuation to still 

meet a 3% replacement rate on average 

for the prior two year period every year 

the water system is required to 

implement the LSLR program. The 

regulation also requires that a 

cumulative number of replacements be 

reached equal to 3% of the sum of 

known lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, and lead status unknown 

service lines in the initial inventory, 

times the number of years that elapsed 

between the system’s first ALE and the 

date on which the system’s 90th 

percentile lead levels are at or below the 

action level for 2 years (four consecutive 

6-month monitoring periods). EPA does 

not have information on the annual 

variation in replacement rates which 

systems may experience when required 

to conduct mandatory replacement, 

therefore, the Agency has assumed an 

annual replacement rate of 3% (which 

equals a 3% rolling average value across 

all two year time periods). EPA’s costs 

capture all estimated replacements 

required under the rule, but because the 

assumed 3% annual rate may not 

capture the year to year variation in LSL 

replacement rate. EPA’s estimated 

discounted costs may be under or over 

estimated. 

The LCRR also requires that CWSs 

replace the water system-owned portion 

of an LSL in response to receiving 

notification that a customer-owned 

portion of an LSL was replaced at the 

customer’s initiative. The Agency 

developed new data in response to 

comments received on the proposed 

rule which allowed for the estimation of 

this category of LSLR costs for the final 

rule. The inclusion of this new cost 

category will increase the estimated 

LSLR costs in the final rule analysis 

relative to the methodology used in the 

proposed rule analysis. EPA assumes 

that all customer initiated LSLRs that 

occur in systems with trigger level or 

action level exceedances count toward 

the goal-based and mandatory removal 

targets and costs for those programs. 

EPA estimated costs for customer 

initiated LSLR are based on only those 

replacements estimated to occur at 

systems that are at or below the trigger 

level. 

Exhibits 6–7 and 6–8 show the 

estimated annualized national cost for 

both the low and high cost scenarios, 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 

respectively, of water systems 

developing the LSL inventory, water 

systems conducting the goal-based and 

mandatory LSLR programs, costs to 

CWSs for removing their portion of an 

LSL after receiving notification that a 

customer-owned portion of an LSL was 

replaced outside of a water system 

replacement program and household 

removal costs for the customer-owned 

portion of the LSL under the previous 

LCR, the final LCRR, and the 

incremental cost. EPA did not estimate 

costs to households of replacing the 

customer-owned portion of an LSL 

outside of a goal-based or mandatory 

program because these replacements do 

not occur in response to these LCR 

revisions. Detailed information on the 

estimation of LSLR costs can be found 

in Chapter 5, section 5.3.4 of the final 

rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

EXHIBIT 6–7—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT COSTS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Lead Service Line Inventory ..................................................... $0 $6,318,000 $6,318,000 $0 $10,109,000 $10,109,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement Plan ......................... 0 304,000 304,000 0 395,000 395,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory) ............. 600,000 15,550,000 14,950,000 26,777,000 62,417,000 35,641,000 

Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Mandatory) ........................................................................................ 27,000 1,087,000 1,060,000 500,000 3,383,000 2,882,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal Based) ........... 0 6,298,000 6,298,000 0 22,580,000 22,580,000 

Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Goal 

Based) ................................................................................... 0 755,000 755,000 0 1,524,000 1,524,000 

Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Goal ................................. 0 6,087,000 6,087,000 0 19,663,000 19,663,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Customer-initiated) 0 6,943,000 6,943,000 0 18,946,000 18,946,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities 

(Customer-initiated) ............................................................... 0 1,030,000 1,030,000 0 1,224,000 1,224,000 

Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 628,000 44,372,000 43,744,000 27,277,000 140,242,000 112,965,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory) ........ 182,000 0 ¥182,000 5,466,000 0 ¥5,466,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal based) ...... 0 8,100,000 8,100,000 0 19,542,000 19,542,000 

Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs ................ 810,000 52,472,000 51,662,000 32,743,000 159,784,000 127,041,000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4254 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 6–8—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT COSTS—ALL PWS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Lead Service Line Inventory ..................................................... $0 $6,863,000 $6,863,000 $0 $10,593,000 $10,593,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement Plan ......................... 0 467,000 467,000 0 607,000 607,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory) ............. 638,000 16,681,000 16,044,000 37,623,000 79,869,000 42,246,000 

Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Mandatory) ........................................................................................ 29,000 1,249,000 1,220,000 704,000 4,438,000 3,734,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal Based) ........... 0 6,676,000 6,676,000 0 28,204,000 28,204,000 

Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Goal 

Based) ................................................................................... 0 824,000 824,000 0 1,956,000 1,956,000 

Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Goal ................................. 0 6,636,000 6,636,000 0 25,589,000 25,589,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement (Customer-initiated) 0 6,442,000 6,442,000 0 17,189,000 17,189,000 

System Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities 

(Customer-initiated) ............................................................... 0 965,000 965,000 0 1,118,000 1,118,000 

Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 667,000 46,803,000 46,136,000 38,327,000 169,562,000 131,235,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory) ........ 193,000 0 ¥193,000 7,681,000 0 ¥7,681,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal based) ...... 0 8,587,000 8,587,000 0 24,409,000 24,409,000 

Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs ................ 860,000 55,389,000 54,529,000 46,008,000 193,971,000 147,963,000 

5. Point-of-Use Costs 

Under the final rule requirements, 

small CWSs, serving 10,000 or fewer 

persons, and NTNCWSs with a 90th 

percentile lead value above the action 

level of 15 mg/L may choose between 

LSLR, CCT installation, or POU device 

installation and maintenance. See 

section III.E of this preamble for 

additional information on the 

compliance alternatives available to 

small CWSs and NTNCWSs. In addition 

to the cost to provide and maintain POU 

devices, water systems selecting the 

POU compliance option face additional 

ancillary costs in the form of: (1) POU 

implementation planning for 

installation, maintenance, and 

monitoring of the devices, (2) educating 

customers on the proper use of the POU 

device, (3) sampling POU devices to 

insure the device is working correctly, 

and (4) coordination with, obtaining 

approvals from, and annual reporting to 

the state. 

The cost model applies these POU 

costs to those CWS serving 10,000 or 

fewer persons and any NTNCWSs for 

which the POU option is estimated to be 

the least cost compliance alternative. 

The determination of the least cost 

compliance alternative is computed 

across each representative model PWS 

in the cost model based on its assigned 

characteristics including: The number of 

LSLs, cost of LSLR, the presence of 

corrosion control, the cost and 

effectiveness of CCT, the starting of 

WQP monitoring, the number of entry 

points, the unit cost of POU, and the 

number of households. For a more 

complete discussion on the assignment 

of system characteristics, see section 

VI.C of this preamble and Chapters 4 

and 5 of the final rule EA. These 

characteristics are the primary drivers in 

determining the costs once a water 

system has been triggered into CCT 

installation or re-optimization, LSLR, or 

POU provisions. The model estimates 

the net present value for implementing 

each compliance alternative and selects 

the least cost alternative to retain in the 

summarized national rule costs. 

EPA estimated low and high cost 

scenarios, to characterize uncertainty in 

the cost model results. These scenarios 

are functions of assigning different low 

and high input values to a number of 

the variables that affect the relative cost 

of the small system compliance choices 

(see Chapter 5 section 5.2.4.2 of the final 

rule EA for additional information on 

uncertain variable value assignment). 

Therefore, as the model output shows, 

the choice of compliance technology is 

different across the low and high cost 

scenarios. 

Exhibits 6–9 and 6–10 show the total 

number of CWSs serving 10,000 or 

fewer persons and NTNCWSs, the total 

number of systems by type and 

population size that would select one of 

the small system compliance options, 

the number of NTNCWSs selecting each 

compliance alternative in the model, 

and the number of CWSs by population 

size selecting each compliance 

alternative in the model, under both the 

low and high cost scenarios. The POU 

device implementation seems to be the 

least cost alternative when the number 

of households in the system is low as 

demonstrated by the decrease in the 

selection of the POU option as CWS 

population size increases in the model. 

Given the centralized nature of CCT, 

requiring installation and maintenance 

only at the drinking water treatment 

plant, this compliance technology can 

benefit from economies of scale. 

Therefore, the installation of CCT 

becomes more cost effective as system 

population size increases. The pattern 

seen in the selection of LSLR between 

the low and high cost scenarios 

demonstrates that the choice of 

compliance by small systems is driven 

by relative costs. Under the low cost 

scenario larger percentages of systems 

select LSLR given the assumed lower 

numbers of LSLs per system and lower 

cost of replacement under this scenario. 

EXHIBIT 6–9—NTNCWS AND SMALL CWS COUNTS IMPACTED UNDER FLEXIBILITY OPTION—LOW COST SCENARIO

[Over 35 year period of analysis] 

NTNCWS CWS 

All systems ≤100 101–500 501–1,000 1,001–3,300 3,301–10,000 

Total PWS Count in System Size Category ............................. 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974 

Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT activity ........................................................................................... 714 641 910 314 418 257 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4255 

EXHIBIT 6–9—NTNCWS AND SMALL CWS COUNTS IMPACTED UNDER FLEXIBILITY OPTION—LOW COST SCENARIO— 

Continued 

[Over 35 year period of analysis] 

NTNCWS CWS 

All systems ≤100 101–500 501–1,000 1,001–3,300 3,301–10,000 

Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals ............... 48 274 330 74 29 2 

Number of PWSs that Install CCT ............................................ 4 4.33 232 134 155 82 

Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT .................................. 25 2 144 101 234 173 

Number of PWSs that Install POU ........................................... 637 361 205 4 1 

EXHIBIT 6–10—NTNCWS AND SMALL CWS COUNTS IMPACTED UNDER FLEXIBILITY OPTION—HIGH COST SCENARIO

[Over 35 year period of analysis] 

NTNCWS CWS 

All systems ≤100 101–500 501–1,000 1,001–3,300 3,301–10,000 

Total PWS Count in System Size Category ............................. 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974 

Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT activity ........................................................................................... 1,407 1,362 2,029 877 1,475 894 

Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals ............... 56 59 40 8 50 10 

Number of PWSs that Install CCT ............................................ 7 1 346 284 349 178 

Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT .................................. 21 20 381 542 1,072 704 

Number of PWSs that Install POU ........................................... 1,322 1,283 1,261 42 4 2 

The estimated national annualized 

point-of-use device installation and 

maintenance costs for the final rule, 

under the low cost scenario, are 

$3,418,000 at a 3 percent discount rate 

and $3,308,000 at a 7 percent discount 

rate. The POU costs of the LCRR for the 

high cost scenario are $20,238,000 

discounted at 3 percent and $19,928,000 

discounted at 7 percent. Since POU 

costs are zero under the previous LCR, 

the incremental costs range from 

$3,418,000 to $20,238,000 at a 3 percent 

discount rate and from $3,308,000 to 

$19,928,000 at a 7 percent discount rate, 

under the low and high cost scenarios 

respectively. Additional information on 

the estimation of POU costs can be 

found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.5 of the 

final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

6. Public Education and Outreach Costs 

In addition to the previous LCR 

public education requirements for water 

systems with a lead action level 

exceedance, the cost model includes 

final rule requirements for ongoing lead 

education that apply to all water 

systems and actions specifically for 

systems with LSLs, regardless of the 

90th percentile level, and requirements 

in response to a single lead tap sample 

exceeding 15 mg/L. 

The rule requires a number of updates 

to existing public education and 

additional outreach activities associated 

with LSLs. The public education 

requirements costed for all water 

systems, regardless of their lead 90th 

percentile tap sample levels, include: (1) 

Updating Consumer Confidence Report 

language, (2) developing a lead outreach 

plan and materials for new customers, 

(3) developing an approach for 

improved public access to lead 

information, (4) providing increased 

information on lead in drinking water to 

state and local health departments, and 

(5) providing annual documentation and 

certification to the state that public 

outreach on lead has been completed. 

The cost of LCR public education 

requirements applying to all water 

systems with LSLs are: (1) The 

planning, initially implementing and 

maintaining customer and public access 

to LSL location and tap sampling data 

information, and (2) the development of 

lead educational materials for waterrelated utility work and delivery of 

those materials to affected households 

during water-related work that could 

result in service line disturbance. 

The LCRR public education costs that 

are applied to water systems that exceed 

the 15 mg/L action level include: (1) The 

development of lead language for public 

education in response to a lead action 

level exceedance, (2) delivery of 

education materials to customers for 

CWSs and posting of lead information 

for NTNCWSs, (3) water systems 

contacting public health agencies to 

obtain a list of additional community 

organizations that should receive public 

education materials, (4) water systems 

notifying public health agencies and 

other community organizations, (5) large 

water systems posting a lead notice on 

their website, (6) water system issuing a 

press release, (7) community water 

systems consulting with the state on the 

materials development and appropriate 

activities while the action level is 

exceeded, and (8) annually certifying 

public education activities have been 

completed. 

The rule also includes a requirement 

for water systems to notify affected 

customers as soon as practicable but no 

later than 3 days of becoming aware of 

an individual lead tap sample exceeding 

the 15 mg/L. The model includes the 

development cost of the notification and 

education materials to be delivered to 

affected households and the incremental 

cost of expedited delivery of the 

notification. In developing this cost, 

EPA assumed systems would contact 

customers by phone and NTNCWSs 

would email and post sample results. 

Note that materials costs related to 

follow-up testing when a sample 

exceeds 15 mg/L are included in the tap 

sampling costs in section VI.D.2 of this 

preamble. The estimated annualized 

national water system public education 

and outreach costs for the previous LCR 

range from $345,000 to $1,467,000 at a 

3 percent discount rate under the low 

and high cost scenarios respectively. At 

a 7 percent discount rate, the 

annualized estimated previous rule PE 

cost range is from $471,000 to 

$2,016,000. Under the LCRR low cost 

scenario, the estimated impacts are 

$37,207,000 at a 3 percent discount rate 

and $36,555,000 at a 7 percent discount 

rate. Under the high scenario the 

estimated annualized costs are 

$45,461,000 at a 3 percent discount rate 

and $45,628,000 at a 7 percent discount 

rate. Therefore, the incremental 

estimated public education and 

outreach costs for water systems range 

from $36,861,000 to $43,994,000 at a 3 

percent discount rate and $36,084,000 

to $43,612,000 at a 7 percent discount 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4256 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

rate. See Chapter 5, section 5.3.6 of the 

final rule EA for additional detailed 

information on the estimation of public 

education and outreach costs (USEPA, 

2020a). 

7. Annualized per Household Costs 

The cost model calculates the 

annualized cost per household, by first 

calculating the cost per gallon of water 

produced by the CWS. This cost per 

gallon represents the cost incurred by 

the system to comply with the 

requirements of the LCRR. This includes 

CCT cost, LSL inventory creation, 

system funded LSLR, tap sampling, 

public education, and administrative 

costs. Because of uncertainty in five 

important LCRR cost driver input 

variables, discussed in section VI.A. of 

this preamble, the Agency developed 

low and high cost scenarios. These 

scenarios produce a range in the 

estimated cost per gallon and two 

estimates for annualized per household 

costs. 

The model multiplies this low and 

high scenario costs per gallon by the 

average annual household consumption 

(in gallons) to determine the cost per 

household per year associated with 

increased costs borne by the CWS. EPA 

then adds to both these values the low 

and high total consumer-side LSLR cost 

borne by households in the system, 

divided by the number of households 

served by the system, to derive the 

CWS’s average annual household low 

and high scenario cost estimates. 

Exhibits 6–11 and 6–12 show the 

distributions of incremental annualized 

costs for CWS households by primary 

water source and size category. (Note 

that the percentiles represent the 

distribution of average household costs 

across CWSs in a category, not the 

distribution of costs across all 

households in a CWS category.) Some 

households that pay for a customer-side 

LSLR will bear a much greater annual 

household burden. EPA estimates the 

cost of removing the customer-owned 

side of a service line range from $2,514 

to $3,929, with a central tendency of 

$3,559. The percentage of customers in 

each water system paying the higher 

customer-side LSL costs depends on the 

number of LSL in the water system, the 

rate of replacement, and the details of 

the water systems LSLR program. 

EXHIBIT 6–11—ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY—LOW

COST SCENARIO

[2016$] 

Funding Source 

water Size 10th Percentile 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile 

Private ...... Ground ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... $5.36 $7.00 $11.32 $18.48 $26.40

Private ...... Ground ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 1.45 2.32 4.03 5.85 9.92 

Private ...... Ground ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.44 0.54 0.68 0.95 2.18 

Private ...... Ground ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.16 0.22 0.32 0.42 0.98 

Private ...... Ground ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.25 0.31 0.45 0.64 1.96 

Private ...... Ground ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.34 0.72 

Private ...... Ground ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.31 0.34 

Private ...... Ground ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.26 0.31 

Private ...... Surface ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... 4.96 7.39 12.05 19.57 34.61 

Private ...... Surface ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 1.43 2.26 4.08 6.92 13.97 

Private ...... Surface ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.40 0.51 0.78 1.68 3.49 

Private ...... Surface ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.16 0.21 0.35 0.77 1.16 

Private ...... Surface ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.23 0.31 0.49 1.57 2.45 

Private ...... Surface ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.36 0.64 2.23 

Private ...... Surface ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.30 1.26 

Private ...... Surface ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.27 0.97 

Private ...... Surface ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 

Public ....... Ground ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... 3.83 4.95 8.27 14.29 21.12 

Public ....... Ground ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 1.00 1.37 2.36 3.89 7.28 

Public ....... Ground ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.32 0.39 0.51 0.93 1.95 

Public ....... Ground ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.37 0.86 

Public ....... Ground ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.20 0.26 0.36 0.52 1.63 

Public ....... Ground ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.42 0.57 

Public ....... Ground ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.04 0.05 0.21 0.26 0.28 

Public ....... Ground ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.27 

Public ....... Ground ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.10 

Public ....... Surface ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... 3.48 6.44 12.26 22.00 29.05 

Public ....... Surface ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 0.92 1.45 2.71 4.75 8.36 

Public ....... Surface ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.31 0.39 0.60 1.28 2.65 

Public ....... Surface ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.12 0.16 0.26 0.57 0.97 

Public ....... Surface ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.21 0.27 0.40 1.32 1.94 

Public ....... Surface ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.57 2.22 

Public ....... Surface ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.03 0.06 0.24 0.31 1.10 

Public ....... Surface ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.28 0.40 

Public ....... Surface ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.34 

EXHIBIT 6–12—ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY—HIGH

COST SCENARIO

[2016$] 

Funding Source 

water Size 10th Percentile 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile 

Private ...... Ground ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... $¥10.82 $6.65 $10.86 $18.53 $30.58 

Private ...... Ground ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 1.28 2.31 4.31 6.81 17.50 

Private ...... Ground ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.44 0.56 0.78 3.71 7.09 

Private ...... Ground ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.17 0.25 0.36 1.15 2.66 

Private ...... Ground ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.24 0.33 0.52 2.44 5.85 

Private ...... Ground ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.49 1.45 

Private ...... Ground ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.35 1.42 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4257 

EXHIBIT 6–12—ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY—HIGH

COST SCENARIO—Continued 

[2016$] 

Funding Source 

water Size 10th Percentile 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile 

Private ...... Ground ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.04 0.08 0.36 0.64 4.51 

Private ...... Surface ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... 3.72 6.49 15.93 30.31 69.90 

Private ...... Surface ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 1.17 2.25 6.70 13.09 44.49 

Private ...... Surface ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.37 0.61 3.15 4.78 19.00 

Private ...... Surface ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.15 0.26 1.01 2.38 7.74 

Private ...... Surface ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.17 0.37 1.96 3.35 9.98 

Private ...... Surface ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.05 0.08 0.40 1.13 5.70 

Private ...... Surface ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.39 2.54 

Private ...... Surface ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.03 0.09 0.36 0.95 4.36 

Private ...... Surface ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 

Public ....... Ground ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... ¥5.87 4.63 7.76 15.88 27.31 

Public ....... Ground ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 0.96 1.41 2.65 6.26 14.49 

Public ....... Ground ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.32 0.41 0.62 3.17 7.14 

Public ....... Ground ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.12 0.17 0.29 1.04 3.33 

Public ....... Ground ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.20 0.27 0.41 1.88 4.83 

Public ....... Ground ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.40 1.60 

Public ....... Ground ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.30 2.24 

Public ....... Ground ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.04 0.06 0.30 0.44 3.97 

Public ....... Ground ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 

Public ....... Surface ..... Less than 100 .......................................................... 3.30 5.45 13.70 29.79 62.64 

Public ....... Surface ..... 100 to 500 ................................................................ 0.90 1.47 4.85 10.08 34.08 

Public ....... Surface ..... 500 to 1,000 ............................................................. 0.30 0.44 2.61 3.98 13.98 

Public ....... Surface ..... 1,000 to 3,300 .......................................................... 0.12 0.20 0.83 1.63 5.51 

Public ....... Surface ..... 3,300 to 10,000 ........................................................ 0.21 0.33 1.66 2.64 8.76 

Public ....... Surface ..... 10,000 to 50,000 ...................................................... 0.05 0.07 0.38 1.08 5.11 

Public ....... Surface ..... 50,000 to 100,000 .................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.25 0.37 2.85 

Public ....... Surface ..... 100,000 to 1,000,000 ............................................... 0.04 0.08 0.37 0.97 4.42 

Public ....... Surface ..... Greater than 1,000,000 ............................................ 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.61 

8. Primacy Agency Costs 

For each of the drinking water cost 

sections previously described, primacy 

agencies (i.e., states) have associated 

costs. The first of these groupings is 

implementation and administrative 

costs which are associated with rule 

adoption, program development, 

coordinating with the EPA, modification 

of data systems and data entry, training 

for both state and PWS employees, and 

on-going technical assistance to 

systems. The next burden category 

specifically for states is the sampling 

related costs resulting from the review 

of sampling plans, communications 

materials, collected lead tap, water 

quality parameter, source water, and 

school and child care monitoring data/ 

reports, and waiver and sample 

invalidation requests. CCT costs 

accruing to states come from 

consultations on and review of the 

selection process (including CCT 

studies) and installation or reoptimization of corrosion control 

technologies, the setting of optimal 

water quality parameters, and the 

consultation and review of actions taken 

in response to source water, treatment 

changes, and ‘‘find-and-fix’’ sample 

results. Other major drivers of state cost 

are the LSLR inventory and replacement 

activities. States assist systems in the 

development of their LSL inventories, 

review the completed inventories, LSLR 

plans and outreach materials, approve 

the goal-based replacement rate for a 

trigger level exceedance and determine 

additional activities for PWSs not 

meeting this goal-based rate, and 

annually review LSLR program reports 

and updates to the inventory. States 

review, consult, and approve CCT reoptimization when a PWS with CCT in 

place has a trigger level exceedance. 

States also review, consult, and approve 

the action level exceedance compliance 

approach that small CWSs serving 

10,000 or fewer persons and NTNCWSs 

submit when the system exceeds the 

trigger level. The compliance choice set 

for these systems includes CCT 

installation or re-optimization, LSLR, or 

POU device installation. Costs incurred 

by states for CCT and LSLR are 

discussed above. For POU programs, 

state burden results from reviewing the 

POU implementation plan, outreach 

materials, annual tap site sampling 

plans, results, and certifications for 

customer notification, and annual 

required program reports. The final 

category of state costs assessed in the 

EPA model are those associated with the 

final rule’s public education 

requirements. States must review new 

required CCR changes, outreach 

material to health departments, and PE 

materials for disturbances of lead 

service lines for CWSs with LSLs, 

galvanized requiring replacement, and 

service lines of unknown material. In 

the case of systems that exceed the lead 

action level the state must also review 

revisions to lead language in the tier-one 

public notification and consult on the 

other PE activities a system must 

conduct in response to the exceedance. 

States will also review the annual 

public education certification 

submissions from systems. 

In EPA’s cost model, the majority of 

the costs associated with states are 

determined on a per water system basis. 

State actions and costs are largely 

driven by the rule required actions that 

are triggered for the individual water 

systems. The exception to this rule is 

the implementation and administrative 

costs which are tallied on a per primacy 

agency basis. Unit cost values for the 

final LCRR were updated based on 

burden information from the 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators’ Costs of States 

Transactions Study (CoSTS) model 

(ASDWA, 2020). These updated unit 

cost values are substantially higher that 

those used in the proposed rule 

analysis. The per water system costs and 

per primacy agency costs are summed to 

obtain aggregate costs for this category. 

The cost model estimates that 

primacy agencies will incur incremental 

estimated annualized costs, under the 

low cost scenario, totaling $19,707,000 

at a 3 percent discount rate and 

$20,876,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. 

For the high cost scenario total 

estimated incremental cost is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4258 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

$20,756,000 at a 3 percent discount rate 

and $22,216,000 at a 7 percent discount 

rate. Additional information on the 

estimation of primacy agency costs can 

be found in Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the 

final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

9. Costs and Ecological Impacts 

Associated With Additional Phosphate 

Usage 

Adding orthophosphate creates a 

protective inner coating on pipes that 

can inhibit lead leaching. However, 

once phosphate is added to the public 

water system (PWS), some of this 

incremental loading remains in the 

water stream as it flows into wastewater 

treatment plants (WWTPs) downstream. 

This generates treatment costs for 

certain WWTPs. In addition, at those 

locations where treatment does not 

occur, water with elevated phosphorus 

concentrations may discharge to water 

bodies and induce certain ecological 

impacts. 

To estimate the potential fate of the 

orthophosphate added at PWSs, EPA 

developed a conceptual mass balance 

model. EPA applied this conceptual 

model to estimate the increase in 

loading at WWTPs, given an initial 

loading from corrosion control at water 

treatment plants. WWTPs could incur 

costs because of upstream 

orthophosphate addition if they have 

permit discharge limits for phosphorus 

parameters. The percentage of WWTPs 

with phosphorus limits has increased 

over time. From 2007 to 2016, in annual 

percentage rate terms, the growth rate in 

the percentage of WWTPs with 

phosphorus limits is 3.3 percent (see 

Chapter 5, Section 5.5.1 of the Final 

Rule EA). 

EPA assumed this increase would 

continue as states transition from 

narrative to numerical nutrient criteria 

and set numeric permits limits, 

especially for impaired waters. EPA 

applied the growth rate observed from 

2007 to 2016 to estimate the anticipated 

percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus 

limits in future years. This growth rate 

results in an estimated 41 percent of 

WWTPs with phosphorus discharge 

limits after 35 years. Applied as the 

percentage of WWTPs that need to take 

treatment actions, this estimate is likely 

conservative, particularly given the 

potential availability of alternative 

compliance mechanisms, such as, 

individual facility variance and nutrient 

trading programs. 

The specific actions a WWTP might 

need to take, if any, to maintain 

compliance with a National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

phosphorus limit will depend on the 

type of treatment present at the WWTP 

and the corresponding phosphorus 

removal provided. Based on a review of 

NPDES data, it is likely that most of the 

WWTPs that already have phosphorus 

limits have some type of treatment to 

achieve the limit. 

Some treatment processes can 

accommodate incremental increases in 

influent loading and still maintain their 

removal efficiency. Such processes 

might not need significant adjustment to 

maintain their existing phosphorus 

removal efficiency, given an 

incremental increase. Other treatment 

processes may need modifications to 

their design or operation to maintain 

their removal efficiency in the face of an 

influent loading increase. 

EPA derived a unit cost of $4.59 per 

pound for removing incremental 

phosphorus (see Chapter 5, section 5.5.1 

of the final rule EA for additional 

information). This unit cost includes the 

cost of additional chemical 

consumption and the operating cost of 

additional sludge processing and 

disposal. The costs a WWTP could incur 

depend on the magnitude of the loading 

increase relative to the specific WWTP’s 

effluent permit limit. WWTPs, whose 

current discharge concentrations are 

closer to their limit, are more likely to 

have to act. WWTPs whose current 

concentrations are well below their 

limit may not incur costs but might, 

under certain conditions, incur costs 

(for example, when phosphorus removal 

achieved by technology is sensitive to 

incremental phosphorus loading 

increases). Furthermore, future 

phosphorus limits could be more 

stringent than existing limits in certain 

watersheds. 

Therefore, EPA conservatively 

assumed that any WWTP with a 

discharge limit for phosphorus 

parameters could incur costs. 

Accordingly, in calculating costs, EPA 

used the anticipated percentage of 

WWTPs with phosphorus discharge 

limits as the likelihood that incremental 

orthophosphate loading from a drinking 

water system would reach a WWTP 

with a limit. EPA combined this 

likelihood and the unit cost (previously 

estimated) with incremental phosphorus 

loading to calculate incremental costs to 

WWTPs for each year of the analysis 

period. The incremental annualized cost 

that WWTPs would incur to remove 

additional phosphorous associated with 

the LCRR, under the low cost scenario, 

ranges from $1,152,000 to $1,458,000 at 

a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, 

respectively. The high cost scenario 

produced an incremental estimated 

impact of $1,828,000 using a 3 percent 

discount rate, and $2,607,000 at a 7 

percent discount rate. 

EPA estimates that WWTP treatment 

reduces phosphorus loads reaching 

water bodies by 59 percent but they are 

not eliminated. The rule’s national-level 

total incremental phosphorus loads 

reaching water bodies are projected to 

grow over the period of analysis from 

the low/high scenario range of 161,000 

to 548,000 pounds fifteen years after 

promulgation to the low/high scenario 

range of 355,000 to 722,000 pounds at 

year 35. See Chapter 5, section 5.5.2 of 

the final rule EA for information on how 

loading estimates are calculated. The 

ecological impacts of these increased 

phosphorous loadings are highly 

localized: Total incremental phosphorus 

loadings will depend on the amount and 

timing of the releases, characteristics of 

the receiving water body, effluent 

discharge rate, existing total phosphorus 

levels, and weather and climate 

conditions. Detailed spatially explicit 

information on effluents and on 

receiving water bodies does not exist in 

a form suitable for this analysis. Rather, 

to evaluate the potential ecological 

impacts of the rule, EPA evaluated the 

significance of the national-level 

phosphorus loadings compared to other 

phosphorous sources in the terrestrial 

ecosystem. 

To put these phosphorus loadings in 

context, estimates from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Spatially 

Referenced Regression On Watershed 

Attributes (SPARROW) model suggest 

that anthropogenic sources deposit 

roughly 750 million pounds of total 

phosphorus per year (USEPA, 2019b). 

The total phosphorus loadings from the 

LCRR high cost scenario would 

contribute about 1 percent (7 million/ 

750 million) of total phosphorus 

entering receiving waterbodies in a 

given year, and the incremental amount 

of total phosphorus associated with the 

LCRR relative to the previous LCR 

grows only 0.1 percent (722,000/750 

million). At the national level, EPA 

expects total phosphorus entering 

waterbodies as a result of the final LCR 

revisions to be small, relative to the total 

phosphorus load deposited annually 

from all other sources. National average 

load impacts may obscure localized 

ecological impacts in some 

circumstances, but the existing data do 

not allow an assessment as to whether 

this incremental load will induce 

ecological impacts in particular areas. It 

is possible, however, that localized 

impacts may occur in certain water 

bodies without restrictions on 

phosphate influents, or in locations 

with existing elevated phosphate levels. 

An increase in phosphorus loadings 

can lead to economic impacts and 

undesirable aesthetic impacts. Excess 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4259 

nutrient pollution can cause 

eutrophication—excessive plant and 

algae growth—in lakes, reservoirs, 

streams, and estuaries throughout the 

United States. Eutrophication, by 

inducing primary production, leads to 

seasonal decomposition of additional 

biomass, consuming oxygen and 

creating a state of hypoxia, or low 

oxygen, within the water body. In 

extreme cases, the low to no oxygen 

states can create dead zones, or areas in 

the water where aquatic life cannot 

survive. Studies indicate that 

eutrophication can decrease aquatic 

diversity for this reason (e.g., Dodds et 

al. 2009). Eutrophication may also 

stimulate the growth of harmful algal 

blooms (HABs), or over-abundant algae 

populations. Algal blooms can harm the 

aquatic ecosystem by blocking sunlight 

and creating diurnal swings in oxygen 

levels because of overnight respiration. 

Such conditions can starve and deplete 

aquatic species. 

10. Summary of Rule Costs 

The estimated annualized low and 

high scenario costs, discounted at 3 

percent and 7 percent, that PWSs, 

households, and primacy agencies will 

incur in complying with the previous 

LCR, the LCRR, and incrementally are 

summarized in Exhibits 6–13 and 6–14. 

The total estimated incremental 

annualized cost of the LCRR range from 

$161 to $335 million at a 3 percent 

discount rate, and $167 to $372 million 

at a 7 percent discount rate in 2016 

dollars. The exhibits also detail the 

proportion of the annualized costs 

attributable to each rule component. 

EXHIBIT 6–13—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

PWS annual costs 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Sampling ................................................................................... $41,962,000 $67,744,000 $25,782,000 $45,099,000 $78,739,000 $33,641,000 

PWS Lead Service Line Replacement ..................................... 628,000 44,372,000 43,744,000 27,277,000 140,242,000 112,965,000 

Corrosion Control Technology .................................................. 344,483,000 363,894,000 19,412,000 385,681,000 471,087,000 85,407,000 

Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance ............................... 0 3,418,000 3,418,000 0 20,238,000 20,238,000 

Public Education and Outreach ................................................ 345,000 37,207,000 36,861,000 1,467,000 45,461,000 43,994,000 

Rule Implementation and Administration .................................. 0 2,576,000 2,576,000 0 2,576,000 2,576,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ................................................... 387,417,000 519,210,000 131,792,000 459,523,000 758,343,000 298,820,000 

State Rule Implementation and Administration ........................ 6,145,000 25,852,000 19,707,000 7,137,000 27,893,000 20,756,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement ............................ 182,000 8,100,000 7,918,000 5,466,000 19,542,000 14,076,000 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs .......................................... 161,000 1,313,000 1,152,000 695,000 2,523,000 1,828,000 

Total Annual Rule Costs .................................................... 393,904,000 554,475,000 160,571,000 472,821,000 808,301,000 335,481,000 

EXHIBIT 6–14—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS—ALL PWS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

PWS annual costs 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Sampling ................................................................................... $40,890,000 $70,197,000 $29,307,000 $45,164,000 $84,407,000 $39,243,000 

PWS Lead Service Line Replacement ..................................... 667,000 46,803,000 46,136,000 38,327,000 169,562,000 131,235,000 

Corrosion Control Technology .................................................. 322,684,000 340,307,000 17,623,000 364,809,000 457,554,000 92,745,000 

Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance ............................... 0 3,308,000 3,308,000 0 19,928,000 19,928,000 

Public Education and Outreach ................................................ 471,000 36,555,000 36,084,000 2,016,000 45,628,000 43,612,000 

Rule Implementation and Administration .................................. 0 4,147,000 4,147,000 0 4,147,000 4,147,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ................................................... 364,711,000 501,316,000 136,605,000 450,316,000 781,224,000 330,908,000 

State Rule Implementation and Administration ........................ 6,073,000 26,949,000 20,876,000 7,429,000 29,645,000 22,216,000 

Household Lead Service Line Replacement ............................ 193,000 8,587,000 8,393,000 7,681,000 24,409,000 16,728,000 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs .......................................... 211,000 1,669,000 1,458,000 1,097,000 3,705,000 2,607,000 

Total Annual Rule Costs .................................................... 371,188,000 538,521,000 167,333,000 466,523,000 838,983,000 372,460,000 

E. Benefits Analysis 

The final LCRR is expected to result 

in significant health benefits, since both 

lead and copper are associated with 

adverse health effects. Lead is a highly 

toxic pollutant that can damage 

neurological, cardiovascular, 

immunological, developmental, and 

other major body systems. EPA is 

particularly concerned about ongoing 

exposure experienced by children 

because lead can affect brain 

development. Additionally, children 

through their physiology and water 

ingestion requirements may be at higher 

risk. Research shows that, on average, 

formula-fed infants and young children 

consume more drinking water per day 

on a body weight basis than adolescents. 

Using the USDA Continuing Survey of 

Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) 

data, Kahn and Stralka (2009) 

demonstrated this trend, is most 

pronounced in children under 1 year of 

age who drink more than double older 

children and adults per kg of body 

weight. Additionally, children absorb 2– 

4 times more lead than adults through 

the gastrointestinal tract ((Mushak, 

1991, WHO, 2011, and Ziegler et al., 

1978). No safe level of lead exposure has 

been identified (USEPA, 2013). EPA’s 

health risk reduction and benefits 

assessment of the LCR revisions 

concentrates on quantification and 

monetization of the estimated impact of 

reductions in lead exposure on 

childhood IQ. As explained in 

Appendix D of the final rule Economic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4260 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Analysis (USEPA 2020a), there are 

additional non-quantified lead health 

impacts to both children and adults that 

will be realized as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

Although copper is an essential 

element for health, excess intake of 

copper has been associated with several 

adverse health effects. Most commonly, 

excess exposure to copper results in 

gastrointestinal symptoms such as 

nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea 

(National Research Council, 2000). In 

susceptible populations, such as 

children with genetic disorders or 

predispositions to accumulate copper, 

chronic exposure to excess copper can 

result in liver toxicity. Because 

household level data on the change in 

copper concentrations that result from 

changes in CCT are not available, this 

analysis does not quantify any potential 

benefits from reduced copper exposure 

that may result from the rule. See 

Appendix E in the final rule EA for 

additional copper health impact 

information. 

To quantify the potential impact to 

exposed populations of changes in lead 

tap water concentrations as a result of 

the LCR revisions, EPA: 

• Utilized sample data from 15 cities 

representing 14 water systems from 

across the United States and Canada to 

estimate potential household lead tap 

water concentrations under various 

levels of corrosion control treatment, 

LSLR, and implementation of POU 

devices; 

• Modeled exposure using the lead 

tap water concentration data estimated 

from the 15 city sampling data, 

information on peoples’ water 

consumption activities, and background 

lead levels from other potential 

pathways; 

• Derived the potential change in 

BLLs that result from the changes in 

drinking water lead exposure; 

• Used concentration response 

functions, from the scientific literature, 

to quantify estimated changes in IQ for 

children given shifts in BLLs; 

• Estimated the unit value of a change 

in childhood IQ; and 

• Applied the unit values to the 

appropriate demographic groups 

experiencing changes in lead tap water 

concentrations as a result of the 

regulatory changes across the period of 

analysis. 

Subsections VI.E.1 through 4 of this 

preamble outline the estimation of lead 

concentration values in drinking water 

used to estimate before and after rule 

revision implementation concentration 

scenarios, the corresponding estimated 

avoided IQ loss in children, and a 

summary of the monetized benefits of 

the LCRR. 

1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead 

Concentrations 

EPA determined the lead 

concentrations in drinking water at 

residential locations through the 

collection and analysis of consecutive 

sampling data representing homes pre 

and post removal of LSLs, including 

partial removal of LSLs, under differing 

levels of water system corrosion control 

treatment. The data was collected from 

multiple sources including water 

systems, EPA Regional Offices and the 

Office of Research and Development, 

and authors of published journal articles 

(Deshommes et al., 2016). This data 

includes lead concentrations and 

information regarding LSL status, 

location, and date of sample collection, 

representing 18,039 samples collected 

from 1,638 homes in 15 cities 

representing 14 city water systems 

across the United States and Canada. 

EPA grouped the samples into LSL 

status categories (‘‘LSL,’’ ‘‘Partial,’’ ‘‘No 

LSL’’). Samples were also grouped by 

CCT treatment, assigning status as 

having ‘‘None,’’ ‘‘Partial,’’ or 

‘‘Representative.’’ ‘‘Partial’’ includes 

those water systems with some pH 

adjustment and lower doses of a 

phosphate corrosion inhibitor, but this 

treatment is not optimized. 

‘‘Representative’’ are those water 

systems in the dataset that have higher 

doses of phosphate inhibitors, which in 

the model are considered optimized (see 

the final rule EA Chapter 6, section 6.2.1 

for additional detail and docket number 

EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300 for the data). 

In response to comments received by 

the Agency, the city assignments to CCT 

groupings were updated between the 

proposed and final rules. EPA reviewed 

the CCT designations made in the 

dataset and changed the designations for 

Halifax, Cincinnati before 2006, and 

Providence/Cranston. 

EPA fit several regression models (see 

the final rule EA Chapter 6, section 6.2.2 

for additional detail) of tap water lead 

concentration as predicted by LSL 

presence (‘‘LSL’’ or ‘‘No LSL’’), LSL 

extent (‘‘Partial’’), CCT status, and 

‘‘profile liter.’’ Profile liter is the 

cumulative volume a sample 

represented within a consecutive 

sampling series at a single location and 

time. Models to describe the profile liter 

accounted for the variation among 

sampling events, sampling sites, and 

city. The water lead concentrations 

exhibited a right-skewed distribution; 

therefore, the variable was logtransformed to provide a better modeled 

fit of the data. EPA selected one of the 

regression models based on its fit and 

parsimony and used it to produce 

simulated lead concentrations for use in 

the benefits analysis (Exhibit 6–8, in 

Chapter 6 of the final rule EA). The 

selected model suggests that besides 

water system, residence, and sampling 

event, the largest effects on lead 

concentration in tap water come from 

the presence of LSLs and the number of 

liters drawn since the last stagnation 

period. CCT produces smaller effects on 

lead concentration than LSLs, and these 

effects are larger in homes with LSLs. 

To statistically control for some 

sources of variability in the input data, 

EPA did not use summary statistics 

from the original data directly in 

estimating the effects of LSL and CCT 

status. Instead, EPA produced simulated 

mean lead concentrations for 500,000 

samples, summarized in Exhibit 6–15, 

based on the selected regression model. 

The simulations were performed on the 

log-scale to conform to the fitted model 

(which used a log-transformed water 

lead concentration variable) and 

converted to the original scale to 

produce geometric means and geometric 

standard-deviations. Geometric means 

are more representative of the central 

tendency of a right-skewed distribution 

than are arithmetic means and prevent 

overestimation of the impact of water 

lead levels on estimated blood lead 

levels and resulting IQ and benefits 

values. The simulated sample 

concentrations represent estimates for 

new cities, sites, and sampling events 

not included in the original dataset. 

These simulations rely on estimates of 

variability and uncertainty from the 

regression model and given information 

on LSL and CCT status. Individual 

estimates are best thought of as the 

central tendency for a lead tap sample 

concentration given regression model 

parameters and estimated variance. The 

simulated samples represent, on 

average, the lead concentrations taken 

after a short flushing period of roughly 

30 seconds for all combinations of LSL 

and CCT status. This represents a point 

near the average peak lead 

concentration for homes with full or 

partial LSLs, and a point slightly below 

the peak lead concentration for homes 

with no LSLs, regardless of CCT status. 

EPA estimates that improving CCT 

will produce significant reductions in 

lead tap water concentration overall. 

However, for full LSLRs, the final model 

produced predictions of drinking water 

concentrations that overlapped almost 

completely for all CCT conditions. 

Therefore, EPA used the pooled 

estimate of predicted drinking water 

concentrations for all CCT conditions in 

residences with no LSL in place for the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4261 

main analysis in Chapter 6 of the final 

rule EA. 

Because small CWSs, that serve 

10,000 or fewer persons, have flexibility 

in the compliance option they select in 

response to a lead action level 

exceedance, some CWSs are modeled as 

installing POU devices at all residences. 

See section III.E of this preamble for 

additional information on the 

compliance alternatives available to 

small CWSs. For individuals in these 

systems, EPA assumed, in the analysis, 

that consumers in households with POU 

devices are exposed to the same lead 

concentration as residents with ‘‘No 

LSL’’ and ‘‘Representative’’ CCT in 

place. 

Note that the simulated 

concentrations for the final rule 

analysis, in Exhibit 6–15, have 

increased lead concentrations for the 

‘‘no-LSL’’ scenarios and lower lead 

concentrations for the cases where full 

and partial LSLs are present and there 

is no or partial CCT present as 

compared to the estimated values used 

in the proposed rule analysis. These 

changes from the proposal will result in 

lower estimated changes in BLLs for 

both children and adults as a result of 

LSLR and improvements in CCT. 

Estimated IQ benefit for children will 

also decrease for a change in treatment 

of LSLR as compared to the proposed 

rule values. 

EXHIBIT 6–15—LSL AND CCT SCENARIOS AND SIMULATED GEOMETRIC MEAN TAP WATER LEAD CONCENTRATIONS AND

STANDARD DEVIATIONS AT THE FIFTH LITER DRAWN AFTER STAGNATION FOR EACH COMBINATION OF LSL AND CCT 

STATUS

LSL status CCT status 

Simulated 

mean of 

log lead 

(μg/L) 

Simulated 

SD a of 

log lead 

(μg/L) 

Simulated 

geometric 

mean lead 

(μg/L) 

Simulated 

geometric 

SD a of lead 

LSL .................................................... None ................................................. 2.89 1.33 18.08 3.78 

Partial ................................................ None ................................................. 2.13 1.33 8.43 3.77

No LSL .............................................. None ................................................. b¥0.19 b 1.35 b 0.82 b 3.86 

LSL .................................................... Partial ............................................... 2.29 1.33 9.92 3.78 

Partial ................................................ Partial ............................................... 1.55 1.32 4.72 3.75 

No LSL .............................................. Partial ............................................... b¥0.19 b 1.35 b 0.82 b 3.86 

LSL .................................................... Representative ................................. 1.70 1.33 5.48 3.77 

Partial ................................................ Representative ................................. 0.97 1.32 2.64 3.76 

No LSL .............................................. Representative ................................. b¥0.19 b 1.35 b 0.82 b 3.86 

aStandard deviations reflect ‘‘among-sampling event’’ variability. 

bBolded values show how simulated results were pooled to produce a common estimate for homes with no LSL across CCT conditions. 

In the estimation of the costs and 

benefits of the LCR revisions, each 

modeled person within a water system 

is assigned to one of the estimated 

drinking water concentrations in Exhibit 

6–15, depending on CCT, POU, and LSL 

status. EPA estimated benefits under 

both the low cost and high cost 

scenarios used in the LCRR analysis to 

characterize uncertainty in the cost 

estimates.The low cost scenario and 

high cost scenario differ in their 

assumptions made about: (1) The 

existing number of LSLs in PWSs; (2) 

the number of PWS above the AL or TL 

under the previous and final rule 

monitoring requirements; (3) the cost of 

installing and/or re-optimizing 

corrosion control treatment (CCT);(4) 

the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating 

lead concentrations; and (5) the cost of 

LSLR (Section VI.C above and Chapter 

5, section 5.2.4.2 of the final rule EA 

(USEPA, 2020a)). EPA predicted the 

status of each system under the low and 

high scenarios at baseline (prior to rule 

implementation) and in each year of 

rule implementation. Depending on the 

timing of required actions that can 

change CCT, POU, and LSL status under 

both the baseline and LCRR low and 

high scenario model runs, changes in 

lead concentration and resultant blood 

lead are predicted every year for the 

total population served by the systems 

for the 35-year period of analysis. In the 

primary benefits analysis for the final 

rule, improvements to CCT and the use 

of installed POU devices are only 

predicted for individuals in households 

with LSLs prior to implementation of 

the LCRR requirements (consistent with 

discussion above about the limits of the 

data for predicting the impact of CCT 

when LSL are not present). In the 

model, LSL removals are predicted by 

water system, by year, and multiplied 

by the average number of persons per 

household (across demographic 

categories) to determine the number of 

people shifting from one LSL status to 

another. To predict the changes in 

exposure that result from an 

improvement in CCT, EPA predicts the 

entire LSL population of a water system 

will move to the new CCT status at the 

same time. EPA also assumes that the 

entire water system moves to the 

drinking water lead concentration, 

assigned to POU when this option is 

implemented, which implies that 

everyone in households in a distribution 

system with LSLs is properly using the 

POU. See Chapter 6, section 6.3 of the 

final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for more 

detailed information on the number of 

people switching lead concentration 

categories under the low and high cost 

scenarios. 

2. Impacts on Childhood IQ 

The 2013 Integrated Science 

Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) 

states that there is a causal relationship 

between lead exposure and cognitive 

function decrements in children based 

on several lines of evidence, including 

findings from prospective studies in 

diverse populations supported by 

evidence in animals, and evidence 

identifying potential modes of action. 

The evidence from multiple highquality studies using large cohorts of 

children shows an association between 

blood lead levels and decreased 

intelligence quotient (IQ). The 2012 

National Toxicology Program 

Monograph concluded that there is 

sufficient evidence of association 

between blood lead levels less than 5 

mg/dL and decreases in various general 

and specific measures of cognitive 

function in children from three months 

to 16 years of age. This conclusion is 

based on prospective and crosssectional studies using a wide range of 

tests to assess cognitive function 

(National Toxicology Program, 2012). 

EPA quantitatively assessed and 

monetized the benefits of avoided losses 

in IQ as a result of the LCR revisions. 

Modeled lead tap water concentrations 

(previously discussed in this notice) are 

used to estimate the extent to which the 

LCRR would reduce avoidable loss of IQ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4262 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

among children. The first step in the 

quantification and monetization of 

avoided IQ loss is to estimate the likely 

decrease in blood lead levels in children 

based on the reductions in lead in their 

drinking water as a result of the 

rulemaking. 

EPA estimated the distribution of 

current blood lead levels in children, 

age 0 to 7, using EPA’s Stochastic 

Human Exposure and Dose Simulation 

Multimedia (SHEDS-Multimedia) model 

coupled with its Integrated Exposure 

and Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. 

The coupled SHEDS–IEUBK model 

framework was peer reviewed by EPA in 

June of 2017 as part of exploratory work 

into developing a health-based 

benchmark for lead in drinking water 

(ERG, 2017). For further information on 

SHEDS–IEUBK model development and 

evaluation, refer to Zartarian et al. 

(2017). As a first step in estimating the 

blood lead levels, EPA utilized the 

SHEDS-Multimedia model, which can 

estimate distributions of lead exposure, 

using a two-stage Monte Carlo sampling 

process, given input lead concentrations 

in various media and human behavior 

data from EPA’s Consolidated Human 

Activity Database (CHAD) and the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s (CDC) National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES). SHEDS-Multimedia, in this 

case, uses individual time-activity 

diaries from CDC’s NHANES and EPA’s 

CHAD for children aged 0 to 7 to 

simulate longitudinal activity diaries. 

Information from these diaries is then 

combined with relevant lead input 

distributions (e.g., outdoor air lead 

concentrations) to estimate exposure. 

Drinking water tap concentrations for 

each of the modeled LSL and CCT 

scenarios, above, were used as the 

drinking water inputs to SHEDSMultimedia. For more detail on the 

other lead exposure pathways that are 

held constant as background in the 

model, see Chapter 6, section 6.4, of the 

final rule EA. 

In the SHEDS–IEUBK coupled 

methodology, the SHEDS model takes 

the place of the exposure and variability 

components of the IEUBK model by 

generating a probability distribution of 

lead intakes across media. These intakes 

are multiplied by route-specific (e.g., 

inhalation, ingestion) absorption 

fractions to obtain a distribution of lead 

uptakes (see Exhibit 6–21 in the final 

rule EA Chapter 6, section 6.4). This 

step is consistent with the uptake 

estimation that would normally occur 

within the IEUBK model. The media 

specific uptakes can be summed across 

exposure routes to give total lead uptake 

per day. Next, EPA used age-based 

relationships derived from IEUBK, 

through the use of a polynomial 

regression analysis, to relate these total 

lead uptakes to blood lead levels. 

Exhibit 6–16 presents modeled SHEDS– 

IEUBK blood lead levels in children by 

year of life and LSL, CCT status, and 

POU. The blood lead levels in this 

exhibit represent what children’s blood 

lead level would be if they lived under 

the corresponding LSL, POU, and CCT 

status combination for their entire lives. 

Note that when ‘‘No LSL’’ is the 

beginning or post-rule state, 0.82 mg/L is 

the assumed concentration across all 

levels of CCT status (none, partial, 

representative). The extent to which 

changes in CCT status make meaningful 

differences in lead concentrations for 

those without LSLs cannot be 

determined from this exhibit. 

EXHIBIT 6–16—MODELED SHEDS-IEUBK GEOMETRIC MEAN BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN CHILDREN FOR EACH POSSIBLE

DRINKING WATER LEAD EXPOSURE SCENARIO FOR EACH YEAR OF LIFE

Lead service line status Corrosion control treatment status 

GM blood lead level (μg/dL) b for specified year of life 

0–1 a 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 Avg.c

LSL .......................................................................... None ........................................................................ 3.61 2.47 2.65 2.47 2.48 2.66 2.34 2.67 

Partial ...................................................................... None ........................................................................ 2.35 1.83 1.88 1.81 1.81 1.88 1.65 1.89 

No LSL .................................................................... None ........................................................................ 0.97 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.14 1.19 0.98 1.11 

LSL .......................................................................... Partial ...................................................................... 2.57 1.93 2.05 1.95 1.94 2.03 1.76 2.03 

Partial ...................................................................... Partial ...................................................................... 1.72 1.52 1.57 1.54 1.51 1.58 1.37 1.54 

No LSL .................................................................... Partial ...................................................................... 0.97 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.14 1.19 0.98 1.11 

LSL .......................................................................... Representative ........................................................ 1.85 1.57 1.64 1.60 1.57 1.63 1.43 1.62 

Partial ...................................................................... Representative ........................................................ 1.36 1.33 1.36 1.34 1.32 1.37 1.19 1.32 

No LSL .................................................................... Representative ........................................................ 0.97 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.14 1.19 0.98 1.11 

POU 0.97 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.14 1.19 0.98 1.11 

a Due to lack of available data, blood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only. bThese represent the blood lead for a child living with the LSL/CCT status in the columns to the left. Each year blood lead corresponding to actual modeled child is summed and divided by 7 

in the model to estimate lifetime average blood lead. cThis column contains calculated average lifetime blood lead levels assuming a child lived in the corresponding LSL/CCT scenario for their entire life. Lifetime average blood lead levels above 5 μg/dL are in bold lettering. 

This table presents modeled SHEDS–IEUBK blood lead levels in children by year of life. 

The blood lead levels presented in 

Exhibit 6–16, are used as inputs for the 

benefits modeling. The EPA benefits 

analysis uses lifetime average blood lead 

values to determine estimates of 

avoided IQ loss that correspond to 

reductions in water lead concentrations 

resulting from changes in LSL, POU and 

CCT status at some point in a 

representative child’s life (between ages 

0 and 7), and those made prior to the 

child’s birth for those born 7 years after 

the rule is implemented. Therefore, the 

EPA cost-benefit model, in each year of 

the analysis, calculates IQ benefits 

based on the cohort, or percent of the 

modeled population, that turns 7 years 

of age in the year being analyzed. The 

EPA model, for both the baseline and 

LCRR, tracks PWS implementation over 

the period of analysis. This data allows 

the model to determine the number of 

children that fall within each of the 10 

possible LSL/CCT/POU lead exposure 

scenarios for each of the seven years 

prior to the year being modeled. The 

model then calculates a set of average 

lifetime blood lead levels for the 

possible LSL/CCT/POU exposure 

scenarios (the set of scenarios includes 

not only the change in LSL, CCT, and 

POU status but also the years, 0–7, in 

which the status changes occur) and 

applies these values to the appropriate 

percent of the 7 year old cohort (the 

percent of 7 year olds that are estimated 

to experience the scenarios represented 

by the average lifetime BLLs) for that 

analysis year under both the baseline 

and LCRR requirements. The change in 

average lifetime BLLs for the 7 year old 

cohort is then used to determine the 

incremental benefit of avoided IQ 

losses. 

In order to relate the child’s estimated 

average lifetime blood lead level to an 

estimate of avoided IQ loss, EPA 

selected a concentration-response 

function based on lifetime blood lead 

from the independent analysis by 

Crump et al. (2013). This study used 

data from a 2005 paper by Lanphear et 

al., which has formed the basis of 

concentration-response functions used 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4263 

1Lanphear et al., (2005) published a correction in 

2019 that revised the results to be consistent with 

the Kirrane and Patel (2014) corrections. 

2 It should be noted that these values are slightly 

different than those used in other recent rulemaking 

(e.g., the Lead Dust Standard and the proposed 

Perchlorate rule). This is simply due to the 

differences in the age of the child when the benefits 

are accrued in the analysis. Benefits for the LCRR 

are accrued at age seven and therefore the value of 

an IQ point is discounted back to age 7 in the LCRR 

analysis. This results in a slightly higher estimate 

than the values used for the Perchlorate Rule and 

the Lead Dust Standard, which are discounted to 

age zero and age three, respectively. It should also 

be noted, and is described in Section 6.4.5, that the 

benefits in the LCRR are further discounted back to 

year one of the analysis and annualized within the 

EPA LCRR cost-benefit model. 

in several EPA regulations (National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (USEPA, 

2008a); the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) Lead Repair and Renovation 

Rule (USEPA, 2008b); and Steam 

Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines 

Rule (USEPA, 2015). The Crump et al. 

(2013) function was selected over 

Lanphear et al. (2005) to minimize 

issues with overestimating predicted IQ 

loss at the lowest levels of lead exposure 

(less than 1 mg/dL BLL), which is a 

result of the use of the log-linear 

function. The Crump et al. (2013) 

function avoids this issue by adding one 

to the estimated blood lead levels prior 

to log-transformation in the analysis. 

Since the revisions to the LCR are 

expected to reduce chronic exposures to 

lead, EPA selected lifetime blood lead as 

the most appropriate measure with 

which to evaluate benefits. No threshold 

has been identified for the neurological 

effects of lead (Budtz-J<rgensen et al., 

2013; Crump et al., 2013; Schwartz et 

al., 1991; USEPA, 2013). Therefore, EPA 

assumes that there is no threshold for 

this endpoint and quantified avoided IQ 

loss associated with all blood lead 

levels. EPA, as part of its sensitivity 

analysis, estimated the BLL to IQ 

relationship using Lanphear et al. (2019) 

and Kirrane and Patel (2014).1 See 

Chapter 6, section 6.4.3 and Appendix 

G of the final rule EA for a more 

detailed discussion (USEPA, 2020a). 

The estimated value of an IQ point 

decrement is derived from EPA’s 

reanalysis of Salkever (1995), which 

estimates that a one-point increase in IQ 

results in a 1.871 percent increase in 

lifetime earnings for males and a 3.409 

percent change in lifetime earnings for 

females. Lifetime earnings are estimated 

using the average of 10 American 

Community Survey (ACS) single-year 

samples (2008 to 2017) and projected 

cohort life tables from the Social 

Security Administration. Projected 

increases in lifetime earnings are then 

adjusted for the direct costs of 

additional years of education and 

forgone earnings while in school. The 

reanalysis of Salkever (1995) estimates a 

change of 0.0812 years of schooling per 

change in IQ point resulting from a 

reduction in lead exposure for males 

and a change of 0.0917 years of 

schooling for females. 

To estimate the uncertainty 

underlying the model parameters of the 

Salkever (1995) reanalysis, EPA used a 

bootstrap approach to estimate a 

distribution of model parameters over 

10,000 replicates (using random 

sampling with replacement). For each 

replicate, the net monetized value of a 

one-point decrease in IQ is subsequently 

estimated as the gross value of an IQ 

point, less the value of additional 

education costs and lost earnings while 

in school. EPA uses an IQ point value 

discounted to age 7. Based on EPA’s 

reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the mean 

value of an IQ point in 2016 dollars, 

discounted to age 7, is $5,708 using a 7 

percent discount rate and $22,503 using 

a 3 percent discount rate.2 See 

Appendix G, of the final rule EA 

(USEPA, 2020a) for a sensitivity 

analysis of avoided IQ loss benefits 

based on Lin et al. (2018). 

EPA used the estimated changes in 

lifetime (age 0 to 7) average blood lead 

levels that result from changes in LSL, 

CCT, or POU status as inputs to the 

concentration response function from 

the independent analysis by Crump et 

al. (2013). The resultant annual avoided 

IQ decrements per change in LSL, CCT, 

and/or POU status change are then 

summed and multiplied by the EPA 

reanalyzed Salkever (1995) value per IQ 

point, which represent a weighted 

average for males and females (3 or 7 

percent depending on the discount rate 

being used to annualize the stream of 

benefits across the period of analysis). 

This annual stream of benefits was 

annualized at 3 and 7 percent over the 

35-year period of analysis, and further 

discounted to year one of the period of 

analysis. See Exhibit 6–19 (discounted 

at 3 percent) and Exhibit 6–20 

(discounted at 7 percent) for the 

estimated benefit from avoided IQ losses 

from both LSL removals and 

improvements to CCT at public water 

system as a result of the previous rule, 

the LCR revisions, and the incremental 

difference between the previous and 

final rule estimates under both the low 

and high cost scenarios. 

3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels 

EPA identified the potential adverse 

adult health effects associated with lead 

utilizing information from the 2013 

Integrated Science Assessment for Lead 

or EPA ISA (USEPA, 2013) and the HHS 

National Toxicology Program 

Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead (National Toxicology 

Program, 2012). The EPA ISA uses a 

five-level hierarchy to classify the 

weight of evidence for causation based 

on epidemiologic and toxicological 

studies, and the NTP Monograph 

conducted a review of the 

epidemiological literature for the 

association between low-level lead 

exposure (defined by blood lead levels 

<10 mg/dL) and select health endpoints, 

and categorized their conclusions using 

a four-level hierarchy. Constraining the 

assessment to the highest/most robust 

two levels from each of the documents 

finds that the EPA ISA reports ‘‘causal’’ 

and ‘‘likely to be causal’’, and the NTP 

Monograph indicates ‘‘sufficient’’ and 

‘‘limited’’ evidence of association 

between lead and adult adverse 

cardiovascular effects (both morbidity 

and mortality effects), renal effects, 

reproductive effects, immunological 

effects, neurological effects, and cancer. 

(See Appendix D of the final rule EA). 

Although EPA did not quantify or 

monetize the reduction in risk 

associated with adult health effects for 

the LCRR, the Agency has estimated the 

potential changes in adult drinking 

water exposures and thus blood lead 

levels to illustrate the extent of the lead 

reduction to the adult population 

estimated as a result of the LCRR. EPA 

estimated blood lead levels in adults for 

each year of life, beginning at age 20 and 

ending with age 80. Males and females 

are assessed separately because data 

from the CDC’s National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES) indicate that men have 

higher average blood lead levels than 

women, thus the baseline from which 

the changes are estimated. To estimate 

the changes in blood lead levels in 

adults associated with the rule, EPA 

selected from a number of available 

models a modified version of its Adult 

Lead Methodology (ALM). The ALM 

‘‘uses a simplified representation of lead 

biokinetics to predict quasi-steady state 

blood lead concentrations among adults 

who have relatively steady patterns of 

site exposures’’ (USEPA, 2003). The 

model assumes a linear slope between 

lead uptake and blood lead levels, 

which is termed the ‘‘biokinetic slope 

factor’’ and is described in more detail 

in Chapter 6 section 6.5 of the final rule 

EA. Although the model was originally 

developed to estimate blood lead level 

impacts from lead in soil, based on the 

record, EPA finds the ALM can be 

tailored for use in estimating blood lead 

concentrations in any adult exposed 

population and is able to consider other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4264 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

sources of lead exposure, such as 

contaminated drinking water. The 

biokinetic slope factor of 0.4 mg/dL per 

mg/day is valid for use in the case of 

drinking water since it is in part derived 

from studies that measure both adult 

blood lead levels and concentrations of 

lead in drinking water (Pocock et al., 

1983; Sherlock et al., 1982). 

EPA estimated expected BLLs for 

adults with the ALM using the lead tap 

water concentration data by LSL, CCT, 

and POU status derived from the profile 

dataset, discussed in section VI.E.1 and 

shown in Exhibit 6–15 of this preamble. 

For the background blood lead levels in 

the model, EPA used geometric mean 

blood lead levels for males and females 

for each year of life between ages 20 and 

80 from NHANES 2011–2016, which 

may result in some minor double 

counting of exposure from drinking 

water. Exhibit 6–17 displays the 

estimated blood lead levels for adults by 

each LSL, POU or CCT combination 

summarized by age groups (blood lead 

values for each year of age are used to 

determine average BLL). EPA also 

estimated BLLs using output for other 

exposure pathways from SHEDS in the 

ALM and the All Ages Lead Model, 

these results are shown in Appendix G 

of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). 

The All Ages Lead Model results are not 

used in the primary analysis because 

updates to the model from a recent peer 

review have not been completed. 

EXHIBIT 6–17—ESTIMATES OF BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN ADULTS ASSOCIATED WITH DRINKING WATER LEAD EXPOSURES

FROM LSL/CCT OR POU STATUS COMBINATIONS

Lead service line status Corrosion control 

treatment status Sex 

Geometric mean blood lead level (μg/dL) for specified age 

group in years from the ALM 

20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–80 

LSL ........................................... None ........................................ Males ....................................... 1.87 2.02 2.22 2.42 2.63 2.89 

Females ................................... 1.57 1.69 1.89 2.22 2.35 2.52 

Partial ....................................... None ........................................ Males ....................................... 1.31 1.44 1.64 1.84 2.03 2.25 

Females ................................... 1.01 1.11 1.31 1.64 1.75 1.88 

No LSL ..................................... None ........................................ Males ....................................... 0.87 0.99 1.19 1.39 1.55 1.75 

Females ................................... 0.57 0.66 0.86 1.19 1.27 1.38 

LSL ........................................... Partial ....................................... Males ....................................... 1.40 1.53 1.73 1.93 2.12 2.35 

Females ................................... 1.10 1.20 1.40 1.73 1.84 1.98 

Partial ....................................... Partial ....................................... Males ....................................... 1.09 1.22 1.42 1.62 1.80 2.01 

Females ................................... 0.79 0.89 1.09 1.42 1.52 1.64 

No LSL ..................................... Partial ....................................... Males ....................................... 0.87 0.99 1.19 1.39 1.55 1.75 

Females ................................... 0.57 0.66 0.86 1.19 1.27 1.38 

LSL ........................................... Representative ......................... Males ....................................... 1.14 1.27 1.47 1.67 1.84 2.06 

Females ................................... 0.84 0.94 1.14 1.47 1.56 1.69 

Partial ....................................... Representative ......................... Males ....................................... 0.97 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.67 1.87 

Females ................................... 0.67 0.77 0.97 1.30 1.39 1.50 

No LSL ..................................... Representative ......................... Males ....................................... 0.87 0.99 1.19 1.39 1.55 1.75 

Females ................................... 0.57 0.66 0.86 1.19 1.27 1.38 

POU Males ....................................... 0.87 0.99 1.19 1.39 1.55 1.75 

Females ................................... 0.57 0.66 0.86 1.19 1.27 1.38 

As discussed in the analysis of 

childhood IQ impacts section VI.E.2 of 

this preamble, the estimated BLLs in 

Exhibit 6–17 are average adult annual 

blood lead levels given the 

corresponding estimated lead tap water 

concentrations resulting from LSL, CCT, 

and POU status. The LCRR cost-benefit 

model, tracks the changes in LSL, CCT 

and POU status over time and the 

percentage of males and females in LSL 

households for each water system that 

are impacted by the changes in LSL, 

CCT, or POU status. These exposure 

histories and the corresponding BLL 

from the ALM model are then averaged 

across adult life spans to obtain a set of 

potential average lifetime blood lead 

levels for representative adults (average 

lifetime BLLs for potential exposure 

scenarios). Exhibit 6–18 shows the 

estimated changes in average lifetime 

blood lead levels for adults that move 

from the set of initial LSL, CCT, and 

POU status combinations to a new 

status as a result of LSL removal, and/ 

or installation of CCT or POU. Note that 

when ‘‘No LSL’’ is the beginning or 

post-rule state, 0.82 mg/L is the assumed 

concentration across all levels of CCT 

status (none, partial, representative). 

The extent to which changes in CCT 

status make meaningful differences in 

lead concentrations for those without 

LSLs cannot be determined from this 

exhibit. 

EXHIBIT 6–18—ESTIMATED LIFETIME AVERAGE BLOOD LEAD CHANGE FOR ADULTS MOVING BETWEEN LSL, CCT, AND

POU STATUS COMBINATIONS

Pre-rule drinking water Post-rule drinking water Estimated 

change in the 

geometric 

means of 

blood 

lead change Lead conc. 

(μg/L) LSL status CCT status Lead conc. (μg/L) LSL status CCT status 

Ages 20–80 

(μg/dL) 

18.08 LSL .................................. None ................................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ None ................................ 1.03 

18.08 LSL .................................. None ................................ 5.48 LSL .................................. Representative ................ 0.75 

18.08 LSL .................................. None ................................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................. 1.03 

18.08 LSL .................................. None ................................ 0.82 POU 1.03 

8.43 Partial .............................. None ................................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ None ................................ 0.46 

8.43 Partial .............................. None ................................ 2.64 Partial .............................. Representative ................ 0.35 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4265 

EXHIBIT 6–18—ESTIMATED LIFETIME AVERAGE BLOOD LEAD CHANGE FOR ADULTS MOVING BETWEEN LSL, CCT, AND

POU STATUS COMBINATIONS—Continued 

Pre-rule drinking water Post-rule drinking water Estimated 

change in the 

geometric 

means of 

blood 

lead change Lead conc. 

(μg/L) LSL status CCT status Lead conc. (μg/L) LSL status CCT status 

Ages 20–80 

(μg/dL) 

8.43 Partial .............................. None ................................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................ 0.46 

8.43 Partial .............................. None ................................ 0.82 POU 0.46 

0.82 No LSL ............................ None ................................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................. 0.00 

0.82 No LSL ............................ None ................................ 0.82 POU 0.00 

9.92 LSL .................................. Partial .............................. 0.82 No LSL ............................ Partial ............................... 0.54 

9.92 LSL .................................. Partial .............................. 5.48 LSL .................................. Representative ................ 0.27 

9.92 LSL .................................. Partial .............................. 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................. 0.54 

9.92 LSL .................................. Partial .............................. 0.82 POU 0.54 

4.72 Partial .............................. Partial ............................... 0.82 No LSL ............................ Partial .............................. 0.23 

4.72 Partial .............................. Partial ............................... 2.64 Partial ............................... Representative ................ 0.12 

4.72 Partial .............................. Partial ............................... 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................ 0.23 

4.72 Partial .............................. Partial ............................... 0.82 POU 0.23 

0.82 No LSL ............................ Partial .............................. 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................ 0.00 

0.82 No LSL ............................ Partial .............................. 0.82 POU 0.00 

5.48 LSL .................................. Representative ................ 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................ 0.28 

5.48 LSL .................................. Representative ................ 0.82 POU 0.28 

2.64 Partial .............................. Representative ................. 0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................. 0.11 

2.64 Partial .............................. Representative ................. 0.82 POU 0.11 

0.82 No LSL ............................ Representative ................ 0.82 POU 0.00 

4. Total Monetized Benefits 

Exhibits 6–19 and 6–20 show the 

estimated, monetized national 

annualized total benefits, under the low 

and high cost scenarios, from avoided 

child IQ decrements associated with the 

previous LCR, the LCRR, and the 

increment of change between the two, 

for CCT improvements, LSLR, and POU 

device implementation discounted at 3 

and 7 percent, respectively. The 

potential changes in adult blood lead 

levels estimated from changing LSL and 

CCT status under the LCRR can be 

found in section VI.E.3 of this preamble 

and Chapter 6, section 6.5, of the final 

rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). The impact of 

lead on the risk of attention-deficit/ 

hyperactivity disorder and reductions in 

birth weight are discussed in Appendix 

J of the final rule EA. It should also be 

noted that because of the lack of 

granularity in the assembled lead 

concentration profile data, with regard 

to CCT status when samples were 

collected (see section VI.E.1 of this 

preamble), the benefits of small 

improvements in CCT, like those 

resulting from the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ rule 

requirements, cannot be quantified in 

the model. For additional information 

on non-quantified benefits see section 

VI.F.2 of this preamble. 

EXHIBIT 6–19—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUAL MONETIZED BENEFITS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years) ......................... 29,000 928,000 900,000 704,000 3,210,000 2,506,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE) ......... 190 3,225 3,035 5,228 17,583 12,355 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE) ......... $3,344,000 $56,083,000 $52,739,000 $96,449,000 $318,322,000 $221,873,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE) ......... 0 3,680 3,680 0 10,463 10,463 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE) ......... $0 $64,736,000 $64,736,000 $0 $190,822,000 $190,822,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Mandatory) ....... 128 2,620 2,492 3,106 8,204 5,097 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Mandatory) ...... $2,375,000 $47,525,000 $45,150,000 $61,497,000 $156,772,000 $95,275,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Goal Based) ..... 0 1,807 1,807 0 3,337 3,337 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Goal Based) .... $0 $32,855,000 $32,855,000 $0 $63,610,000 $63,610,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Customer Initiated) ....................................................................................... 0 1,572 1,572 0 1,677 1,677 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Customer Initiated) ....................................................................................... $0 $27,540,000 $27,540,000 $0 $29,198,000 $29,198,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU) ............................ 0 17 17 0 2,214 2,214 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 6–19—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUAL MONETIZED BENEFITS—ALL PWS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE— 

Continued 

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU) ............................ $0 $324,000 $324,000 $0 $44,498,000 $44,498,000 

Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits ..................................... $5,719,000 $229,062,000 $223,344,000 $157,946,000 $803,222,000 $645,276,000 

EXHIBIT 6–20—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUAL MONETIZED BENEFITS—ALL PWS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

Low cost estimate High cost estimate 

Previous 

LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental Previous LCR 

Final 

LCRR Incremental 

Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years) ......................... 29,000 928,000 900,000 704,000 3,210,000 2,506,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE) ......... 190 3,225 3,035 5,228 17,583 12,355 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE) ......... $581,000 $9,551,000 $8,971,000 $17,790,000 $57,148,000 $39,358,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE) ......... 0 3,680 3,680 0 10,463 10,463 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE) ......... $0 $11,232,000 $11,232,000 $0 $34,750,000 $34,750,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Mandatory) ....... 128 2,620 2,492 3,106 8,204 5,097 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Mandatory) ...... $451,000 $8,703,000 $8,252,000 $12,707,000 $30,776,000 $18,069,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Goal Based) ..... 0 1,807 1,807 0 3,337 3,337 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Goal Based) .... $0 $6,039,000 $6,039,000 $0 $12,469,000 $12,469,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR—Customer Initiated) ....................................................................................... 0 1,572 1,572 0 1,677 1,677 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR—Customer Initiated) ....................................................................................... $0 $4,797,000 $4,797,000 $0 $5,038,000 $5,038,000 

Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU) ............................ 0 17 17 0 2,214 2,214 

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU) ............................ $0 $62,000 $62,000 $0 $9,417,000 $9,417,000 

Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits ..................................... $1,032,000 $40,385,000 $39,353,000 $30,497,000 $149,599,000 $119,102,000 

F. Cost-Benefit Comparison 

This section summarizes and 

describes the numeric relationship 

between the monetized incremental 

costs and benefits of the final LCR 

revisions. The section also discusses 

both the non-monetized costs and 

benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 6– 

21 and 6–22 compare the annualized 

monetized incremental costs and 

benefits of the LCRR for the low and 

high cost scenarios. Under a 3 percent 

discount rate, the net annualized 

incremental monetized benefits, under 

the low and high cost scenarios, range 

from $49 to $296 million. Under the low 

and high cost scenarios and a 7 percent 

discount rate, the net annualized 

incremental monetized benefits range 

from a negative $148 to negative $273 

million. 

EXHIBIT 6–21—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MONETIZED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COSTS TO BENEFITS OF

THE LCRR AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

PWS annual costs Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Annualized Incremental Costs ................................................................................................................................. $160,571,000 $335,481,000 

Annualized Incremental Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 223,344,000 645,276,000 

Annual Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................................... 62,773,000 309,795,000 

EXHIBIT 6–22—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MONETIZED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COSTS TO BENEFITS OF

THE LCRR AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

[2016$] 

PWS annual costs Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Annualized Incremental Costs ................................................................................................................................. $167,333,000 $372,460,000 

Annualized Incremental Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 39,353,000 119,102,000 

Annual Net Benefits .......................................................................................................................................... ¥127,980,000 ¥253,358,000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4267 

1. Non-Monetized Costs 

The LCRR is expected to result in 

additional phosphate being added to 

drinking water to reduce the amount of 

lead leaching into water in the 

distribution system. EPA’s cost model 

estimated that, nationwide, the LCRR 

will result in post WWTP total 

incremental phosphorus loads to 

receiving waterbodies increasing over 

the period of analysis, under the low 

cost and high cost scenarios, by a range 

of 161,000 to 548,000 pounds fifteen 

years after promulgation, and increasing 

under the low cost and high cost 

scenarios by a range of 355,000 to 

722,000 pounds at year 35. At the 

national level, under the high cost 

scenario, this additional phosphorous 

loading to waterbodies is small, less 

than 0.1 percent of the total 

phosphorous load deposited annually 

from all other anthropogenic sources. 

However, national average receiving 

waterbody load impacts may obscure 

significant localized ecological impacts. 

Impacts, such as eutrophication, may 

occur in water bodies without 

restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in 

locations with existing elevated 

phosphate levels. See Chapter 5, section 

5.5 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) 

for additional information. 

2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

In addition to the benefits monetized 

in the final rule analysis for reductions 

in lead exposure, there are several other 

benefits that are not quantified. The risk 

of adverse health effects due to lead that 

are expected to decrease as a result of 

the LCRR are summarized in Appendix 

D of the final rule EA and are expected 

to affect both children and adults. EPA 

focused its non-quantified impacts 

assessment on the endpoints identified 

using two comprehensive U.S. 

Government documents summarizing 

the recent literature on lead exposure 

health impacts. These documents are 

EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the HHS 

National Toxicology Program 

Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead (National Toxicology 

Program (NTP), 2012). Both of these 

sources present comprehensive reviews 

of the literature on the risk of adverse 

health effects associated with lead 

exposure. EPA summarized those 

endpoints to which either EPA ISA or 

the NTP Lead Monograph assigned one 

of the top two tiers of confidence in the 

relationship between lead exposure and 

the risk of adverse health effects. These 

endpoints include cardiovascular 

effects, renal effects, reproductive and 

developmental effects, immunological 

effects, neurological effects, and cancer. 

There are a number of final rule 

requirements that reduce lead exposure 

to both children and adults that EPA 

could not quantify. The final rule will 

require additional lead public education 

requirements that target consumers 

directly, schools and child care 

facilities, health agencies, and 

specifically people living in homes with 

LSLs. Increased education will lead to 

additional averting behavior on the part 

of the exposed public, resulting in 

reductions in the negative impacts of 

lead. The rule also will require the 

development of LSL inventories and 

making the location of LSLs publicly 

accessible. This will give exposed 

consumers more information and will 

provide potential home buyers this 

information as well, possibly resulting 

in additional LSL removals initiated by 

homeowners before, during, or 

following home sale transactions. The 

benefits of these additional removals are 

not quantified in the analysis of the 

LCRR. As indicated in section VI.E.4 of 

this preamble, because of the lack of 

granularity in the lead tap water 

concentration data available to EPA for 

the regulatory analysis, the benefits of 

small improvements in CCT to 

individuals residing in homes with 

LSLs, like those modeled under the 

‘‘find-and-fix,’’ are not quantified. 

EPA also did not quantify the benefits 

of reduced lead exposure to individuals 

who reside in homes that do not have 

LSLs. EPA has determined that the 

revised LCR requirements may result in 

reduced lead exposure to the occupants 

of these buildings as a result of 

improved monitoring and additional 

actions to optimize CCT. In the analysis 

of the LCRR, the number of non-LSL 

homes potentially affected by water 

systems increasing their corrosion 

control during the 35-year period of 

analysis is 8 million in the low cost 

scenario and 17 million in the high cost 

scenario. These households, while not 

having an LSL in place, may still 

contain leaded plumbing materials, 

including leaded brass fixtures, and lead 

solder. These households could 

potentially see reductions in tap water 

lead concentrations. EPA has assessed 

the potential benefits to children of 

reducing lead water concentrations in 

these homes (see Appendix F of the 

final rule EA) but has determined that 

the data are too limited and the 

uncertainties too significant to include 

in the quantified and monetized benefit 

estimates of this regulation. 

Additionally, the risk of adverse 

health effects associated with copper 

that are expected to be reduced by the 

LCRR are summarized in Appendix E of 

the final rule EA. These risks include 

acute gastrointestinal symptoms, which 

are the most common adverse effect 

observed among adults and children. In 

sensitive groups, there may be 

reductions in chronic hepatic effects, 

particularly for those with rare 

conditions such as Wilson’s disease and 

children pre-disposed to genetic 

cirrhosis syndromes. These diseases 

disrupt copper homeostasis, leading to 

excessive accumulation that can be 

worsened by excessive copper ingestion 

(National Research Council, 2000). 

G. Other Regulatory Options Considered 

The Office of Management and Budget 

recommends careful consideration ‘‘of 

all appropriate alternatives for the key 

attributes or provisions of a rule (Office 

of Management and Budget, 2003). 

Pursuant to this guidance, EPA 

considered other regulatory options 

when developing the final LCRR related 

to: 

• The lead in drinking water 

sampling program at schools and 

licensed child care facilities, 

• the lead tap sampling protocol 

requirements for water systems with 

LSLs, 

• LSL locational information to be 

made publicly available, and 

• providing small system flexibility to 

CWSs that serve a population of 3,300 

or fewer persons. 

Exhibit 6–23 provides a summary of 

the final LCRR requirements and other 

option considered for these four areas. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4268 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 6–23—SUMMARY OF OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE FINAL LCRR 

Area Final LCRR Other option considered 

Lead in Drinking Water Sampling Program at 

Schools and Licensed Child Care Facilities.

Mandatory program is, one five-year round of 

lead sampling: 

• 20% of elementary schools and licensed child care facilities tested annually. 

• 5 samples per school. 

• 2 samples per licensed child care facility. 

On request program is implemented for secondary schools, and in elementary schools 

and child cares following the one cycle of 

mandatory sampling: 

• Maximum required sampling under on 

request program: 20 percent of schools 

and licensed child cares tested annually. 

• 5 samples per elementary and secondary school. 

• 2 samples per licensed child care facility. 

Mandatory program: 

• 20% of schools and licensed child care 

facilities tested annually. 

• 5 samples per school. 

2 samples per licensed child care facility. 

On request program: 

• Schools and licensed child care facilities would be tested on request. 

• 5 samples per school. 

• 2 samples per licensed child care facility. 

Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Systems 

with Lead Service Lines (LSLs).

• Systems with LSLs collect 100% of their 

samples from LSLs sites, if available. 

• Samples are fifth liter, collected after 6-hour 

minimum stagnation time. 

• Systems with LSLs collect 100% of their 

samples from LSLs sites, if available. 

• Samples are first liter, collected after 6-hour 

minimum stagnation time. 

Publicly Available LSL Locational Information ... Systems report a location identifier (e.g., 

street, intersection, landmark) for LSLs. 

Systems report the exact street address of 

LSLs. 

Small System Flexibility ...................................... CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, 

and all NTNCWSs, are provided compliance flexibility when they exceed the AL. 

CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer persons, and 

all NTNCWSs, are provided compliance 

flexibility when they exceed the AL. 

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling 

at Schools and Child Care Facilities 

The final LCRR requires that all 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities must be sampled by CWSs 

once during an initial five year 

mandatory sampling period (schools 

and child care facilities may refuse the 

sampling, but the water system must 

document this refusal or non-response 

to the state). The CWS must also 

provide the facility with the 3Ts 

Toolkit. After this one cycle, or five 

years, of mandatory sampling, CWSs 

must provide sampling and public 

education though the 3Ts, on request, to 

all elementary school and child care 

facilities in their service area into the 

future. The final LCRR also requires 

CWSs to provide on request sampling to 

all secondary schools receiving water 

from their distribution system. EPA 

assumed that 5 percent of elementary 

and secondary schools, and child care 

facilities would request sampling per 

year under the on request sampling 

program. In developing the final rule 

requirements, EPA assessed two other 

alternatives. The first was requiring that 

all CWSs conduct a mandatory sampling 

and public education program for 

schools and licensed child care facilities 

that they serve. The attributes of the 

mandatory program are consistent with 

the final LCRR’s requirements for the 

five-year round of monitoring at 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities, except this program continues 

with consecutive five-year monitoring 

rounds in perpetuity at all schools and 

child care facilities. The second 

alternative EPA considered was a purely 

on request program. This program 

would limit sampling to K–12 schools 

or child care facilities served by the 

water system that request sampling. The 

on request program is representative of 

the final rule sampling and public 

education requirements for secondary 

schools, and elementary schools and 

child care facilities after the cycle of 

mandatory testing. This alternative 

program, however, would begin on 

request sampling as part of the initial 

implementation of the school and child 

care testing program at all schools and 

child care facilities. In assessing the 

costs for the program, EPA maintained 

the assumption that five percent of 

schools and licensed child care facilities 

per year would elect to participate in 

the sampling program and that CWSs 

would contact each facility annually to 

determine its interest in the program in 

lieu of developing a sampling schedule 

for each facility. Exhibit 6–24 shows 

that the estimated costs of the final rule 

requirements are between those of the 

perpetual mandatory program and the 

on request program. Note that the costs 

of the final LCRR and on request option 

are highly dependent on the percentage 

of facilities that request to participate in 

the sampling program. There is a great 

degree of uncertainty regarding the 

percentage of facilities that will request 

this sampling and how this interest may 

fluctuate over time, indicating a higher 

degree of uncertainty in the estimated 

costs from the final LCRR and the on 

request program. The same is true for 

the unquantified benefits estimated to 

result from each alternative. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4269 

EXHIBIT 6–24—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SCHOOL SAMPLING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE RULEMAKING

[2016$] 

Option 

Annualized cost at 

3% discount rate 

Annualized cost at 

7% discount rate 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Final Rule: 

• Elementary Schools/Licensed Child Cares: Mandatory Program for 

one round of monitoring followed by On Request Program ................. $12,582,000 $12,960,000 $14,461,000 $14,969,000 

• Secondary Schools: On Request Program. 

Proposed LCRR: Mandatory Program ............................................................. 27,751,000 28,268,000 27,221,000 27,875,000 

Other Option Considered: On Request Program ............................................ 9,501,000 9,729,000 9,279,000 9,567,000 

2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for 

Water Systems With Lead Service Lines 

The final LCRR requires that water 

systems with LSLs collect all 

compliance tap samples from sites 

served by LSLs as opposed to a 

minimum of 50 percent as required by 

the previous rule. As noted in section 

III.G of this preamble, tap sample sites 

served by an LSL are at the highest risk 

for elevated lead levels in drinking 

water, therefore, EPA revised the tap 

sample site selection criteria to ensure 

water systems with LSLs use those sites 

for lead tap sampling. The final rule 

requires that fifth liter sample be 

collected and analyzed at LSL tap 

sampling sites. EPA determined that a 

fifth liter tap sample better captures 

water that has been in contact with the 

LSL, and sample results would result in 

more protective measures. The sampling 

methodology associated with collecting 

a fifth liter sample (using five one-liter 

bottles returning the first, for copper 

analysis, and the fifth, for lead analysis) 

is more complicated and may introduce 

error, such as misidentifying the correct 

liter to be analyzed. Thus, EPA also 

considered requiring the collection of a 

first liter sample, essentially retaining 

the sampling procedure from the 1991 

LCR because the first draw approach has 

been effectively implemented by water 

systems. 

Exhibits 6–25 and 6–26 provide the 

national annualized rule costs and 

benefits, under the low cost scenario, 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent, for the 

previous rule, the final LCRR, and the 

first liter option. Exhibits 6–27 and 6– 

28 provide the high cost scenario 

national annualized rule costs and 

benefits at the 3 and 7 percent discount 

rates. At a 3 percent discount rate, EPA 

estimates lower total benefits, based on 

estimated avoided IQ point decrements, 

under the first liter option ($121 to $699 

million) compared to the final LCRR 

($229 to $803 million). The first liter 

option provides greater benefits than the 

previous rule ($6 to $158 million). EPA 

estimates that the total cost of the rule 

will be lower under the first liter option 

($521 to $756 million) compared to the 

final LCRR ($554 to $808 million) but 

still greater than the previous rule ($394 

to 473 million). The lower cost and 

benefit of the first liter option, 

compared to the fifth liter final rule 

requirement, is primarily the result of 

fewer water systems with LSLs 

exceeding the trigger and action levels 

and being required to conduct 

additional tap sampling and treatment 

requirements in the EPA cost-benefit 

model. In addition to lower quantified 

benefits, the first liter option is expected 

to result in lower unquantified benefits 

than the fifth liter option as the overall 

expected reductions in exposure to lead 

in drinking water would be less. 

At a 7 percent discount rate, EPA 

estimates lower total benefits, based on 

estimated IQ point decrements, under 

the first liter option ($21 to $131 

million) compared to the final LCRR 

($40 to $150 million). Benefits of the 

first liter option are higher than the 

previous rule ($1 to $30 million). EPA 

estimates that the total cost of the rule 

will be lower under the first liter option 

($502 to $780 million) compared to the 

final LCRR ($539 to $839 million) but 

greater than the previous rule ($371 to 

$467 million). Again, fewer water 

systems under the first liter option are 

required to conduct additional tap 

sampling and treatment requirements in 

response to trigger and action level 

exceedances producing lower costs and 

benefits as compared to the fifth liter 

requirement. And, the fifth liter option 

is expected to result in higher 

unquantified benefits resulting from 

greater reductions exposure to lead in 

drinking water. 

EXHIBIT 6–25—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR THE LOW COST SCENARIO AT 3% 

DISCOUNT RATE PREVIOUS RULE, FINAL LCRR, AND FIRST LITER OPTION

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category Previous LCR 

total 

Final LCRR First liter option 

Total Incremental Total Incremental 

Total Annual Rule Costs ...................................................... $393,904,000 $554,475,000 $160,571,000 $520,724,000 $126,819,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ..................................................... 387,417,000 519,210,000 131,792,000 489,058,000 101,641,000 

Total Annual Benefits ........................................................... 5,719,000 229,062,000 223,344,000 120,792,000 116,828,000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 6–26—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR THE LOW COST SCENARIO AT 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE PREVIOUS RULE, LCRR, AND FIRST LITER OPTION

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category Previous LCR 

total 

Final LCRR First liter option 

Total Incremental Total Incremental 

Total Annual Rule Costs ...................................................... $371,188,000 $538,521,000 $167,333,000 $502,337,000 $131,149,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ..................................................... 364,711,000 501,316,000 136,605,000 469,123,000 104,412,000 

Total Annual Benefits ........................................................... 1,032,000 40,385,000 39,353,000 21,059,000 20,353,000 

EXHIBIT 6–27—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR THE HIGH COST SCENARIO AT 3% 

DISCOUNT RATE PREVIOUS RULE, FINAL LCRR, AND FIRST LITER OPTION

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category Previous LCR 

total 

Final LCRR First liter option 

Total Incremental Total Incremental 

Total Annual Rule Costs ...................................................... $472,821,000 $808,301,000 $335,481,000 $756,384,000 $283,609,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ..................................................... 459,523,000 758,343,000 298,820,000 699,766,000 241,286,000 

Total Annual Benefits ........................................................... 157,946,000 803,222,000 645,276,000 699,463,000 566,338,000 

EXHIBIT 6–28—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR THE HIGH COST SCENARIO AT 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE PREVIOUS RULE, FINAL LCRR, AND FIRST LITER OPTION

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category Previous LCR 

total 

Final LCRR First liter option 

Total Incremental Total Incremental 

Total Annual Rule Costs ...................................................... $466,523,000 $838,983,000 $372,460,000 $780,202,000 $313,725,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ..................................................... 450,316,000 781,224,000 330,908,000 713,442,000 261,177,000 

Total Annual Benefits ........................................................... 30,497,000 149,599,000 119,102,000 131,155,000 105,772,000 

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information 

EPA is requiring in the final LCRR 

that water systems make their inventory 

publicly available and systems with 

LSLs must include a locational 

identifier associated with each LSL. 

EPA is not requiring that address-level 

information be provided (see section 

III.C.3 of this preamble). Public 

disclosure of the LSL inventory would 

increase transparency and consumer 

awareness of the extent of LSLs in the 

distribution system. EPA, during the 

development of the final rule, 

considered an additional option in 

which systems with LSLs would be 

required to make the address associated 

with each LSL publicly available. 

Available information indicates that 

prospective buyers and renters value 

reductions in risks associated with 

LSLs. Public disclosure of LSL locations 

can create an incentive, through 

increased property values or home sale 

incentives, to replace LSLs. 

EPA anticipates that the costs 

between the final rule requirement and 

this option would be similar because the 

system would use the same method for 

publicly providing and maintaining 

information regarding its LSL 

information and LSL locational 

information, e.g., posting information to 

the water system’s website. EPA 

anticipates the benefits between the 

address-level option and location 

identifier rule requirement would be 

similar. EPA expects that unquantified 

benefits of the address-level option may 

be higher due to the potential impacts 

on real estate transactions, although this 

is uncertain. 

4. Small System Flexibility 

As discussed in section III.E of this 

preamble, the final LCRR includes 

significant flexibility for CWSs that 

serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and all 

NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an 

action level exceedance, they can 

choose from four options to reduce the 

concentration of lead in their water. The 

first three options which are modeled in 

the cost-benefit analysis are: (1) Replace 

seven percent of their baseline number 

of LSLs per year until all LSLs are 

replaced; (2) optimize existing CCT or 

install new CCT; (3) Provide POU 

devices to all customers. The LCRR 

provides a fourth option (not modeled), 

for CWSs and NTNCWSs that do not 

have LSLs and have control of all of the 

plumbing materials in their system. 

PWSs meeting these criteria may choose 

to replace all lead bearing plumbing on 

a schedule specified by the state and not 

to exceed one year. This additional 

option will give small entities more 

flexibility but because of the 

requirement that a system must have 

control of all plumbing materials it is 

unlikely large numbers of PWSs would 

select this compliance alternative. EPA, 

therefore, does not model this option in 

the cost analysis. 

As part of the development of the 

final rule EPA also considered limiting 

small system flexibility to CWSs that 

serve 3,300 or fewer people and all 

NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6–29 and 6–30 

provide the range of the estimated 

incremental annualized rule costs and 

benefits, under both the low and high 

cost scenarios, for the final LCRR and 

the alternative small system flexibility 

threshold option at a 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rate, respectively. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4271 

EXHIBIT 6–29—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

FOR THE FINAL LCRR AND THE ALTERNATIVE SMALL SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY THRESHOLD CONSIDERED IN THE RULEMAKING

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category 

Final LCRR: Small system flexibility for CWSs serving <= 

10,000 people and all 

NTNCWSs 

Small system flexibility: CWSs 

serving <= 3,300 people and 

all NTNCWSs 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Total Annual Rule Costs .................................................................................. $160,571,000 $335,481,000 $163,460,000 $363,607,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ................................................................................. 131,792,000 298,820,000 134,013,000 322,711,000 

Total Annual Benefits ...................................................................................... 223,344,000 645,276,000 226,970,000 675,533,000 

EXHIBIT 6–30—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL RULE COSTS AND BENEFITS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE FOR THE FINAL

LCRR AND THE ALTERNATIVE SMALL SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY THRESHOLD CONSIDERED IN THE RULEMAKING

[2016$] 

Benefit/cost category 

Final LCRR: Small system flexibility for CWSs serving 

<= 10,000 people and all 

NTNCWSs 

Small system flexibility: CWSs 

serving 

<= 3,300 people and all 

NTNCWSs 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Low cost 

scenario 

High cost 

scenario 

Total Annual Rule Costs .................................................................................. $167,333,000 $372,460,000 $170,418,000 $408,500,000 

Total Annual PWS Costs ................................................................................. 136,605,000 330,908,000 138,993,000 361,732,000 

Total Annual Benefits ...................................................................................... 39,353,000 119,102,000 40,038,000 125,285,000 

VII. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is an economically 

significant regulatory action that was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. Any 

changes made during interagency 

review in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis, the Economic 

Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper 

Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), is 

available in the docket and is 

summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Cost 

This action is an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action. Details on the 

estimated costs of this final rule can be 

found in EPA’s analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action summarized in section VI. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the 

Office of Mission Support’s Information 

Collection Request Center) (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document that EPA prepared has 

been assigned the control number 2040– 

0297. You can find a copy of the ICR in 

the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ–OW– 

2017–0300), and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The burden reflects the time needed 

to conduct state and public water 

system information collections and 

recordkeeping during the first three 

years after promulgation, as described in 

Chapter 8 from the Economic Analysis 

of the Final Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions (USEPA, 2020a). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by people 

to generate, maintain, retain, 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. 

The PRA requires EPA to estimate the 

burden for public water systems and 

primacy agencies to comply with the 

final rule. EPA assumes there is one 

response per respondent per 

requirement. EPA anticipates public 

water systems will be involved in 

several implementation activities for the 

first three years after publication of the 

final LCRR. During the implementation 

period, one of the burdens that public 

water systems will incur is the burden 

to read and understand the LCRR. EPA 

estimates the average burden hours per 

response per respondent to read and 

understand the LCRR to be 4 hours. 

Another burden public water systems 

will incur is the burden of assigning 

personnel and devoting resources 

necessary to carry out the 

implementation of the final rule. EPA 

estimates the average burden hours per 

response per respondent to assign 

personnel and devote resources to be 8 

hours. In addition, public water systems 

will need to participate in training 

sessions and receive technical 

assistance from their state during 

implementation of the LCRR. EPA 

estimates the average burden hours per 

response per respondent to conduct 

training and receive technical assistance 

to be 8 hours. Furthermore, public water 

systems will have to develop an LSL 

inventory or submit a demonstration to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the state that they do not have LSLs. 

EPA estimates the average burden hours 

per response per respondent to develop 

an LSL inventory to be 20 to 400 hours. 

EPA estimates the average burden hours 

per response per respondent to submit 

a demonstration of no LSLs to be 5 to 

40 hours. Public water system systems 

will also have to confer with their 

primacy agency on initial planning for 

LSLR and prepare a LSLR plan. EPA 

estimates the average burden hours per 

response per respondent for initial 

planning and preparing a LSLR plan to 

be 12 to 52 hours. 

Likewise, primacy agencies will face 

burdens due to the promulgation of the 

final rule. Primacy agencies will have to 

adopt the more stringent portions of the 

rule and develop programs to 

implement the LCRR. Primacy agencies 

are allowed to implement and develop 

more stringent requirements than the 

LCRR. EPA estimates the average 

burden hours per response per 

respondent to adopt the rule and 

develop a program for LCRR to be 1,920 

hours. While primacy agencies are 

implementing the LCRR, there may be a 

need to modify their data system. EPA 

estimates the average burden hours per 

response per respondent to modify the 

data system to implement the LCRR to 

be 2,220 hours. Also, primacy agencies 

will need to provide training and 

technical assistance for their internal 

staff as well as for the staff of public 

water systems. EPA estimates the 

average burden hours per response per 

respondent to provide internal primacy 

agency staff with training for 

implementation of the LCRR to be 588 

hours. EPA estimates the average 

burden hours per response per 

respondent to train and provide 

technical assistance to the staff of public 

water systems to be 2,400 hours. The 

primacy agencies are also responsible 

for assisting public water systems in 

developing an LSL inventory and 

reviewing submissions. EPA estimates 

the average burden hours per response 

per respondent to assist with developing 

a LSL inventory and review submissions 

to be 4 to 8 hours. In addition, primacy 

agencies will also have to review 

demonstrations of no LSLs from public 

water systems. EPA estimates the 

average burden hours per response per 

respondent to review demonstrations to 

be 2 hours. Primacy agencies will also 

have to confer on and review the initial 

LSLR plan from public water systems. 

EPA estimates the average burden hours 

per response per respondent to review 

demonstrations to be 6 to 26 hours. 

The information collected under the 

ICR is critical to states and other 

authorized entities that have been 

granted primacy (i.e., primary 

enforcement authority) for the Lead and 

Copper Rule (LCR). These authorized 

entities are responsible for overseeing 

the LCR implementation by certain 

public water systems within their 

jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would 

utilize these data to determine 

compliance, designate additional 

treatment controls to be installed, and 

establish enforceable operating 

parameters. The collected information is 

also necessary for public water systems. 

Public water systems would use these 

data to demonstrate compliance, assess 

treatment options, operate and maintain 

installed treatment equipment, and 

communicate water quality information 

to consumers served by the water 

system. Primacy agencies would also be 

required to report a subset of these data 

to EPA. EPA would utilize the 

information to protect public health by 

ensuring compliance with the LCR, 

measuring progress toward meeting the 

LCR’s goals, and evaluating the 

appropriateness of state implementation 

activities. No confidential information 

would be collected as a result of this 

ICR. 

Respondents/affected entities: Data 

associated with this final ICR would be 

collected and maintained at the public 

water system, and by Federal and state 

governments. Respondents would 

include owners and operators of public 

water systems, who must report to their 

primacy agency(s). 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Under this rule the respondent’s 

obligation to respond is mandatory. 

Section 1401(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) requires that 

‘‘criteria and procedures to assure a 

supply of drinking water which 

dependably complies with such 

maximum contaminant levels [or 

treatment techniques promulgated in 

lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; 

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)(1)(A) of 

the SDWA requires that ‘‘[e]very person 

who is subject to any requirement of 

this subchapter or who is a grantee, 

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 under this subchapter, in 

determining whether such person has 

acted or is acting in compliance with 

this subchapter . . .’’ 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.’’ 

Estimated number of respondents: 

The total number of respondents for the 

ICR would be 67,712. The total reflects 

56 primacy agencies and 67,656 public 

water systems. 

Frequency of Response: During the 

initial three year period, public water 

systems will conduct one-time startup 

activities. The one-time burden 

associated with reading and 

understanding the rule, assigning 

personnel and resources, and attending 

training is estimated to be an average of 

20 hours per system. These activities 

will be undertaken by all 67,656 CWSs 

and NTNCWSs that must comply with 

the LCRR. The total burden for these 

activities, for the three year period, for 

all systems is estimated to be 1,353,120 

hours. During the initial three year 

period, primacy agencies will incur 

burdens associated with one-time 

startup activities. The burden associated 

with adopting the rule, modifying data 

systems, and providing training for 

internal staff and the staff of public 

water systems during the first three 

years is estimated at an average of 7,128 

hours per primacy agency. The total 

burden for these activities, for the three 

year period, for the 56 primacy agencies 

is estimated to be 399,168 hours. 

Average estimated burden: The 

average burden per response (i.e., the 

amount of time needed for each activity 

that requires a collection of information) 

is estimated to be 9.16 to 9.63 hours; the 

average cost per response is $333–351. 

Total estimated burden: For the first 

three years after the final rule is 

published, water systems and primacy 

agencies will implement several 

requirements. Since the first three years 

of the rule focuses on the creation of 

inventories for LSLs, households are not 

faced with costs. The public water 

systems burden will include the 

following activities: Reading and 

understanding the revised rule, 

personnel time for attending trainings, 

clarifying regulatory requirements with 

the primacy agency during rule 

implementation. Public water systems 

will also be required to create an LSL 

materials inventory and develop an 

initial LSLR plan. The total burden 

hours for public water systems ranges 

from 2.51 to 2.69 million hours. The 

total cost for public water systems 

ranges from $77.5 to $83.4 million. For 

additional information on the public 

water systems activity burden see 

sections VI.D of this preamble. 

The state burden for the first three 

years of rule implementation would 

include the following: Adopting the rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4273 

and developing an implementation 

program; modifying data recording 

systems; training staff; providing water 

system staff with initial and on-going 

technical assistance and training; 

coordinating annual administration 

tasks with EPA; reporting data to 

SDWIS/Fed; reviewing public water 

system (PWS) inventory data; and 

conferring with LSL water systems on 

initial planning for LSLR program 

activities. The total burden hours for 

primacy agencies is 657,034 to 698,096 

hours. The total cost for primacy 

agencies is $37.6 to $40.0 million. See 

section VI.D.8 of this preamble for 

additional discussion on burden and 

cost to the primacy agency. 

The net change burden associated 

with moving from the information 

requirements of the previous rule to 

those in the final LCRR over the three 

years covered by the ICR is 3.17 to 3.4 

million hours, for an average of 1.06 to 

1.13 million hours per year. The range 

reflects the upper- and lower-bound 

estimates of the number of systems that 

need to develop LSL inventories. The 

total net change in costs over the threeyear clearance period are $115.2 to 

$123.3 million, for an average of $38.4 

to $41.1 million per year (simple 

average over three years). 

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. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA) 

Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of 

the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 

the proposed rule and convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entity 

representatives that potentially would 

be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

Summaries of the IFRA and Panel 

recommendations are presented in the 

proposed rule at 84 FR 61684, 

November 13, 2019. As required by 

section 604 of the RFA, EPA prepared 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for this action. The FRFA 

addresses the issues raised by public 

comments on the IRFA for the proposed 

rule. The complete FRFA is available for 

review in Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the 

final rule EA and is summarized here. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be water 

systems serving 10,000 people or fewer. 

This is the threshold specified by 

Congress in the 1996 Amendments to 

the SDWA for small water system 

flexibility provisions. As required by the 

RFA, EPA proposed using this 

alternative definition in the Federal 

Register (FR) (US EPA, 1998b, 63 FR 

7620, February 13, 1998), sought public 

comment, consulted with the Small 

Business Administration, and finalized 

the small water system threshold in the 

Agency’s Consumer Confidence Report 

regulation (USEPA, 1998a, 63 FR 44524, 

August 19, 1998). As stated in that 

document, the alternative definition 

would apply to this regulation. 

Under the SDWA, EPA sets public 

health goals and enforceable standards 

for drinking water quality. As 

previously described, the LCR requires 

water systems to take actions to address 

lead and copper contamination in 

drinking water, including corrosion 

control treatment, public education, and 

LSLR. EPA regulatory revisions in the 

final rule strengthen public health 

protection and improve implementation 

in the following areas: Tap sampling, 

corrosion control treatment, LSLR, 

public notification and public 

education. 

EPA took a number of steps to solicit 

small entity stakeholder input during 

the development of the final LCRR. 

Chapter 2, Section 2.2 of the final rule 

EA contains detailed information on 

stakeholder outreach during the 

rulemaking process, including material 

on the Federalism and Tribal 

consultation processes (also outlined in 

Sections VII.F and VII.G of this 

preamble). EPA also specifically sought 

input from small entity stakeholders 

through the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel (SBAR) process under 

Section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended 

by the SBREFA. On August 14, 2012, 

the EPA’s Small Business Advocacy 

Chairperson convened an SBAR Panel. 

In addition to its chairperson, the SBAR 

Panel consisted of the Director of the 

Standards and Risk Management 

Division within the EPA’s Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water, the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the OMB, and the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the SBA. Detailed 

information on the overall panel process 

can be found in the panel report titled, 

The Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule 

to Public Water System Requirements 

available in the LCRR docket (EPA–HQ– 

OW–2017–0300). The Agency also 

received comment on the proposed rule 

revisions that provided small CWSs, 

serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all 

NTNCWSs greater flexibility to comply 

with the requirements of the LCRR. The 

detailed public comment summaries 

including EPA’s detailed responses are 

provided in Section III.E.2 of this 

preamble. 

EPA identified over 63,324 small 

public water systems that may be 

impacted by the final LCR revisions. A 

small public water system serves 

between 25 and 10,000 people. These 

water systems include over 45,758 

CWSs that serve year-round residents 

and more than 17,566 NTNCWSs that 

serve the same persons over six months 

per year (e.g., a public water system that 

is an office park or church). The final 

rule revisions to the LCR include 

requirements for: Conducting an LSL 

inventory that is updated annually; 

installing or re-optimizing corrosion 

control treatment when water quality 

declines; enhanced water quality 

parameter monitoring; establishment of 

a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ provision to evaluate 

and remediate elevated lead at a site 

where the tap sample exceeds the lead 

action level; and improved customer 

outreach. These final rule revisions also 

include reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. States are required to 

implement operator certification (and 

recertification) programs under SDWA 

section 1419 to ensure operators of 

CWSs and NTNCWSs, including small 

water system operators, have the 

appropriate level of certification. 

As a mechanism to reduce the burden 

of the final rule requirements on small 

entities EPA has promulgated 

compliance flexibilities for small CWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all 

NTNCWS with a 90th percentile lead 

value above the lead trigger level or 

action level. These systems may choose 

between LSLR; CCT installation; POU 

device installation and maintenance; 

and replacement of lead-bearing 

materials as the compliance option. As 

part of the FRFA analysis, EPA is 

estimating low and high cost scenarios 

to characterize uncertainty in the cost 

model results. These scenarios are 

functions of assigning different, low and 

high, input values to a number of 

variables that affect the relative cost of 

the small system compliance options. 

As indicated in Exhibit 7–1, under the 

previous LCR, EPA estimates that, under 

the low cost scenario, 26,013 small 

CWSs will have annual total LCR 

related costs of more than one percent 

of revenues, and that 13,339 of these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

small CWSs will have annual total costs 

of three percent or greater of revenue. 

Under the final LCRR, the number of 

small CWSs that will experience annual 

total costs of more than one percent of 

revenues increases by 11,873 to 37,885 

and the number of small CWSs that will 

have annual total costs exceeding three 

percent of revenues increases by 8,521 

to 21,860. Under the high cost scenario, 

EPA estimates that under the previous 

LCR, 27,719 small CWSs will have 

annual total costs of more than one 

percent of revenues, and that 15,472 of 

these small CWSs will have annual total 

costs of three percent or greater of 

revenue. Under the final LCRR, the 

number of small CWSs that will 

experience annual total costs of more 

than one percent of revenues increases 

by 13,221 to 40,940 and the number of 

small CWSs that will have annual total 

costs of more than three percent of 

revenues increases by 9,994 to 25,466. 

EXHIBIT 7–1—NUMBER OF SMALL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS WITH ANNUAL LCR-RELATED COSTS OF ABOVE 1 PERCENT OR 3 PERCENT OF ANNUAL REVENUE FOR THE PREVIOUS RULE AND FINAL LCRR UNDER THE LOW COST AND

HIGH COST SCENARIOS

Number of small CWSs with: Previous rule Final LCRR 

Low Cost Scenario 

Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of revenue ................................................................................................... 26,013 37,885 

Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of revenue ................................................................................................... 13,339 21,860 

High Cost Scenario 

Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of revenue ................................................................................................... 27,719 40,940 

Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of revenue ................................................................................................... 15,472 25,466 

EPA also assessed the degree to which 

the final LCRR small system flexibilities 

would mitigate compliance costs. The 

Agency estimated the cost of the LCRR 

if no compliance alternatives were 

available to small systems. The annual 

incremental cost of the LCRR without 

the small system compliance 

alternatives ranges from $174 to $419 

million at a 3 percent discount rate, and 

from $180 to $474 million at a 7 percent 

discount rate in 2016 dollars. This 

demonstrates a cost savings, from 

allowing CWSs that serve 10,000 or 

fewer persons, and all NTNCWSs 

compliance flexibilities, of between $13 

million and $101 million across 

discount rates and low/high cost 

scenarios. 

See Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final 

LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 

2020a) for more information on the 

characterization of the impacts under 

the final rule. EPA has considered an 

alternative approach to provide 

regulatory flexibility to small water 

systems. Section 8.4 of the final LCRR 

Economic Analysis contains an 

assessment of impacts for an alternative 

option that sets the threshold for system 

compliance flexibility at systems 

serving 3,300 or fewer persons. See 

section III.E of this preamble for the 

detailed explanation of the rationale for 

EPA’s selection of systems serving 

10,000 or fewer persons for the CWS 

small systems flexibilities threshold. 

In addition, EPA is preparing a Small 

Entity Compliance Guide to help small 

entities comply with this rule. The 

Small System Compliance Guide would 

be developed the first 3 years after 

promulgation. 

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action contains a Federal 

mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, 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. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared a 

written statement required under 

section 202 of UMRA. The statement is 

included in the docket for this action 

(see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis 

of the Final Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions (USEPA, 2020a)) and is 

briefly summarized here. 

Consistent with the intergovernmental 

consultation provisions of UMRA 

section 204, EPA consulted with 

governmental entities affected by this 

rule. EPA describes the government-togovernment dialogue and comments 

from state, local, and tribal governments 

in section VII.F Executive Order 13132: 

Federalism and section VII.G Executive 

Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments of this preamble. 

Consistent with UMRA section 205, 

EPA identified and analyzed a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives to determine the treatment 

technique requirements in the final LCR 

revisions. Sections III, IV, and V of this 

preamble describe the final options. See 

section VI.F of this preamble and 

Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis of 

the Final Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for 

alternative options that were 

considered. 

This action may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. EPA 

consulted with small governments 

concerning the regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. EPA describes this 

consultation above in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), section VIII.D of 

this preamble. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EPA has concluded that this action 

has Federalism implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments. EPA 

provides the following federalism 

summary impact statement. EPA 

consulted with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. EPA held federalism 

consultations on November 15, 2011, 

and on January 8, 2018. EPA invited the 

following national organizations 

representing state and local elected 

officials to a meeting on January 8, 2018, 

in Washington DC: The National 

Governors’ Association, the National 

Conference of State Legislatures, the 

Council of State Governments, the 

National League of Cities, the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the 

International City/County Management 

Association, the National Association of 

Towns and Townships, the County 

Executives of America, and the 

Environmental Council of the States. 

Additionally, EPA invited the 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators, the Association of 

Metropolitan Water Agencies, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4275 

National Rural Water Association, the 

American Water Works Association, the 

American Public Works Association, the 

National School Board Association, the 

American Association of School 

Administrators, and the Western 

Governors’ Association to participate in 

the meeting. EPA also provided the 

associations’ membership an 

opportunity to provide input during 

follow-up meetings. EPA held five 

follow up meetings between January 8, 

2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to 

input received during the meetings, EPA 

provided an opportunity to receive 

written input within 60 days after the 

initial meeting. A summary report of the 

views expressed during Federalism 

consultations is available in the Docket 

(EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications, 

since it may impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

and the Federal Government will not 

provide the funds necessary to pay 

those costs. There are 996 public water 

systems serving tribal communities, 87 

of which are federally owned. The 

economic analysis of the final LCRR 

requirements estimated that the total 

annualized incremental costs placed on 

all systems serving tribal communities 

ranges from $1–$2.4 million. While the 

average annual incremental cost 

increase per tribal system is estimated to 

range from $1,027 to $2,362, EPA notes 

that these estimated impacts will not 

fall evenly across all tribal systems. The 

final LCRR does offer regulatory relief 

by providing flexibility for CWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people and all 

NTNCWSs to choose CCT, LSLR, POU 

devices, and replacement of leadbearing materials to address lead in 

drinking water. This flexibility may 

result in LCR implementation cost 

savings for many tribal systems since 98 

percent of tribal CWSs serve 10,000 or 

fewer people and 17 percent of all tribal 

systems are NTNCWSs. EPA consulted 

with tribal officials under EPA’s Policy 

on Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes early in the process of 

developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. A summary 

of that consultation is provided in the 

Docket (EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). EPA 

held consultations with federallyrecognized Indian Tribes in 2011 and 

2018. The 2018 consultations with 

federally-recognized Indian Tribes 

began on January 16, 2018 and ended 

March 16, 2018. The first national 

webinar was held January 31, 2018, 

while the second national webinar was 

held February 15, 2018. A total of 48 

tribal representatives participated in the 

two webinars. Updates on the 

consultation process were provided to 

the National Tribal Water Council upon 

request at regularly scheduled monthly 

meetings during the consultation 

process. Also, upon request, 

informational webinars were provided 

to the National Tribal Toxics Council’s 

Lead Subcommittee on January 30, 

2018, and EPA Region 9’s Regional 

Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) on 

February 8, 2018. Additionally, EPA 

received written comments from the 

following Tribes and tribal 

organizations: The Navajo Tribal Utility 

Authority, the National Tribal Water 

Council, the United South and Eastern 

Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, and 

the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed 

Council. 

EPA has reviewed the estimated cost 

data, the comments received from tribal 

groups, and the quantified and nonquantified benefits associated with the 

revision to the LCR and determined that 

the regulatory burden placed on tribes is 

outweighed by the positive benefits. 

Given that the majority of tribal systems 

serve fewer than 10,000 persons, EPA 

has provided regulatory relief in the 

form of small system compliance 

flexibilities. For additional information 

on these compliance flexibilities and 

their estimated impacts see sections III.E 

and VII.D of this preamble and Chapter 

8, section 8.4 of the final LCRR 

Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020a). 

As required by section 7(a) of the 

Executive order, EPA’s Tribal Official 

has certified that the requirements of the 

executive order have been met in a 

meaningful and timely manner. A copy 

of the certification is included in the 

docket for this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866, and, based on the record, EPA 

finds that the environmental health or 

safety risk addressed by this action has 

a disproportionate effect on children. 

Accordingly, EPA has evaluated the 

environmental health and safety effects 

of lead found in drinking water on 

children and estimated the exposure 

reduction, risk reduction and health 

endpoint impacts to children associated 

with the adoption and optimization of 

corrosion control treatment technologies 

and the replacement of LSLs. There are 

non-quantified lead health benefits to 

children that will be realized as a result 

of this rulemaking, including from 

testing in schools and child care 

facilities. EPA assessed benefits of the 

LCRR in terms of avoided losses in the 

intelligence quotient (IQ) in children 

that result from the additional actions 

required under the LCRR. The results of 

these evaluations are contained in the 

Economic Analysis of the Final Lead 

and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 

2020a) and described in section VI.D.2 

of this preamble. Copies of the 

Economic Analysis of the Final Lead 

and Copper Rule Revisions and 

supporting information are available in 

the Docket (EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

The public and private water systems 

affected by this action do not, as a rule, 

generate power. This action does not 

regulate any aspect of energy 

distribution as the water systems that 

are regulated by the LCR already have 

electrical service. Finally, EPA has 

determined that the incremental energy 

used to implement corrosion control 

treatment at drinking water systems in 

response to the final regulatory 

requirements is minimal. As such, EPA 

does not anticipate that this rule will 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

This action involves technical 

standards. EPA may use existing 

voluntary consensus standards as it 

relates to additional monitoring for lead 

and copper, since monitoring and 

sample analysis methodologies are often 

based on voluntary consensus 

standards. However, the final LCRR 

does not change any methodological 

requirements for monitoring or sample 

analysis. EPA’s approved monitoring 

and sampling protocols generally 

include voluntary consensus standards 

that are in accordance with applicable 

standards established by an organization 

accredited for that purpose such as the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), and other such accrediting 

bodies deemed appropriate for 

compliance monitoring by the 

Administrator. EPA notes that in some 

cases, this rule revises the required 

frequency and number of lead tap 

samples. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action does not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision is 

contained in the Environmental Justice 

Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper 

Revision Rule Report, which can be 

found in the docket ID EPA–HQ–OW– 

2017–0300. Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission. Agencies must do this by 

identifying and addressing as 

appropriate any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

In evaluating baseline exposure to 

lead in drinking water, data indicate 

that the possibility of a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health risk among minority 

populations and low-income 

populations exist. Higher than expected 

proportions of children in minority 

households and/or low-income 

households live in housing built during 

decades of higher LSL usage. The final 

rule seeks to reduce the health risks of 

exposure to lead in drinking water 

provided by CWSs and NTNCWSs. 

Since water systems with LSLs are more 

likely to have an action level 

exceedance or a trigger level exceedance 

and, therefore, engage in actions to 

reduce lead concentrations, the final 

rule should help improve the baseline 

environmental justice concerns. The 

final rule is not expected to have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations and lowincome populations. The final rule 

should result in CCT and LSLR changes 

at water systems with higher baseline 

lead concentrations. It increases the 

level of health protection for all affected 

populations. The LSLR provision may 

be less likely than the CCT provision to 

address baseline health risk disparity 

among low-income populations because 

LSLR may not be affordable for lowincome households. 

However, there are Federal and state 

programs that may be used to fund 

LSLR programs including the cost of 

LSLR for customer-owned LSLs. These 

include but are not limited to the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

(DWSRF), Water Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program, 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016 grant 

programs, and U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) Community Development Block 

Grant (CDBG) Program. The benefit-cost 

analysis of the final rule indicates that 

CCT changes will account for most of 

the benefits. Therefore, health risk 

reduction benefits will be more 

uniformly distributed among 

populations with high baseline health 

risks including minority and lowincome households. Also, given the 

availability of Federal and state funding 

sources to support full LSLR, the final 

rule meets the intent of the Federal 

policy requiring incorporation of 

environmental justice into Federal 

agency missions. 

L. Consultations With the Science 

Advisory Board and the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council 

1. Consultation With the Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Under SDWA 

Section 1412(e) 

As required by section 1412(e) of the 

SDWA, in 2011, EPA sought an 

evaluation of current scientific data to 

determine whether partial LSLR 

effectively reduce water lead levels. 

When the LCR was promulgated in 

1991, large water systems, serving 

greater than 50,000 people, were 

required to install CCT and small and 

medium water systems, serving 50,000 

or fewer people if samples exceeded the 

action level for lead. If the action level 

was not met after installing CCT, water 

systems are required to replace 7 

percent of its LSLs annually. However, 

in 2000, revisions to the LCR allowed 

water systems, if they exceeded the 

action level, to replace only the portion 

of the LSL that the water system owned 

and to replace the customer’s portion of 

the LSL at the customer’s expense. This 

practice is known as a partial LSLR. 

EPA asked the SAB to evaluate the 

current scientific data on the following 

five partial LSLR issues: (1) 

Associations between partial LSLR and 

blood lead levels in children; (2) lead 

tap water sampling data before and after 

partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between 

partial and full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR 

techniques; and (5) the impact of 

galvanic corrosion. EPA identified 

several studies for the SAB to review 

while the SAB selected additional 

studies for their evaluation. The SAB 

deliberated and sought input from 

public meetings held on March 30 and 

31, 2011, and during a public 

conference call on May 16, 2011. The 

SAB’s final report, titled ‘‘SAB 

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial 

Lead Service Line Replacements’’ was 

approved by the SAB on July 19, 2011, 

and transmitted to the EPA 

Administrator on September 28, 2011. 

The SAB determined that the quality 

and quantity of data was inadequate to 

fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial 

LSLR in reducing drinking water lead 

concentrations. Both the small number 

of studies and the limitations within 

these studies (i.e., lack of comparability 

between studies, small sample size) 

barred a comprehensive assessment of 

partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite 

the limitations, the SAB concluded that 

partial LSLR’s have not been shown to 

reliably reduce drinking water lead 

levels in the short-term of days to 

months, and potentially even longer. 

Additionally, partial LSLR is often 

associated with elevated drinking water 

lead levels in the short-term. The 

available data suggested that the 

elevated drinking water lead levels after 

the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over 

time to lower than or to levels similar 

to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, 

the SAB concluded that available data 

suggest that partial LSLR’s may pose a 

risk to the population due to short-term 

elevations in drinking water lead 

concentrations after a partial LSLR, 

which last for an unknown period. 

Considering the SAB’s findings on 

partial LSLR, EPA determined that 

partial replacements should no longer 

be required when water systems exceed 

the action level for lead, but EPA still 

considers full replacement of the LSL as 

beneficial (USEPA, 2011b). 

Following the proposal, the SAB 

elected to review the scientific and 

technical basis of the proposed rule, on 

March 30, 2020. A work group took the 

lead in SAB deliberations on this topic 

at a public teleconference held on May 

11, 2020. The SAB provided advice and 

comments in its June 12, 2020 report. 

Similar comments that were raised by 

the SAB were also raised by public 

commenters. As a result, the comments 

have been addressed by EPA in the final 

rule, supporting documents and 

throughout this notice. 

2. Consultation With National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council Under SDWA 

Section 1412(d) 

The National Drinking Water 

Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal 

Advisory Committee that supports EPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4277 

in performing its duties and 

responsibilities related to the national 

drinking water program and was created 

as a part of SDWA in 1974. EPA sought 

advice from the NDWAC as required 

under Section 1446 of the SDWA. EPA 

consulted with NDWAC on July 21–22, 

2011, to provide updates on the 

proposed LCR revisions and solicit 

feedback on potential regulatory options 

under consideration. In November 2011, 

NDWAC held deliberations on LSLR 

requirements after they received the 

SAB’s final report on the effectiveness 

of partial LSLR. In December 2011, a 

public meeting was held where NDWAC 

provided EPA with major 

recommendations on the potential LCR 

regulatory revisions, which are outlined 

in a letter dated December 23, 2011. 

In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead 

and Copper Rule Working Group 

(LCRWG) to provide additional advice 

to EPA on potential options for longterm regulatory revisions. EPA held 

meetings from March of 2014 until June 

2015 where NDWAC LCRWG members 

discussed components of the rule and 

provided EPA with advice for 

addressing the following issues: Sample 

site collection criteria, lead sampling 

protocols, public education for copper, 

and measures to ensure optimal CCT 

and LSLR. NDWAC provided the 

Agency with their final 

recommendations and findings in a 

report submitted to the Administrator in 

December 2015. In the report, NDWAC 

acknowledged that reducing lead 

exposure is a shared responsibility 

between consumers, the government, 

public water systems, building owners, 

and public health officials. In addition, 

they recognized that creative financing 

is necessary to reach the LSL removal 

goals, especially for disparate and 

vulnerable communities. The NDWAC 

advised EPA to maintain the LCR as a 

treatment technique rule but with 

enhanced improvements. NDWAC 

qualitatively considered costs before 

finalizing its recommendations, 

emphasizing that public water systems 

and states should focus efforts where 

the greatest public health protection can 

be achieved, incorporating their 

anticipated costs in their capital 

improvement program or the requests 

for Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds. The LCRWG outlined an 

extensive list of recommendations for 

the LCR revisions, including 

establishing a goal-based LSLR program, 

strengthening CCT requirements, and 

tailoring water quality parameters to the 

specific CCT plan for each water system. 

The report NDWAC provided for EPA 

also included recommendations for 

renewed collaborative commitments 

between government and all levels of 

the public from state and local agencies, 

to other stakeholders and consumers 

while recognizing EPA’s leadership role 

in this area. These complementary 

actions as well as a detailed description 

of the provisions for NDWAC’s 

recommendations for the long-term 

revisions to the LCR can be found in the 

‘‘Report of the Lead and Copper Rule 

Working Group to the National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council’’ (NDWAC, 

2015). EPA took into consideration 

NDWAC’s recommendations when 

developing these revisions to the LCR. 

On December 4–5, 2019, EPA held a 

NDWAC meeting in Washington, DC 

where EPA presented the proposed Lead 

and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). In 

the presentation, the major LCRR 

revisions were highlighted such as the 

LSL inventory, the new trigger level of 

10 ppb, and new sampling protocols. 

The presentation focused on six key 

areas: Identifying areas most impacted, 

strengthening treatment requirements, 

replacing LSLs, increasing sampling 

reliability, improving risk 

communication, and protecting children 

in schools. EPA reiterated that the LCRR 

was developed with extensive 

consultation from state, local and tribal 

partners to identify avenues that would 

reduce elevated levels of lead in 

drinking water. EPA reaffirmed its 

commitment to transparency and 

improved communication to the public. 

M. Consultation With the Department of 

Health and Human Services Under 

SDWA Section 1412(d) 

On June 12, 2019, EPA consulted with 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) on the proposed LCRR. 

On July 22, 2020, EPA consulted with 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) on the final rule. EPA 

received and considered comments from 

the HHS for both the proposal and final 

rules through the inter-agency review 

process described in section VII.A of 

this preamble. 

N. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VIII. References 

AAP COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH, 2016. Prevention of Childhood 

Lead Toxicity. Pediatrics. 

2016;138(1):e20161493 

ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and 

Flushing of Lead Service Lines. AWWA 

C810–17 43810. First Edition. Denver, 

CO: AWWA, 2017. 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA). 2020. Costs of 

States Transactions Study (CoSTS) for 

EPA’s Proposed LCRR. February 6, 2020. 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators. (August 2019). 

Developing Lead Service Line 

Inventories Presented by the Association 

of State Drinking Water Administrators. 

Retrieved August 2019, from: https://

www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

2019/08/ASDWA_Developing-LeadService-Line-Inventories.pdf. 

AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line 

Management. Retrieved September 3, 

2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/ 

Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-PolicyStatements/Lead-Service-LineManagement. 

AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line 

and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and 

Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978–1– 

60573–031–7. 

AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum 

Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion of 

Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. 

AwwaRF Order 90508. Project #725. 

AWWA Research Foundation (now 

Water Research Foundation) and 

AWWA. Denver, CO. 

Budtz-J<rgensen, E., Bellinger, D., Lanphear, 

B., & Grandjean, P. (2013). An 

International Pooled Analysis for 

Obtaining a Benchmark Dose for 

Environmental Lead Exposure in 

Children. Risk Analysis, 33(3), 450–461. 

doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539- 

6924.2012.01882.x. 

Chin, D., Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985. Lead 

product use survey of public water 

supply distribution systems throughout 

the United States. In: Plumbing Materials 

and Drinking Water Quality: Proceedings 

of a Seminar Held at Cincinnati, Ohio, 

May 16–17, 1984. EPA 600/9–85–007, 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, pp. 132–146. 

Chislock, M. F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R. A. and 

A.E. Wilson. 2013. Eutrophication: 

Causes, Consequences, and Controls in 

Aquatic Ecosystems. Nature Education 

Knowledge 4(4):10. 

Chowdhury, R., Ramond, A., O’Keeffe, L. M., 

Shahzad, S., Kunutsor, S. K., Muka, T., 

. . . Di Angelantonio, E. 2018. 

Environmental toxic metal contaminants 

and risk of cardiovascular disease: 

systematic review and meta-analysis. 

BMJ, 362, k3310. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3310. 

Cornwell, D.A, R.A. Brown, and S.H Via. 

2016. National Survey of Lead Service 

Line Occurrence. Journal American 

Water Works Association. 108(4):E182– 

E191. 

Crump, K. S., Van Landingham, C., Bowers, 

T. S., Cahoy, D., & Chandalia, J. K. 

(2013). A statistical reevaluation of the 

data used in the Lanphear et al. (2005) 

pooled-analysis that related low levels of 

blood lead to intellectual deficits in 

children. Crit Rev Toxicol, 43(9), 785– 

799. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726. 

DC Water. 2016. DC Water Service 

Information. Retrieved August 12, 2019, 

from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/. 

De Rosa and Williams. 1992. Particulate lead 

in water supplies (TMU9024). Final 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Report to the Department of the 

Environment. Swindon, England: Water 

Research Center (1992). 

Del Toral, Miguel A. Del. Et al. ‘‘Detection 

and Evaluation of Elevated Lead Release 

from Service Lines: A Field Study.’’ 

Environmental Science and Technology; 

vol. 47, no. 16, 2013, pp. 9300–9307. 

Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., 

Nour, S., & Prevost, M. 2016. Monitoringbased framework to detect and manage 

lead water service lines. Journal of the 

American Water Works Association, 

108(11), E555–E570. 

Dodds, W.K., Bouska, W.W., Eitzmann, J.L., 

Pilger, T.J., Pitts, K.L., Riley, A.J., 

Schloesser, J.T., and D.J. Thornbrugh. 

2009. Eutrophication of U.S. 

Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential 

Economic Damages. Environmental 

Science Technology 43 (1). 

EDF. 2019. Recognizing efforts to replace 

lead service lines. Retrieved from https:// 

www.edf.org/health/recognizing-effortsreplace-lead-service-lines. 

Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007. M. 

Edwards, S. Triantafyllidou, Chloride-tosulfate mass ratio and lead leaching to 

water. J. Water Works Assoc. 2007, 99, 

96. 

Elfland et al. 2010. Lead-contaminated water 

from brass plumbing devices in new 

buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11. 

ERG, 2017. Summary Report of the Peer 

Review Meeting for EPA’s Draft Report, 

Proposed Modeling Approaches for a 

Health-based Benchmark for Lead in 

Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2017-10/ 

documents/lcr_peer_review_summary_

report_final_10-25-17_508.pdf. 

Galesburg, 2016. Lead Service Line 

Replacement Grant Program Application. 

Accessed 9/12/2019. https://

www.ci.galesburg.il.us/assets/1/22/ 

LEAD_SERVICE_LINE_REPLACEMENT_

GRANT_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.pdf. 

GAO–17–424, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. Drinking Water, 

Additional Data and Statistical Analysis 

May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the 

Lead and Copper Rule. September, 2017. 

GAO–18–328, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. K–12 Education, 

Lead Testing of School Drinking Water 

Would Benefit from Improved Federal 

Guidance. July 2018. 

GAO–18–620, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. Drinking Water, 

Approaches for Identifying Lead Service 

Lines Should be Shared With All States. 

September 2018. 

Glibert, P. M., Anderson, D. M., Gentien, P., 

Graneli, E. and K. G. Sellner. 2005. The 

Global, Complex Phenomena of Harmful 

Algal Blooms. Oceanography 18:2. 

Great Lakes—Upper Mississippi River Board 

of State and Provincial Public Health and 

Environmental Managers. 2018. 

Recommended standards for water 

works 2018 edition: Policies for the 

review and approval of plans and 

specifications for public water supplies. 

Minnesota’s Bookstore Communications 

Media Division. 

Gregory and Jackson, 1984; Gregory, R. and 

Jackson, P.J. Central Water Treatment to 

Reduce Lead Solubility. Water Research 

Center. Prepared for the AWWA Annual 

Conference. Dallas, TX (1984). 

HDR. (2009). An Analysis of the Correlation 

between Lead Released from Galvanized 

Iron Piping and the Contents of Lead in 

Drinking Water. Retrieved August 13, 

2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/ 

region03/dclead/web/pdf/ 

galvanizedprojectreport.pdf. 

Hill, C.P., and Cantor, A.F. 2011. Internal 

Corrosion Control in Water Distribution 

Systems. AWWA Manual M58, First 

Edition. American Water Works 

Association. Denver, CO. 

Kahn, H.D. and K. Stralka. 2009. Estimated 

daily average per capita water ingestion 

by child and adult age categories based 

on USDA’s 1994–1996 and 1998 

continuing survey of food intakes by 

individuals. Journal of Exposure Science 

& Environmental Epidemiology 

19(4):396–404. 

Kane, J., and Tomer, A. 2018. Renewing the 

water workforce: Improving water 

infrastructure and creating a pipeline to 

opportunity. Metropolitan Policy 

Program at Brookings. 

Katner, Adrienne, et al. Effectiveness of 

Prevailing Flush Guidelines to Prevent 

Exposure to Lead in Tap Water. MDPI, 

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing 

Institute, 20 July 2018, www.mdpi.com/ 

1660–4601/15/7/1537. 

Kirrane, E. F., & Patel, M. M. (2014). 

Memorandum from EPA NCEA to ISA for 

Lead Docket: Identification and 

consideration of errors in Lanphear et al. 

(2005), ‘‘Low-Level Environmental Lead 

Exposure and Children’s Intellectual 

Function: An International Pooled 

Analysis.’’ 

Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., 

Yolton, K., Baghurst, P. A., Bellinger, D. 

C., . . . Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level 

Environmental Lead Exposure and 

Children’s Intellectual Function: An 

International Pooled Analysis. 

Environmental Health Perspectives, 

113(7), 894–899. doi:10.1289/ehp.7688. 

Lanphear, B.P. 2016. Prevention of 

Childhood Lead Toxicity. Pediatrics. 

August 2016. https://

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/ 

pediatrics/138/1/e20161493.full.pdf. 

Lanphear, B.P., R. Hornung, J. Khoury, K. 

Yolton, P.A. Baghurst, DC Bellinger, R. 

Roberts. 2019. Erratum: Low-level 

environmental lead exposure and 

children’s intellectual function: An 

international pooled analysis. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 

113(7):894–899. 

Lin, D., Lutter, R., & Ruhm, C. J. 2016. 

Cognitive performance and labour 

market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51, 

121–135. 

Lyon and Lenihan, 1977. Lyon, T.D.B. and 

Lenihan, J.M.A. Corrosion in Solder 

Jointed Copper Tubes Resulting in Lead 

Contamination of Drinking Water. Br. 

Corros. J. (March 1977), Vol. 12, No. 1. 

Lytle, D.A. and Schock, M.R. (1996). 

Stagnation time, composition, pH and 

orthophosphate effects on metal leaching 

from brass. EPA/600/R–96/103 

September 1996. 

Lytle, D.A. Et al. 2019. Sequential Drinking 

Water Sampling as a Tool for Evaluating 

Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research; 

Vol. 157, pp 40–54. 

McFadden, M., et al. 2011. Contributions to 

Drinking Water Lead from Galvanized 

Iron Corrosion Scales. Journal American 

Water Works Association; 103(4), pp 76– 

89. DOI: 10.1002/j.1551– 

8833.2011.tb11437.x. 

Michigan EGLE. 2020. Preliminary 

Distribution System Material Inventory. 

Available online at: https://

www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egledwehd-PDSMISummaryData_682673_

7.pdf. 

Ministry of Ontario. Regulation 170/03. 

Schedule 15.1 Lead, under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. Guidance Document 

for Preparing Corrosion Control Plans for 

Drinking Water Systems. PIBs # 7463. 

December 2009. 

Mushak, P. 1991. Gastro-intestinal absorption 

of lead in children and adults: Overview 

of biological and biophysico-chemical 

aspects. Chemical Speciation and 

Bioavailability 3(3–4):87–104. 

NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group. 

(2015). Report of the Lead and Copper 

Working Group to the National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council—Final. 

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-01/ 

documents/

ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf. 

National Research Council. (2000). Copper in 

Drinking Water. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. 

National Toxicology Program. (2012). NTP 

Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead. Durham, NC. 

Nguyen et al., 2010. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. 

Stone, A. Dudi, M. A. Edwards, 

Corrosive microenvironments at lead 

solder surfaces arising from galvanic 

corrosion with copper pipe. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 2010, 44, 7076. 

Nguyen et al., 2011. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. 

Stone, M. A. Edwards, Chloride-tosulfate mass ratio: practical studies in 

galvanic corrosion of lead solder. J. 

Water Works Assoc. 2011, 103, 81. 

Office of Management and Budget. (2003) 

Circular A–4. Washington, DC. 

Office of Inspector General (EPA). ‘‘Drinking 

Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional 

Steps to Ensure Small Community Water 

Systems Designated as Serious Violators 

Achieve Compliance.’’ Report No. 16–P– 

0108. March 22, 2016. 

Oliphant, 1982. Oliphant, R.J. Lead 

Contamination of Potable Water Arising 

from Soldered Joints. Water Research 

Center (1982). 

Perrin Lanphear, B., MD, MPH, FAAP. (2016, 

July). Prevention of Childhood Lead 

Toxicity. Retrieved October 01, 2020, 

from https://pediatrics.

aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/ 

138/1/e20161493.full.pdf. 

Pocock, S. J., Shaper, A. G., Walker, M., 

Wale, C. J., Clayton, B., Delves, T., . . . 

Powell, P. (1983). Effects of tap water 

lead, water hardness, alcohol, and 

cigarettes on blood lead concentrations. 

J Epidemiol Community Health, 37(1), 1– 

7. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4279 

President’s Task Force on Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks to 

Children (Task Force). 2018. Federal 

Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 

Exposures and Associated Health 

Impacts. December 2018. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_

final.pdf. 

Salkever, D. S. (1995). Updated Estimates of 

Earnings Benefits from Reduced 

Exposure of Children to Environmental 

Lead. Environmental Research, 70, 1–6. 

doi:doi: 0013–9351/95. 

Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, P.E., G. Kirmeyer, P.E., 

Dr. B. Maynard, Dr. D. Mast, Dr. R. R. 

Trussell, P.E., Dr. S. Trussell, P.E., A. 

Cantor, P.E., MCSD, and A. Prescott. 

2008. Contribution of Service Line and 

Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper 

Rule Compliance Issues. Denver, Colo.: 

Awwa Research Foundation. Peer 

reviewed by AwwaRF Project Advisory 

Committee. 

Schock, M.R., and Lytle, D.A. 2011. Chapter 

20: Internal Corrosion and Deposition 

Control. In Water Quality and 

Treatment. 6th Edition. AWWA and 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991). Lead and 

minor hearing impairment. Archives of 

Environmental and Occupational Health, 

46(5), 300–305. doi:10.1080/ 

00039896.1991.9934391. 

Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G. I., Moore, 

M. R., Patterson, W. J., Richards, W. N., 

& Wilson, T. S. (1982). Assessment of 

lead intakes and dose-response for a 

population in Ayr exposed to a 

plumbosolvent water supply. Hum 

Toxicol, 1(2), 115–122. 

Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, 

and C.P. Hill. 2015. National Cost 

Implications of Potential Long-Term LCR 

Requirements. Journal American Water 

Works Association. 107(8):E389–E400. 

State of California. 2016. Public water 

systems: lead user service lines. SB– 

1398. 

State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General 

Assembly. PA 99–0922. 

State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to 

the Public, 2017–008 EQ. 

State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. 

Adoption of Rules Relating to Water 

System Testing. 

United States. America’s Water Infrastructure 

Act. 2018. Public Law 115–270, 132 Stat. 

3765, Title II (Oct. 23, 2018). 

United States. Water Infrastructure 

Improvements for the Nation Act. 2016. 

Public Law 114–322, 130 Stat. 1628, 

Title II (December 16, 2016). 

United States. 1981. Community Economic 

Development. U.S. Code 42. Chapter 105, 

Subchapter 1. August 13, 1981. 

United States. 2002. Improving the Academic 

Achievement of the Disadvantaged. U.S. 

Code 20. Chapter 70, Subchapter 1. 

January 8, 2002. 

United States. 2010a. Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act. U.S. Code 42. Chapter 13, 

Section 1758. December 13, 2010. 

United States. 2010b. Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act. U.S. Code 42. Chapter 13, 

Section 1766. December 13, 2010. 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). 2019. School Breakfast 

Program. Economic Research Service. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodnutrition-assistance/child-nutritionprograms/school-breakfast-program/#:∼:

text=In%20FY%202018%2C%2014.69%

20million,were%20provided%20at%

20reduced%20price. 

USEPA. 1973. Regulation of Fuel and Fuel 

Additives; Control of Lead Additives in 

Gasoline. Code of Federal Regulations 40 

CFR part 80. Vol. 38, No. 234. December 

6, 1973. 

USEPA. 1977. Lead-Containing Paint and 

Certain Consumer Products Bearing 

Lead-Containing Paint. Code of Federal 

Regulations 16 CFR part 1303. Vol. 42, 

No. 170. September. 1, 1977. 

USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Memorandum to Arthur Perler, 

Science and Technology Branch from Jon 

Longtin, Water Supply Technology 

Branch regarding Distribution Tables for 

NIRS Results (February 23, 1988). 

USEPA. 1990a. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Impact of Lead and 

Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality. 

Prepared by N.E. Murrell for USEPA 

(February 1990). 

USEPA. 1990b. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Update of the 

National Inorganic and Radionuclides 

Survey (NIRS) for Lead. From Jeff Cohen 

to Docket (July 1990). 

USEPA. 1991. ‘‘Drinking Water Regulations; 

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final 

Rule.’’ Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 

141 and 142. Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 

1991. 

USEPA. 1995. Lead solders. Code of Federal 

Regulations 21 CFR. Chapter 1, 

Subchapter B, Part 189, Subpart D, 

Section 189.240. June 27, 1995. 

US EPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Final rule. Federal 

Register. 63 FR 44524. August 19, 1998. 

US EPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Proposed rule and 

notice of alternative definition. Federal 

Register. 63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998c. Small System Compliance 

Technology List for the Non-Microbial 

Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. 

September 1998. 

USEPA. 1998c. Consumer Confidence Report 

Regulation. Federal Register 

63(160):44524. August 19, 1998. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 

USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for 

Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public 

Water Systems; Surface Water and 

Ground Water Under the Direct 

Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. 

EPA 815–R–99–016. April 1999. https:// 

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?

Dockey=200022MT.txt. 

USEPA. 2000a. Geometries and 

Characteristics of Public Water Systems. 

EPA 815–R–00–024. December 2000. 

USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Public Notification 

Rule. Federal Register 65(87):25982. 

May 4, 2000. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 

USEPA. 2000c. Report of the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council Small 

Systems Implementation Working 

Group. EPA–816–R–00–012. April 2000. 

USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance 

Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper 

Control Strategies. Report No. EPA–816– 

R–03–001. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. http://

www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-andcopper-rule-compliance-helpprimacyagencies. 

USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the 

Technical Review Workgroup for Lead 

for an Approach to Assessing Risks 

Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead 

in Soil. Retrieved from https://

semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf. 

USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment 

Summary for Lead and compounds 

(inorganic); CASRN 7439–92–1 (https://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/ 

documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf). 

USEPA. 2004b. US EPA Lead Service Line 

Replacement Workshop Summary 

Report. 

USEPA. 2008a. ‘‘National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 

66964. Pages 66964–67062. November 

2008 (to be codified at 40. CFR parts 51, 

51, 53, and 58).’’ Retrieved from https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/ 

11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-airquality-standards-for-lead. 

USEPA 2008b. Economic Analysis for the 

TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair and 

Painting Program Final Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance 

Manual for Ground Water Systems. EPA 

815–R–08–015. October 2008. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_

survey_guidance.pdf. 

USEPA 2009. 2006 Community Water System 

Survey. EPA 815–R–09–001. February 

2009. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/ 

community-water-system-survey. 

USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule 

Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for 

Public Water Systems. EPA 816–R–10– 

004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/ 

Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt. 

USEPA. 2011a. National Characteristics of 

Drinking Water Systems Serving 10,000 

or Fewer People. EPA 816–R–10–022. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-04/documents/ 

epa816r10022.pdf. 

USEPA. 2011b. Science Advisory Board 

Drinking Water Committee Augmented 

for the Review of the Effectiveness of 

Partial Lead Service Line Replacements. 

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2015-09/ 

documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_

service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf. 

USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment 

for Lead. Office of Research and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Development. (EPA/600/R–10/075F). 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for 

the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category EPA– 

821–R–15–005. Retrieved from: https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2015-10/documents/steam-electric_

benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf. 

USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment 

2012: A Collaborative Survey of Lakes in 

the United States. Retrieved from: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2016-12/documents/nla_report_

dec_2016.pdf. 

USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams 

Assessment 2008–2009 Fact Sheet. 

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/fact_sheet_draft_variation_

march_2016_revision.pdf. 

USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control 

Treatment Evaluation Technical 

Recommendations for Primacy Agencies 

and Public Water Systems (EPA–816–B– 

16–003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2019-07/documents/ 

occtmarch2016updated.pdf. 

USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water 

Information System Federal Version 

(SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting 

Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water. March 2016. 

USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Memorandum to Water Division 

Directions, Regions I–X, from Peter C. 

Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & 

Drinking Water. Clarification of 

Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures 

for Purposes of the Lead and Copper 

Rule (February 29, 2016). 

USEPA. 2018a. Summary Report on 

Federalism: Lead and Copper Rule. 

USEPA. 2018b. 3Ts for Reducing Lead in 

Drinking Water in Schools and Child 

Care Facilities: A Training, Testing, and 

Taking Action Approach (Revised 

Manual). October 2018. Office of Water. 

EPA 815–B–18–007. https://

www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/3ts-reducing-leaddrinking-water-toolkit. 

USEPA. 2019a. America’s children and the 

environment. EPA–100K19004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2019-10/documents/ace2019-v17s.pdf. 

USEPA. 2019b. Review of Dust-Lead 

Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint. Federal Register 

84(131):32632. July 9, 2019. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office. https:// 

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019- 

07-09/pdf/2019-14024.pdf. 

USEPA. 2019c. Learn About Lead and 

Copper Rule Compliance. Office of 

Water. EPA–815–F–19–007 https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2019-10/documents/lcr_data_factsheet_

10-9-2019.pdf. 

USEPA. 2019d. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and 

Copper Rule Revisions. Federal Register 

84(219):61684. November 13, 2019. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 

USEPA. 2019e. Strategies to Achieve Full 

Lead Service Line Replacement. October 

2019. Office of Water. EPA 810–R–19– 

003 https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2019-10/documents/ 

strategies_to_achieve_full_lead_service_

line_replacement_10_09_19.pdf. 

USEPA. 2019f. Economic Analysis for the 

Proposed Lead and Copper Rule 

Revisions. October 2019. Office of Water. 

EPA docket ID: EPA–HQ–OW–2017– 

0300–0003. 

USEPA. 2019g. Economic Analysis 

Appendices for the Proposed Lead and 

Copper Rule Revisions. October 2019. 

Office of Water. EPA docket ID: EPA– 

HQ–OW–2017–0300–0002. 

USEPA. 2019h. Lead Service Line 

Replacement Rate Analysis Workbook. 

Unpublished raw data. 

USEPA. 2019i. Strategies to Achieve Full 

Lead Service Line Replacement. 

USEPA, 2019j. Memorandum of 

Understanding on Reducing Lead in 

Drinking Water in Schools and Child 

Care Facilities. September 2019. https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2019-10/documents/mou_reducing_

lead_in_drinking_water_in_schools_

final.pdf. 

USEPA. 2020a. Economic Analysis for the 

Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. 

December 2020. Office of Water. 

USEPA. 2020b. Technologies and Costs for 

Corrosion Control to Reduce Lead in 

Drinking Water. December 2020. Office 

of Water. 

Weston, Roy F. and Economic and 

Engineering Services, Inc. 1990. Final 

Report: Lead Service Line Replacement A 

Benefit-to-Cost Analysis. Denver, 

Colorado: American Water Works 

Association. 

WHO. 2011. Lead in Drinking Water: 

Background Document for Development 

of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water 

Quality. World Health Organization 

Press. https://www.who.int/water_

sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/ 

lead.pdf. 

The White House. 1994. Executive Order 

12898. Environmental Justice Strategy. 

Federal Register 59(32):7629. February 

16, 1994. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office. 

The White House. 1999. Executive Order 

13132. Federalism. Federal Register 

64(153):43255. August 10, 1999. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 

The White House. 2000. Executive Order 

13175. Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments. Federal 

Register 65(218):67249. November 9, 

2000. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office. 

The White House. 2019a. 2020 Budget Fact 

Sheet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/FY20-FactSheet_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf. 

The White House. 2019b. Remarks by 

President Trump on America’s 

Environmental Leadership. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/briefingsstatements/remarks-president-trumpamericas-environmental-leadership/. 

Wilczak, A.J., Hokanson, D.R., Rhodes 

Trussel, R., Boozarpour, M., and Degraca, 

A. 2010. Water Conditioning For LCR 

Compliance and Control Of Metals 

Release In San Francisco’s Water System. 

J. AWWA, 102(3):52–64. 

Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & 

Brown, J. 2017. Children’s Lead 

Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling 

Analysis to Guide Public Health 

Decision-Making. Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 125(9). doi:10.1289/ 

EHP1605. 

Ziegler, E.E., B.B. Edwards, R.L. Jensen, K.R 

Mahaffey, and S.J. Fomon. 1978. 

Absorption and retention of lead by 

infants. Pediatric Research 12(1):29–34. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Copper, 

Indians—lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Lead service line, 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

40 CFR Part 142 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Copper, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead 

service line, National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR parts 141 and 

142 as follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– 

2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

■ 2. Amend § 141.2 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Action 

level’’; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Aerator’’, ‘‘Child care 

facility’’, ‘‘Elementary schools’’, ‘‘Fifth 

liter sample’’, and ‘‘Find-and-fix’’; 

■ c. Revising the definition for ‘‘First 

draw sample’’; 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Full lead service line 

replacement,’’ ‘‘Galvanized service 

line’’, and ‘‘Gooseneck, pigtail, or 

connector’’; 

■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Lead 

service line’’; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4281 

■ f. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Lead status unknown 

service line’’ and ‘‘Lead trigger level’’; 

■ g. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Medium-size water system’’; 

■ h. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Method detection limit 

(MDL)’’, ‘‘Partial lead service line 

replacement’’, and ‘‘Pitcher filter’’; 

■ i. Removing the definition of ‘‘Pointof-use treatment device (POU)’’; 

■ j. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions ‘‘Point-of-use treatment 

device or point of use device (POU),’’ 

‘‘Practical quantitation limit (PQL)’’, 

‘‘Pre-stagnation flushing’’, ‘‘School’’, 

and ‘‘Secondary school’’. 

■ k. Removing the definition ‘‘Service 

line sample’’. 

l. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions ‘‘System without corrosion 

control treatment’’, ‘‘Tap sampling 

monitoring period’’, ‘‘Tap sampling 

period’’, ‘‘Tap sampling protocol’’, and 

‘‘Wide-mouth bottles’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Action level means the concentrations 

of lead or copper in water as specified 

in § 141.80(c) which determines 

requirements under subpart I of this 

part. The action level for lead is 0.015 

mg/L and the action level for copper is 

1.3 mg/L. 

Aerator means the device embedded 

in the water faucet to enhance air flow 

with the water stream and to prevent 

splashing. 

* * * * * 

Child care facility means a location 

that houses a licensed provider of child 

care, day care, or early learning services 

to children, as determined by the State, 

local, or tribal licensing agency. 

* * * * * 

Elementary school, for the purposes of 

subpart I of this part only, means a 

school classified as elementary by state 

and local practice and composed of any 

span of grades (including pre-school) 

not above grade 8. 

* * * * * 

Fifth liter sample, for purposes of 

subpart I of this part, means a one-liter 

sample of tap water collected in 

accordance with § 141.86(b). 

* * * * * 

Find-and-fix means the requirements 

under subpart I of this part that water 

systems must perform at every tap 

sampling site that yielded a lead result 

above 15 mg/L. 

* * * * * 

First draw sample means the first oneliter sample of tap water collected in 

accordance with § 141.86(b)(2). 

* * * * * 

Full lead service line replacement 

means the replacement of a lead service 

line (as well as galvanized service lines 

requiring replacement), as defined in 

this section, that results in the entire 

length of the service line, regardless of 

service line ownership, meeting the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Section 

1417 definition of lead free applicable at 

the time of the replacement. A full lead 

service line replacement includes a 

replacement where only one portion of 

the service line is lead, such as where 

a partial lead service line was 

previously conducted, as long as, upon 

completion of the replacement, the 

entire service line meets the SDWA 

Section 1417 definition of lead-free 

applicable at the time of the 

replacement. Galvanized service lines 

that are or were downstream of a lead 

service line must also be replaced for a 

service line to be a full lead service line 

replacement. A lead service line that is 

left in place in the ground but remains 

out-of-service may be full lead service 

line replacement where a new non-lead 

service line is installed for use instead 

of the out-of-service lead service line. 

* * * * * 

Galvanized service line means iron or 

steel piping that has been dipped in 

zinc to prevent corrosion and rusting. 

Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector is a 

short section of piping, typically not 

exceeding two feet, which can be bent 

and used for connections between rigid 

service piping. For purposes of this 

subpart, lead goosenecks, pigtails, and 

connectors are not considered to be part 

of the lead service line but may be 

required to be replaced pursuant to 

§ 141.84(c). 

* * * * * 

Lead service line means a portion of 

pipe that is made of lead, which 

connects the water main to the building 

inlet. A lead service line may be owned 

by the water system, owned by the 

property owner, or both. For the 

purposes of this subpart, a galvanized 

service line is considered a lead service 

line if it ever was or is currently 

downstream of any lead service line or 

service line of unknown material. If the 

only lead piping serving the home is a 

lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector, 

and it is not a galvanized service line 

that is considered a lead service line the 

service line is not a lead service line. 

For purposes of § 141.86(a) only, a 

galvanized service line is not considered 

a lead service line. 

Lead status unknown service line 

means a service line that has not been 

demonstrated to meet or not meet the 

SDWA Section 1417 definition of lead 

free. It is not necessary to physically 

verify the material composition (for 

example, copper or plastic) of a service 

line for its lead status to be identified 

(e.g., records demonstrating the service 

line was installed after a municipal, 

State, or Federal lead ban). 

Lead trigger level means a particular 

concentration of lead in water that 

prompts certain activities under subpart 

I of this part. The trigger level for lead 

is a concentration of 10 mg/L. 

* * * * * 

Medium-size water system, for the 

purpose of subpart I of this part only, 

means a water system that serves greater 

than 10,000 persons and less than or 

equal to 50,000 persons. 

* * * * * 

Method detection limit (MDL) means 

the minimum concentration of a 

substance that can be measured and 

reported with 99 percent confidence 

that the analyte concentration is greater 

than zero and is determined from 

analysis of a sample in a given matrix 

containing the analyte. 

* * * * * 

Partial lead service line replacement 

means replacement of any portion of a 

lead service line or galvanized service 

line requiring replacement, as defined 

in this section, that leaves in service any 

length of lead service line or galvanized 

service line requiring replacement upon 

completion of the work. Partial lead 

service line replacements are permitted 

under limited circumstances under 

§ 141.84(d) but do not count towards the 

mandatory or goal-based lead service 

line replacement rate. 

* * * * * 

Pitcher filter means a non-plumbed 

water filtration device which consists of 

a gravity fed water filtration cartridge 

and a filtered drinking water reservoir 

that is certified by an American 

National Standards Institute accredited 

certifier to reduce lead in drinking 

water. 

* * * * * 

Point-of-use treatment device or point 

of use device (POU) is a water treatment 

device physically installed or connected 

to a single fixture, outlet, or tap to 

reduce or remove contaminants in 

drinking water. For the purposes of 

subpart I of this part, it must be certified 

by an American National Standards 

Institute accredited certifier to reduce 

lead in drinking water. 

Practical quantitation limit (PQL) 

means the minimum concentration of an 

analyte (substance) that can be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

measured with a high degree of 

confidence that the analyte is present at 

or above that concentration. 

* * * * * 

Pre-stagnation flushing is the opening 

of tap(s) to flush standing water from 

plumbing prior to the minimum 6-hour 

stagnation period in anticipation of lead 

and copper tap sampling under subpart 

I of this part. 

* * * * * 

School, for the purpose of subpart I of 

this part only, means any building(s) 

associated with public, private, or 

charter institutions that primarily 

provides teaching and learning for 

elementary or secondary students. 

* * * * * 

Secondary school, for the purpose of 

subpart I of this part only, means a 

school comprising any span of grades 

beginning with the next grade following 

an elementary or middle school (usually 

7, 8, or 9) and ending with or below 

grade 12. Both junior high schools and 

senior high schools are included. 

* * * * * 

System without corrosion control 

treatment means a public water system 

that does not have or purchases all of its 

water from a system that does not have: 

(1) An optimal corrosion control 

treatment approved by the State; or 

(2) Any pH adjustment, alkalinity 

adjustment, and/or corrosion inhibitor 

addition resulting from other water 

quality adjustments as part of its 

treatment train infrastructure. 

Tap sampling monitoring period, for 

the purposes of subpart I of this part, 

means the period of time during which 

each water system must conduct tap 

sampling for lead and copper analysis. 

A tap sampling monitoring period is 

determined by lead and copper 

concentrations in tap samples and the 

frequency can range from every six 

months (i.e., semi-annual) up to once 

every nine years. Water systems on 

semi-annual tap sampling monitoring 

must collect samples no less frequently 

than every six months while those on 

annual monitoring must sample no less 

frequently than every year. Water 

systems on triennial monitoring must 

collect samples no less frequently than 

every three years; and those on 

monitoring waivers must sample no less 

frequently than every nine years. The 

start of each new tap sampling 

monitoring period, with the exception 

of semi-annual monitoring, must begin 

on January 1. 

Tap sampling period, for the purpose 

of subpart I of this part only, means the 

time period, within a tap sampling 

monitoring period, during which the 

water system is required to collect 

samples for lead and copper analysis. 

For systems monitoring at a reduced 

frequency, the tap sampling period must 

be between the months of June and 

September, unless a different 4-month 

period of time is approved in writing to 

be more appropriate by the State. 

Tap sampling protocol means the 

instructions given to residents or those 

sampling on behalf of the water system 

to conduct tap sampling under subpart 

I of this part. 

* * * * * 

Wide-mouth bottles, for the purpose 

of subpart I of this part only, means 

bottles configured with a mouth that is 

at least 55 mm wide that are one liter 

in size. 

■ 3. Amend § 141.28 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 141.28 Certified laboratories. 

(a) For the purpose of determining 

compliance with § 141.21 through 

141.27, 141.30, 141.40, 141.74, 141.89 

and 141.402, samples may be 

considered only if they have been 

analyzed by a laboratory certified by the 

State except that measurements of 

alkalinity, disinfectant residual, 

orthophosphate, pH, silica, temperature, 

and turbidity may be performed by any 

person acceptable to the State. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 141.31 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 141.31 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) The public water system, within 

10 days of completing the public 

notification requirements under subpart 

Q of this part for the initial public 

notice and any repeat notices, must 

submit to the primary agency a 

certification that it has fully complied 

with the public notification regulations. 

For Tier 2 and 3 notices, the public 

water system must include with this 

certification a representative copy of 

each type of notice distributed, 

published, posted, and made available 

to the persons served by the system and 

to the media. 

(2) For Tier 1 notices for a lead action 

level exceedance, public water systems 

must provide a copy of any Tier 1 notice 

to the Administrator and the head of the 

primacy agency as soon as practicable, 

but not later than 24 hours after the 

public water system learns of the 

violation or exceedance. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 141.80 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and 

(d)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) and (4); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and 

(k); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (l). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.80 General requirements. 

(a) Applicability, effective date, and 

compliance deadlines. The 

requirements of this subpart constitute 

the national primary drinking water 

regulations for lead and copper. 

(1) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to community water systems and 

non-transient, non-community water 

systems (in this subpart referred to as 

‘‘water systems’’ or ‘‘systems’’) as 

defined at § 141.2. 

(2) The requirements of this subpart 

are effective as of March 16, 2021. 

(3) Community water systems and 

non-transient, non-community water 

systems must comply with the 

requirements of this subpart no later 

than January 16, 2024, except where 

otherwise specified at §§ 141.81, 141.84, 

141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an 

exemption in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 142, subpart C or F, has been 

established by the Administrator. 

(4)(i) Between March 16, 2021 and 

January 16, 2024, community water 

systems and non-transient, noncommunity water systems must comply 

with 40 CFR 141.80 through 141.91, as 

codified on July 1, 2020. 

(ii) If an exemption from subpart I of 

this part has been issued in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, 

prior to March 16, 2021, then the water 

systems must comply with 40 CFR 

141.80 through 141.91, as codified on 

July 1, 2020, until the expiration of that 

exemption. 

(b) Scope. The regulations in this 

subpart establish a treatment technique 

that includes requirements for corrosion 

control treatment, source water 

treatment, lead service line inventory, 

lead service line replacement, public 

notice, monitoring for lead in schools 

and child care facilities, and public 

education. Several of the requirements 

in this subpart are prompted by the lead 

and copper action levels or the lead 

trigger level, specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section, as measured in samples 

collected at consumers’ taps. The 

requirements for sampling for lead in 

schools and child care facilities and 

public education requirements in this 

subpart apply to all community water 

systems regardless of the results of the 

compliance tap sampling. 

(c) Lead trigger level, lead action level, 

and copper action level. Trigger levels 

and action levels must be determined 

based on tap water samples collected in 

accordance with the tap sampling 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4283 

monitoring requirements of § 141.86 for 

the purpose of calculating the 90th 

percentile and tested using the 

analytical methods specified in 

§ 141.89. The trigger level and action 

levels described in this paragraph (c) are 

applicable to all sections of subpart I of 

this part. Trigger level and action levels 

for lead and copper are as follows: 

(1) The lead trigger level is exceeded 

if the 90th percentile concentration of 

lead as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of 

this section is greater than 10 mg/L. 

(2) The lead action level is exceeded 

if the 90th percentile concentration of 

lead as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of 

this section is greater than 15 mg/L. 

(3) The copper action level is 

exceeded if the 90th percentile 

concentration of copper as specified in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section is greater 

than 1.3 mg/L. 

(4) For purposes of this subpart, the 

90th percentile concentration shall be 

computed as follows: 

(i) For systems that do not have lead 

service line sites and only have sites 

identified as Tier 3, 4, or 5 under 

§ 141.86(a). 

(A) The results of all lead or copper 

samples taken during a tap sampling 

period shall be placed in ascending 

order from the sample with the lowest 

concentration to the sample with the 

highest concentration. Each sampling 

result shall be assigned a number, 

ascending by single integers beginning 

with the number 1 for the sample with 

the lowest contaminant level. The 

number assigned to the sample with the 

highest contaminant level shall be equal 

to the total number of samples taken. 

(B) The number of samples taken 

during the tap sampling period shall be 

multiplied by 0.9. 

(C) The contaminant concentration in 

the numbered sample yielded by the 

calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of 

this section is the 90th percentile 

concentration. 

(D) For water systems serving fewer 

than 100 people that collect 5 samples 

per tap sampling period, the 90th 

percentile concentration is the average 

of the highest and second highest 

concentration. 

(E) For a public water system that has 

been allowed by the State to collect 

fewer than five samples in accordance 

with § 141.86(c), or has failed to collect 

five samples, the sample result with the 

highest concentration is considered the 

90th percentile value. 

(ii) For public water systems with 

lead service lines with sites identified as 

Tier 1 or 2 under § 141.86(a) with 

enough Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the 

minimum number of sites listed in 

§ 141.86(c): 

(A) The results of all lead or copper 

samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites 

during a tap sampling period shall be 

placed in ascending order from the 

sample with the lowest concentration to 

the sample with the highest 

concentration. Sample results from Tier 

3, 4, or 5 sites shall not be included in 

this calculation. Each sampling result 

shall be assigned a number, ascending 

by single integers beginning with the 

number 1 for the sample with the lowest 

contaminant level. The number assigned 

to the sample with the highest 

contaminant level shall be equal to the 

total number of samples taken. 

(B) The number of samples taken at 

Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites during the tap 

sampling period shall be multiplied by 

0.9. 

(C) The contaminant concentration in 

the numbered sample yielded by the 

calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of 

this section is the 90th percentile 

concentration. 

(D) For water systems serving fewer 

than 100 people that collect 5 samples 

per tap sampling period, the 90th 

percentile concentration is the average 

of the highest and second highest 

concentration. 

(E) For a public water system that has 

been allowed by the State to collect 

fewer than five samples in accordance 

with § 141.86(c), or has failed to collect 

five samples, the sample result with the 

highest concentration is considered the 

90th percentile value. 

(iii) For systems with lead service 

lines with sites identified as Tier 1 or 2 

under § 141.86(a) with insufficient 

number of Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the 

minimum number of sites listed in 

§ 141.86(c): 

(A) The results of all lead or copper 

samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites 

along with the highest results from Tier 

3, 4, or 5 sites sufficient to meet the 

minimum number of sites shall be 

placed in ascending order from the 

sample with the lowest concentration to 

the sample with the highest 

concentration. Sample results from any 

remaining Tier 3, 4, and 5 sites shall not 

be included in this calculation. Each 

sampling result shall be assigned a 

number, ascending by single integers 

beginning with the number 1 for the 

sample with the lowest contaminant 

level. The number assigned to the 

sample with the highest contaminant 

level shall be equal to the total 

minimum number of sites listed in 

§ 141.86(c). 

(B) The required minimum number of 

sites listed in § 141.86(c) shall be 

multiplied by 0.9. 

(C) The contaminant concentration in 

the numbered sample yielded by the 

calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) is 

the 90th percentile concentration. 

(D) For water systems serving fewer 

than 100 people that collect 5 samples 

per tap sampling period, the 90th 

percentile concentration is the average 

of the highest and second highest 

concentration. 

(E) For a public water system that has 

been allowed by the State to collect 

fewer than five samples in accordance 

with § 141.86(c), or has failed to collect 

five samples, the sample result with the 

highest concentration is considered the 

90th percentile value. 

(d) Corrosion control requirements. (1) 

All water systems shall install and 

operate corrosion control treatment in 

accordance with §§ 141.81 and 141.82, 

and that meets the definition of optimal 

corrosion control treatment at § 141.2. 

* * * * * 

(3) Any small or non-transient noncommunity water system that complies 

with the applicable small system 

compliance flexibility requirements 

specified by the State under 

§§ 141.81(a)(3) and 141.93 is deemed to 

be in compliance with the treatment 

requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. 

(4) Any water system shall notify the 

State in writing pursuant to 

§ 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming longterm change in treatment or addition of 

a new source as described in 

§ 141.90(a)(3). The State must review 

and approve the addition of a new 

source or long-term change in water 

treatment before it is implemented by 

the water system. The State may require 

any such water system to conduct 

additional monitoring or to take other 

action the State deems appropriate to 

ensure that such water system maintains 

minimal levels of corrosion control in 

its distribution system. 

(e) Source water requirements. (1) 

Any system exceeding the lead or 

copper action level shall implement all 

applicable source water treatment 

requirements specified by the State 

under § 141.83. 

(2) Any system that changes their 

source water or makes long-term 

treatment changes shall submit written 

documentation to the State describing 

the change in accordance with 

§§ 141.81(a)(3), 141.86(d)(2)(iv), and 

141.90(a)(3). The State must review and 

approve the change before it is 

implemented by the water system. 

(f) Lead service line replacements and 

inventory. Lead service line 

replacements must be conducted as 

follows: 

(1) Any water system exceeding the 

lead action level specified at paragraph 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) of this section must complete 

mandatory lead service line 

replacement. Lead service line 

replacement must be conducted in 

accordance with § 141.84(g) and must 

include public education pursuant to 

§ 141.85(a) and (b). 

(2) Any water system exceeding the 

lead trigger level specified at paragraph 

(c) of this section must complete goalbased lead service line replacement 

pursuant to § 141.84(f) and public 

education pursuant to § 141.85(g) and 

(h). 

(3) All water systems must prepare an 

inventory of service lines connected to 

its distribution system, whether or not 

they are owned or controlled by the 

water system, to identify those service 

lines that are made of lead or of 

unknown material. The inventory must 

be prepared in accordance with 

§ 141.84(a). 

(g) Public education and notification 

requirements. Pursuant to § 141.85(d), 

all water systems must provide 

notification of lead tap water monitoring 

results to persons served at the sites 

(taps) that are tested. All community 

water systems must conduct annual 

outreach to local and State health 

agencies pursuant to § 141.85(i). In 

addition: 

(1) Any water system exceeding the 

lead action level specified at paragraph 

(c) of this section shall implement the 

public education requirements in 

accordance with § 141.85(a) and (b). 

(2) Any water system exceeding the 

lead trigger level specified at paragraph 

(c) of this section shall provide 

notification to all customers with a lead 

service line in accordance with 

§ 141.85(g). 

(3) Any water system exceeding the 

lead action level specified at paragraph 

(c) of this section shall notify the public 

in accordance with the public 

notification requirements in subpart Q 

of this part. 

(4) Any water system with lead 

service lines, galvanized requiring 

replacement or lead status unknown 

service lines in their inventory as 

specified in § 141.84(a) shall inform all 

consumers with a lead service line, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or a 

lead status unknown service line in 

accordance with § 141.85(e). 

(5) Any water system that fails to 

reach its goal lead service line 

replacement rate as required under 

§ 141.84(f) shall conduct outreach 

activities in accordance with 

§ 141.85(h). 

* * * * * 

(k) Violation of national primary 

drinking water regulations. Failure to 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of this section and 

§§ 141.81 through 141.93, including 

requirements established by the State 

pursuant to the provisions in this 

subpart, is a violation of the national 

primary drinking water regulations for 

lead and copper. 

(l) Testing in schools and child care 

facilities. All community water systems 

must collect samples from all schools 

and child care facilities within its 

distribution system in accordance with 

§ 141.92. 

■ 6. Revise § 141.81 to read as follows: 

§ 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control 

treatment steps to small, medium, and large 

water systems. 

(a) Corrosion control treatment. This 

section sets forth when a system must 

complete the corrosion control 

treatment steps for systems in paragraph 

(d) or (e) of this section to optimize or 

re-optimize corrosion control treatment 

based on size, whether the system has 

corrosion control treatment, and 

whether it has exceeded the lead trigger 

and/or action level and/or the copper 

action level. 

(1) Large water system (serving 

>50,000 people). (i) Large water systems 

with corrosion control treatment that 

exceed either the lead trigger level or 

copper action level shall complete the 

corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(ii) Large water systems without 

corrosion control treatment with 90th 

percentile results as calculated in 

accordance with § 141.80(c)(4) that 

exceed either the lead practical 

quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L or the 

copper action level shall complete the 

corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(iii) Large water systems with 

corrosion control treatment with 90th 

percentile results as calculated in 

accordance with § 141.80(c)(4) that 

exceed the lead practical quantitation 

level but do not exceed lead trigger level 

or the copper action level may be 

required by the State to complete the 

corrosion control treatment steps in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(2) Medium-size water systems 

(serving >10,000 and ≤50,000 people). 

(i) Medium-size water systems with 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

either the lead trigger level or copper 

action level shall complete the corrosion 

control treatment steps specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(ii) Medium-size water systems 

without corrosion control treatment that 

exceed either the lead or copper action 

level shall complete the corrosion 

control treatment steps specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(iii) Medium-size water systems 

without corrosion control treatment that 

exceed the lead trigger level but do not 

exceed the lead or copper action levels 

shall complete the treatment 

recommendation step specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Step 1). 

The water system shall complete the 

remaining steps in paragraph (e) of this 

section if it subsequently exceeds either 

the lead or copper action level. 

(3) Small water systems (serving 

≤10,000 people) and non-transient, noncommunity water systems. (i) Small and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems with corrosion control 

treatment that exceed the lead trigger 

level or the lead action level but do not 

exceed the copper action level, shall 

complete the corrosion control 

treatment steps specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, if corrosion control 

treatment is approved by the State as a 

compliance option under § 141.93(a). 

(ii) Small and non-transient, noncommunity water systems with 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

the copper action level shall complete 

the corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(iii) Small and non-transient, noncommunity water systems without 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

the lead action level shall complete the 

corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (e) of this section 

if corrosion control treatment is 

approved by the State as a compliance 

option under § 141.93. 

(iv) Small and non-transient, noncommunity water systems without 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

the copper action level shall complete 

the corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(b) Systems deemed to have optimized 

corrosion control. A system is deemed 

to have optimal corrosion control 

treatment (OCCT) or re-optimized OCCT 

if the system satisfies one of the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section. Any such system 

deemed to have OCCT under this 

paragraph and which has corrosion 

control treatment in place shall 

continue to operate and maintain that 

treatment and meet any additional 

requirements that the State determines 

to be appropriate to ensure optimal 

corrosion control treatment is 

maintained. 

(1) A small or medium-size water 

system without corrosion control 

treatment is deemed to have optimal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4285 

corrosion control if the water system 

does not exceed the lead action level 

and copper action level during two 

consecutive 6-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods and thereafter 

remains at or below the lead trigger 

level and copper action level in all tap 

sampling periods conducted in 

accordance with § 141.86. 

(2) A small or medium-size water 

system with corrosion control treatment 

is deemed to have optimal corrosion 

control treatment if the water system 

does not exceed the lead trigger level 

and copper action level during two 

consecutive 6-month monitoring 

periods conducted in accordance with 

§ 141.86 and thereafter remains at or 

below the lead trigger level and copper 

action level in all tap sampling periods 

conducted in accordance with § 141.86. 

Small or medium-size systems with 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

the lead trigger level but do not exceed 

the lead and copper action levels during 

two consecutive 6-month monitoring 

periods and thereafter remains at or 

below the lead and copper action levels 

in all tap sampling periods conducted in 

accordance with § 141.86 are deemed to 

have re-optimized optimal corrosion 

control treatment if the system meets 

the requirements of this section. Where 

the State has set optimal water quality 

parameters (OWQPs) under paragraph 

(d) or (e) of this section a system will 

not be eligible to be deemed to have 

optimized or re-optimized OCCT 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

(3) Any water system is deemed to 

have optimized or re-optimized 

corrosion control if it submits results of 

tap water monitoring in accordance 

with § 141.86 demonstrating that the 

90th percentile tap water lead level is 

less than or equal to the lead practical 

quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L and 

does not exceed the copper action level 

for two consecutive 6-month tap 

sampling monitoring periods, and does 

not have optimal water quality 

parameters that were set by the State 

under paragraph (d) or (e) of this 

section. Any such system with 90th 

percentile tap sample results that 

thereafter exceeds the lead practical 

quantitation level or copper action level 

during any tap sampling period shall 

not be eligible to be deemed to have 

optimized OCCT in accordance with 

this paragraph (b)(3) without first 

completing the treatment steps specified 

in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Any water system deemed to have 

optimized corrosion control in 

accordance with this paragraph (b)(3) 

shall continue monitoring for lead and 

copper at the tap no less frequently than 

once every three calendar years using 

the reduced number of sites specified in 

§ 141.86(c) and collecting samples at 

times and locations specified in 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(v). 

(iii) through (v) [Reserved] 

(c) Corrosion control steps completion 

for small and medium-size water 

systems without corrosion control 

treatment. Any small or medium-sized 

system without corrosion control 

treatment required to complete the 

corrosion control steps in paragraph (e) 

of this section due to its exceedance of 

the lead or copper action level that does 

not exceed either the lead or copper 

action levels during each of two 

consecutive 6-month tap sample 

monitoring periods pursuant to § 141.86 

prior to the start of Step 3 in paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section or Step 5 in 

paragraph (e)(5) of this section may 

cease completing the steps and is not 

required to complete Step 3 or Step 5, 

respectively, except that medium-sized 

systems with lead service lines and 

small systems with lead service lines 

that choose the corrosion control option 

pursuant to § 141.93 must complete a 

corrosion control treatment study under 

paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. Any 

system that initiates Step 5 must 

complete all remaining steps in 

paragraphs (e)(6) through (8) of this 

section and is not permitted to cease the 

steps. Any system that ceases the steps 

either prior to Step 3 or Step 5 and 

thereafter exceeds either the lead or 

copper action level shall not be 

permitted to cease the steps a second 

time and shall complete the applicable 

treatment steps beginning with the first 

treatment step which was not 

previously completed in its entirety. 

The State may require a water system to 

repeat treatment steps previously 

completed by the water system when 

the State determines that this is 

necessary to implement the treatment 

requirements of this section. The State 

must notify the system in writing of 

such a determination and explain the 

basis for its decision. 

(d) Treatment steps and deadlines for 

water systems re-optimizing corrosion 

control treatment. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section or § 141.93, 

water systems with corrosion control 

treatment shall complete the following 

corrosion control treatment steps 

(described in the referenced portions of 

§§ 141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the 

indicated time periods. 

(1) Step 1. (i) A water system other 

than those covered in paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section shall 

recommend re-optimized optimal 

corrosion control treatment (§ 141.82(c)) 

within six months after the end of the 

tap sampling period during which it 

exceeds either the lead trigger level or 

copper action level. States may approve 

modifications of the existing corrosion 

control treatment without a study for 

systems that exceed the lead trigger 

level, but do not exceed the lead or 

copper action level. The State shall 

specify re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment within six months of 

receiving the treatment 

recommendation. The system shall 

complete modifications to corrosion 

control treatment to have re-optimized 

corrosion control treatment installed 

within six months of the State 

specifying re-optimized corrosion 

control treatment. 

(ii) A water system with lead service 

lines that exceeds the lead action level 

must harvest lead pipes from the 

distribution system and construct flowthrough pipe loops and operate the 

loops with finished water within one 

year after the end of the tap sampling 

period during which it exceeds the lead 

action level. These water systems must 

proceed to Step 3 in paragraph (d)(3) of 

this section and conduct the corrosion 

control studies for re-optimization 

under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section 

using the pipe loops. 

(2) Step 2. (i) Large water systems 

shall conduct the corrosion control 

studies for re-optimization under 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section (Step 3) 

unless the system is at or below the lead 

action level and the State has approved 

the modification of the existing 

corrosion control treatment made under 

paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 

1). 

(ii) Within 12 months after the end of 

the tap sampling period during which a 

small or medium-size water system with 

corrosion control treatment exceeds the 

lead trigger level or copper action level, 

the State may require the water system 

to perform corrosion control studies for 

re-optimization (§ 141.82(c)(2) or (3)). If 

the State does not require the system to 

perform such studies, the State must 

specify re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment (§ 141.82(d)(2)) within the 

timeframes specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. The 

State must provide its determination to 

the system in writing. 

(A) For medium-size water systems, 

within 12 months after the end of the 

tap sampling period during which such 

water system exceeds the lead trigger 

level or copper action level. 

(B) For small water systems, within 18 

months after the end of the tap sampling 

period during which such water system 

exceeds the lead trigger level or copper 

action level. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Step 3. (i) Any water system with 

lead service lines that exceeded the lead 

action level shall complete the corrosion 

control treatment studies for reoptimization within 30 months after the 

end of the tap sampling period during 

which it exceeds the lead action level. 

(ii) If the water system is required to 

perform corrosion control studies under 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section (Step 2), 

the water system shall complete the 

studies (§ 141.82(c)(2)) within 18 

months after the State requires that such 

studies be conducted. 

(4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate 

re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment (§ 141.82(d)(3)) within six 

months after completion of paragraph 

(d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 3). 

(ii) If the water system has performed 

corrosion control studies under 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section (Step 2), 

the State shall designate re-optimized 

corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(d)(2) or (4)) within six months 

after completion of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) 

of this section (Step 3). 

(5) Step 5. (i) Large water systems 

shall complete modifications to 

corrosion control treatment to have reoptimized corrosion control treatment 

installed within 12 months after 

completion of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this 

section (Step 4). 

(ii) Small or medium-size water 

systems shall install re-optimized 

corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(e)(1)) within 12 months after 

completion of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this 

section (Step 4). 

(6) Step 6. Water systems must 

complete follow-up sampling 

(§§ 141.86(d)(2) and 141.87(c)) within 

12 months after completion of 

paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section 

(Step 5). 

(7) Step 7. The State must review the 

water system’s installation of treatment 

and designate optimal water quality 

control parameters (§ 141.82(f)(1)) 

within six months of completion of 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section (Step 6). 

(8) Step 8. The water system must 

operate in compliance with the Statedesignated optimal water quality control 

parameters (§ 141.82(g)) and continue to 

conduct tap sampling (§ 141.86(d)(3) 

and water quality parameter monitoring 

under § 141.87(d)). 

(e) Treatment steps and deadlines for 

systems without corrosion control 

treatment. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section or § 141.93, 

water systems without corrosion control 

treatment must complete the following 

corrosion control treatment steps 

(described in the referenced portions of 

§§ 141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the 

indicated time periods. 

(1) Step 1. (i) A water system other 

than those covered in paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must 

recommend optimal corrosion control 

treatment (§ 141.82(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4)) 

within six months after the end of the 

tap sampling period during which it 

exceeds either the lead trigger level or 

copper action level. 

(ii) A water system with lead service 

lines that exceeds the lead action level 

must harvest lead pipes from the 

distribution system and construct flowthrough pipe loops and operate the 

loops with finished water within one 

year after the end of the tap sampling 

period during which it exceeds the lead 

action level. These water systems must 

proceed to Step 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of 

this section and conduct the corrosion 

control studies for optimization under 

paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section using 

the pipe loops. 

(iii) Large water systems under 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must 

conduct the corrosion control studies 

for optimization under paragraph (e)(3) 

of this section (Step 3). 

(2) Step 2. Within 12 months after the 

end of the tap sampling period during 

which a water system exceeds the lead 

or copper action level, if not otherwise 

required by this rule, the State may 

require the water system to perform 

corrosion control studies 

(§ 141.82(b)(1)). The State must notify 

the system in writing of this 

requirement. If the State does not 

require the system to perform such 

studies, the State must specify optimal 

corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within the 

timeframes established in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The State 

must provide its determination to the 

system in writing. 

(i) For medium-size water systems, 

within 18 months after the end of the 

tap sampling monitoring period during 

which such water system exceeds the 

lead trigger level or copper action level. 

(ii) For small water systems, within 24 

months after the end of the tap sampling 

monitoring period during which such 

water system exceeds the lead trigger 

level or copper action level. 

(3) Step 3. (i) Large water systems 

with or without lead service line and 

medium or small systems with lead 

service lines that exceed the lead action 

level shall complete the corrosion 

control treatment studies for 

optimization within 30 months after the 

end of the tap sampling period during 

which it exceeds the lead action level. 

(ii) If the State requires a water system 

to perform corrosion control studies 

under paragraph (e)(2) of this section 

(Step 2), the water system must 

complete the studies (§ 141.82(c)(1)) 

within 18 months after the State notifies 

the system in writing that such studies 

must be conducted. 

(4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate 

re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment (§ 141.82(d)(3)) within six 

months after completion of paragraph 

(d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 3). 

(ii) If the water system has performed 

corrosion control studies under 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Step 2), 

the State must designate optimal 

corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(d)(1)) within six months after 

completion of paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section (Step 3). 

(5) Step 5. The water system must 

install optimal corrosion control 

treatment (§ 141.82(e)(1)) within 24 

months after the State designates 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

under paragraph (e)(2) or (4) of this 

section (Step 2 or Step 4). 

(6) Step 6. The water system shall 

complete follow-up sampling 

(§§ 141.86(d)(2)(i) and 141.87(c)) within 

12 months after completion of 

paragraph (e)(5) of this section (Step 5). 

(7) Step 7. The State must review the 

water system’s installation of treatment 

and designate optimal water quality 

control parameters (§ 141.82(f)(1)) 

within six months of completion of 

paragraph (e)(6) of this section (Step 6). 

(8) Step 8. The water system must 

operate in compliance with the Statedesignated optimal water quality control 

parameters (§ 141.82(g)(1)) and continue 

to conduct tap sampling (§ 141.86(d)(3) 

and water quality parameter monitoring 

under § 141.87(d)). 

(f) Treatment steps and deadlines for 

small community water systems and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems electing corrosion control 

treatment (CCT) as a compliance option 

under § 141.93, or as required by the 

State. Water systems selecting the 

corrosion control small system 

compliance flexibility option must 

complete the following steps by the 

indicated time periods. 

(1) Step 1. A water system 

recommends corrosion control 

treatment as a small system compliance 

flexibility option under § 141.93(a)(2) 

within six months after the end of the 

tap sampling period during which it 

exceeds either the lead trigger level or 

the lead action level. 

(2) Step 2. The State approves in 

writing the recommendation of 

corrosion control treatment as a small 

system compliance flexibility option or 

designates an alternative option in 

accordance with § 141.93(a) within six 

months of the recommendation by the 

water system in paragraph (f)(1) of this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4287 

section (Step 1). Water systems required 

by the State to optimize or re-optimize 

corrosion control treatment must follow 

the schedules in paragraph (d) or (e) of 

this section, beginning with Step 3 in 

paragraph (d)(3) or (e)(3) of this section 

unless the State specifies optimal 

corrosion control treatment pursuant to 

either paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable. 

■ 7. Revise § 141.82 to read as follows: 

§ 141.82 Description of corrosion control 

treatment requirements. 

This section sets forth the 

requirements applicable to systems and 

states in the designation of optimal 

corrosion control treatment for a system 

that is optimizing or reoptimizing 

corrosion control treatment. Each 

system must complete the corrosion 

control treatment requirements in this 

section as applicable to such system 

under § 141.81. 

(a) System recommendation regarding 

corrosion control treatment for systems 

that do not contain lead service lines 

and systems with lead service lines that 

do not exceed the lead action level. (1) 

Any system under this paragraph (a) 

without corrosion control treatment that 

is required to recommend a treatment 

option in accordance with § 141.81(e) 

must, based on the results of lead and 

copper tap sampling and water quality 

parameter monitoring, recommend 

designation of one or more of the 

corrosion control treatments listed in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Small 

community water systems and nontransient non-community water systems 

that exceed the copper action level must 

comply with this paragraph (a)(1). The 

State may require the system to conduct 

additional water quality parameter 

monitoring to assist the State in 

reviewing the system’s 

recommendation. 

(2) Any small community water 

system or non-transient non-community 

water system in this paragraph (a) 

without corrosion control treatment that 

chooses to pursue a small water system 

compliance flexibility option and is 

required to recommend an option in 

accordance with § 141.81(f) must, based 

on the results of lead tap sampling and 

water quality parameter monitoring, 

recommend designation of one of the 

options listed in § 141.93. Systems with 

no lead service lines that exceed the 

lead action level and select corrosion 

control under § 141.93(a)(2) must 

recommend designation of one or more 

of the corrosion control treatments 

listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 

as the optimal corrosion control 

treatment for that system. 

(3) Any system under this paragraph 

(a) that exceeds the lead action level and 

selects corrosion control under 

§ 141.93(a)(2) must recommend 

designation of one or more of the 

corrosion control treatments listed in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section as the 

optimal corrosion control treatment for 

that system. A corrosion control study 

under paragraph (c) of this section is not 

required for medium and small systems 

that exceed the lead trigger level but do 

not exceed the lead and copper action 

levels, unless required by the state. 

(4) Any small community water 

system or non-transient, noncommunity water system with corrosion 

control treatment that that exceeds the 

lead action level and selects corrosion 

control under § 141.93(a)(2) must 

recommend designation of one or more 

of the corrosion control treatments 

listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section 

as the optimal corrosion control 

treatment for that system. 

(5) States may waive the requirement 

for a system to recommend OCCT if the 

State requires the system, in writing, to 

complete a corrosion control study 

within 3 months after the end of the tap 

sampling period during which the 

exceedance occurred. Such systems 

shall proceed directly to paragraph (c) of 

this section and complete a corrosion 

control study. 

(b) State decision to require studies to 

identify initial optimal corrosion control 

treatment and re-optimized optimal 

corrosion control treatment except for 

large systems and small and medium 

systems with lead service lines that 

exceed the lead action level. Corrosion 

control treatment studies are always 

required for large systems that exceed 

the lead action level, large water 

systems without corrosion control 

treatment with 90th percentile results 

that exceed either the lead practical 

quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L or the 

copper action level, medium sized 

systems with lead service lines that 

exceed the lead action level, and small 

systems with lead service lines that 

exceed the lead action level and select 

the corrosion control treatment option 

under § 141.93(a). 

(1) The State may require any small or 

medium-size system without corrosion 

control that exceeds either the lead or 

copper action level to perform corrosion 

control treatment studies under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section to 

identify optimal corrosion control 

treatment for the system. 

(2) The State may require any small or 

medium-size system without corrosion 

control that exceeds the lead trigger 

level but not the lead or copper action 

level to perform corrosion control 

treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section to identify optimal 

corrosion control treatment for the 

system. This corrosion control treatment 

shall be installed if the lead or copper 

action level is subsequently exceeded. 

(3) The State may require any small or 

medium-size water systems with 

corrosion control treatment exceeding 

either the lead trigger level or copper 

action level to perform corrosion control 

treatment studies under paragraph (c)(2) 

of this section to identify re-optimized 

optimal corrosion control treatment for 

the system (i.e., optimal corrosion 

control treatment after a re-optimization 

evaluation). 

(c) Performance of corrosion control 

studies. (1) Water systems without 

corrosion control treatment that are 

required to conduct corrosion control 

studies must complete the following: 

(i) Any water system without 

corrosion control treatment must 

evaluate the effectiveness of each of the 

following treatments, and if appropriate, 

combinations of the following 

treatments to identify the optimal 

corrosion control treatment for the 

system: 

(A) Alkalinity and pH adjustment; 

(B) The addition of an 

orthophosphate- or silicate-based 

corrosion inhibitor at a concentration 

sufficient to maintain an effective 

corrosion inhibitor residual 

concentration in all test samples; 

(C) The addition of an 

orthophosphate-based corrosion 

inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to 

maintain an orthophosphate residual 

concentration of 1 mg/L (as PO4) in all 

test samples; and 

(D) The addition of an 

orthophosphate-based corrosion 

inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to 

maintain an orthophosphate residual 

concentration of 3 mg/L (as PO4) in all 

test samples. 

(ii) The water system must evaluate 

each of the corrosion control treatments 

using either pipe rig/loop tests, metal 

coupon tests, partial-system tests, or 

analyses based on documented 

analogous treatments with other systems 

of similar size, water chemistry, and 

distribution system configurations. 

Large and medium systems and small 

community water systems and nontransient non-community water systems 

that select the corrosion control 

treatment option under § 141.93 with 

lead service lines that exceed the lead 

action level must conduct pipe rig/loop 

studies using harvested lead service 

lines from their distribution systems to 

assess the effectiveness of corrosion 

control treatment options on the 

existing pipe scale. For these systems, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4288 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

metal coupon tests can be used as a 

screen to reduce the number of options 

that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops 

to the current conditions and two 

options. 

(iii) The water system must measure 

the following water quality parameters 

in any tests conducted under this 

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) before and after 

evaluating the corrosion control 

treatments listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

and (ii) of this section: 

(A) Lead; 

(B) Copper; 

(C) pH; 

(D) Alkalinity; 

(E) Orthophosphate as PO4 (when an 

orthophosphate-based inhibitor is used); 

and 

(F) Silicate (when a silicate-based 

inhibitor is used). 

(iv) The water system must identify 

all chemical or physical constraints that 

limit or prohibit the use of a particular 

corrosion control treatment and 

document such constraints with one of 

the following: 

(A) Data and documentation showing 

that a particular corrosion control 

treatment has adversely affected other 

drinking water treatment processes 

when used by another water system 

with comparable water quality 

characteristics. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

must not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the 

constraints identified in this section. 

(B) Data and documentation 

demonstrating that the water system has 

previously attempted to evaluate a 

particular corrosion control treatment 

and has found that the treatment is 

ineffective or adversely affects other 

drinking water quality treatment 

processes. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

must not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the 

constraints identified in this section 

unless the treatment was found to be 

ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig 

study. 

(v) The water system must evaluate 

the effect of the chemicals used for 

corrosion control treatment on other 

drinking water quality treatment 

processes. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

shall not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the effects 

identified in this section. 

(vi) On the basis of an analysis of the 

data generated during each evaluation, 

the water system must recommend to 

the State in writing the treatment option 

that the corrosion control studies 

indicate constitutes optimal corrosion 

control treatment for that system as 

defined in § 141.2. The water system 

must provide a rationale for its 

recommendation along with all 

supporting documentation specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

(2) Systems with corrosion control 

treatment that are required to conduct 

corrosion control studies to determine 

re-optimized OCCT must complete the 

following: 

(i) The water system must evaluate 

the effectiveness of the following 

treatments, and if appropriate, 

combinations of the following 

treatments to identify the re-optimized 

optimal corrosion control treatment for 

the system: 

(A) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment, 

or re-adjustment; 

(B) The addition of an 

orthophosphate- or silicate-based 

corrosion inhibitor at a concentration 

sufficient to maintain an effective 

corrosion inhibitor residual 

concentration in all test samples if no 

such inhibitor is utilized; 

(C) The addition of an 

orthophosphate-based corrosion 

inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to 

maintain an orthophosphate residual 

concentration of 1 mg/L (PO4) in all test 

samples unless the current inhibitor 

process already meets this residual; and 

(D) The addition of an 

orthophosphate-based corrosion 

inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to 

maintain an orthophosphate residual 

concentration of 3 mg/L (PO4) in all test 

samples unless the current inhibitor 

process already meets this residual. 

(ii) The water system must evaluate 

each of the corrosion control treatments 

using either pipe rig/loop tests, metal 

coupon tests, partial-system tests, or 

analyses based on documented 

analogous treatments with other systems 

of similar size, water chemistry, and 

distribution system configurations. If 

the water system has lead service lines 

and exceeds the lead action level, it 

must conduct pipe rig/loop studies 

using harvested lead service lines from 

their distribution systems to assess the 

effectiveness of corrosion control 

treatment options on the existing pipe 

scale. For these systems, metal coupon 

tests can be used as a screen to reduce 

the number of options that are evaluated 

using pipe rig/loops to the current 

conditions and two options. 

(iii) The water system must measure 

the following water quality parameters 

in any tests conducted under this 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) before and after 

evaluating the corrosion control 

treatments listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

and (ii) of this section: 

(A) Lead; 

(B) Copper; 

(C) pH; 

(D) Alkalinity; 

(E) Orthophosphate as PO4 (when an 

orthophosphate-based inhibitor is used); 

and 

(F) Silicate (when a silicate-based 

inhibitor is used). 

(iv) The water system must identify 

all chemical or physical constraints that 

limit or prohibit the use of a particular 

corrosion control treatment and 

document such constraints with one of 

the following: 

(A) Data and documentation showing 

that a particular corrosion control 

treatment has adversely affected other 

drinking water treatment processes 

when used by another water system 

with comparable water quality 

characteristics. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

must not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the 

constraints identified in this section. 

(B) Data and documentation 

demonstrating that the water system has 

previously attempted to evaluate a 

particular corrosion control treatment 

and has found that the treatment is 

ineffective or adversely affects other 

drinking water quality treatment 

processes. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

shall not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the 

constraints identified in this section 

unless the treatment was found to be 

ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig 

study. 

(v) The water system must evaluate 

the effect of the chemicals used for 

corrosion control treatment on other 

drinking water quality treatment 

processes. Systems using coupon 

studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig 

studies to evaluate treatment options 

shall not exclude treatment strategies 

from the studies based on the effects 

identified in this section. 

(vi) On the basis of an analysis of the 

data generated during each evaluation, 

the water system must recommend to 

the State in writing the treatment option 

that the corrosion control studies 

indicate constitutes optimal corrosion 

control treatment for that system as 

defined in § 141.2. The water system 

must provide a rationale for its 

recommendation along with all 

supporting documentation specified in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4289 

(d) State designation of optimized 

optimal corrosion control treatment and 

re-optimized optimal corrosion control 

treatment. When designating optimal 

corrosion control treatment, the State 

must consider the effects that additional 

corrosion control treatment will have on 

water quality parameters and on other 

drinking water quality treatment 

processes. The State must notify the 

water system of its designation of 

optimal corrosion control treatment in 

writing and explain the basis for this 

determination. If the State requests 

additional information to aid its review, 

the water system must provide the 

information. 

(1) Designation of OCCT for systems 

without corrosion control treatment. 

Based upon considerations of available 

information including, where 

applicable, studies conducted under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section and/or a 

system’s recommended corrosion 

control treatment option, the State must 

either approve the corrosion control 

treatment option recommended by the 

system or designate alternative 

corrosion control treatment(s) from 

among those listed in paragraph (c)(1)(i) 

of this section or, where applicable, an 

alternate small water system compliance 

flexibility option under § 141.93(a). 

(2) Designation of re-optimized OCCT 

for systems with corrosion control 

treatment. Based upon considerations of 

available information including, where 

applicable, studies conducted under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section and/or a 

system’s recommended treatment 

alternative, the State must either 

approve the corrosion control treatment 

option recommended by the water 

system or designate alternative 

corrosion control treatment(s) from 

among those listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) 

of this section or, where applicable, an 

alternate small water system compliance 

flexibility option under § 141.93. 

(e) Installation of optimal corrosion 

control treatment and re-optimization of 

corrosion control treatment. Each 

system must properly install and 

operate throughout its distribution 

system the optimal corrosion control 

treatment designated by the State under 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(f) State review of treatment and 

specification of optimal water quality 

control parameters for optimal 

corrosion control treatment and reoptimized corrosion control treatment. 

The State must evaluate the results of all 

lead and copper tap sampling and water 

quality parameter sampling submitted 

by the water system and determine 

whether the water system has properly 

installed and operated the optimal 

corrosion control treatment designated 

by the State in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of 

this section, respectively. Upon 

reviewing the results of tap water and 

water quality parameter monitoring by 

the water system, both before and after 

the water system installs optimal 

corrosion control treatment, the State 

must designate: 

(1) A minimum value or a range of 

values for pH measured at each entry 

point to the distribution system. 

(2) A minimum pH value measured in 

all tap samples. Such a value shall be 

equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the 

State determines that meeting a pH level 

of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or 

is not necessary for the system to 

optimize corrosion control. 

(3) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a 

minimum concentration or a range of 

concentrations for orthophosphate (as 

PO4) or silicate measured at each entry 

point to the distribution system. 

(4) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a 

minimum orthophosphate or silicate 

concentration measured in all tap 

samples that the State determines is 

necessary to form a passivating film on 

the interior walls of the pipes of the 

distribution system. When 

orthophosphate is used, such an 

orthophosphate concentration shall be 

equal to or greater than 0.5 mg/L (asPO4) 

for OCCT designations under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section and 1.0 mg/L for 

OCCT designations under paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section, unless the State 

determines that meeting the applicable 

minimum orthophosphate residual is 

not technologically feasible or is not 

necessary for optimal corrosion control 

treatment. 

(5) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of 

optimal corrosion control treatment, a 

minimum concentration or a range of 

concentrations for alkalinity, measured 

at each entry point to the distribution 

system and in all tap samples. 

(6) The values for the applicable water 

quality control parameters, previously 

listed in this section, shall be those that 

the State determines to reflect optimal 

corrosion control treatment for the water 

system. The State may designate values 

for additional water quality control 

parameters determined by the State to 

reflect optimal corrosion control 

treatment for the water system. The 

State must notify the system in writing 

of these determinations and explain the 

basis for its decisions. 

(g) Continued operation and 

monitoring for optimal corrosion control 

treatment and re-optimized optimal 

corrosion control treatment. All systems 

optimizing or re-optimizing corrosion 

control must continue to operate and 

maintain optimal corrosion control 

treatment, including maintaining water 

quality parameters at or above minimum 

values or within ranges designated by 

the State under paragraph (f) of this 

section, in accordance with this 

paragraph (g) for all samples collected 

under § 141.87(d) through (f). The 

requirements of this paragraph (g) apply 

to all systems, including consecutive 

systems that distribute water that has 

been treated to control corrosion by 

another system, and any water system 

with corrosion control treatment, 

optimal corrosion control treatment, or 

re-optimized OCCT that is not required 

to monitor water quality parameters 

under § 141.87. Compliance with the 

requirements of this paragraph (g) shall 

be determined every six months, as 

specified under § 141.87(d). A water 

system is out of compliance with the 

requirements of this paragraph (g) for a 

six-month period if it has excursions for 

any State-specified parameter on more 

than nine days, cumulatively, during 

the period. An excursion occurs 

whenever the daily value for one or 

more of the water quality parameters 

measured at a sampling location is 

below the minimum value or outside 

the range designated by the State. Daily 

values are calculated as set out in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this 

section. States have discretion to not 

include results of obvious sampling 

errors from this calculation. Sampling 

errors must still be recorded even when 

not included in calculations. 

(1) On days when more than one 

measurement for the water quality 

parameter is collected at the sampling 

location, the daily value must be the 

average of all results collected during 

the day regardless of whether they are 

collected through continuous 

monitoring, grab sampling, or a 

combination of both. If EPA has 

approved an alternative formula under 

§ 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the 

State’s application for a program 

revision submitted pursuant to § 142.12 

of this chapter, the State’s formula shall 

be used to aggregate multiple 

measurements taken at a sampling point 

for the water quality parameters in lieu 

of the formula in this paragraph (g)(1). 

(2) On days when only one 

measurement for the water quality 

parameter is collected at the sampling 

location, the daily value shall be the 

result of that measurement. 

(3) On days when no measurement is 

collected for the water quality parameter 

at the sampling location, the daily value 

shall be the daily value calculated on 

the most recent day on which the water 

quality parameter was measured at the 

sampling location. 

(h) Modification of State treatment 

decisions for optimal corrosion control 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4290 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and re-optimized corrosion control. 

Upon its own initiative or in response 

to a request by a water system or other 

interested party, a State may modify its 

determination of the optimal corrosion 

control treatment under paragraph (d) of 

this section, or optimal water quality 

control parameters under paragraph (f) 

of this section. A request for 

modification by a system or other 

interested party shall be in writing, 

explaining why the modification is 

appropriate, and providing supporting 

documentation. The State may modify 

its determination where it concludes 

that such change is necessary to ensure 

that the water system continues to 

optimize corrosion control treatment. A 

revised determination must be made in 

writing, set forth the new treatment 

requirements and/or water quality 

parameters, explain the basis for the 

State’s decision, and provide an 

implementation schedule for 

completing the treatment modifications 

for re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment. 

(i) Treatment decisions by EPA in lieu 

of the State on optimal corrosion control 

treatment and re-optimized corrosion 

control treatment. Pursuant to the 

procedures in § 142.19 of this chapter, 

EPA Regional Administrator may review 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

determinations made by a State under 

paragraph (d)(1) or (2), (f), or (h) of this 

section and issue Federal treatment 

determinations consistent with the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(1) or (2), 

(f), or (h) of this section where the 

Regional Administrator finds that: 

(1) A State has failed to issue a 

treatment determination by the 

applicable deadlines contained in 

§ 141.81; 

(2) A State has abused its discretion 

in a substantial number of cases or in 

cases affecting a substantial population; 

or 

(3) The technical aspects of a State’s 

determination would be indefensible in 

a Federal enforcement action taken 

against a water system. 

(j) Find-and-fix assessment for tap 

sample sites that exceed the lead action 

level. The water system shall conduct 

the following steps, when a tap sample 

site exceeds the lead action level under 

monitoring conducted under § 141.86. 

(1) Step 1: corrosion control treatment 

assessment. The water system must 

sample at a new water quality parameter 

site that is on the same size water main 

in the same pressure zone and located 

within a half mile of the location with 

the action level exceedance within 5 

days of receiving the sample results. 

Small water systems without corrosion 

control treatment may have up to 14 

days to collect the samples. The water 

system must measure the following 

parameters: 

(i) pH; 

(ii) Alkalinity; 

(iii) Orthophosphate (as PO4), when 

an inhibitor containing an 

orthophosphate compound is used; 

(iv) Silica, when an inhibitor 

containing a silicate compound is used; 

and 

(v) Water systems with an existing 

water quality parameter location that 

meets the requirements of this section 

can conduct this sampling at that 

location. 

(vi) All water systems required to 

meet optimal water quality control 

parameters but that do not have an 

existing water quality parameter 

location that meets the requirement of 

this section must add new sites to the 

minimum number of sites as described 

in § 141.87(g). Sites must be added until 

a system has twice the minimum 

number of sites listed in Table 1 to 

§ 141.87(a)(2). When a system exceeds 

this upper threshold for the number of 

sites, the State has discretion to 

determine if the newer site can better 

assess the effectiveness of the corrosion 

control treatment and to remove existing 

sites during sanitary survey evaluation 

of OCCT. 

(2) Step 2: Site assessment. Water 

systems shall collect a follow-up sample 

at any tap sample site that exceeds the 

action level within 30 days of receiving 

the sample results. These follow-up 

samples may use different sample 

volumes or different sample collection 

procedures to assess the source of 

elevated lead levels. Samples collected 

under this section must be submitted to 

the State but shall not be included in 

the 90th percentile calculation for 

compliance monitoring under § 141.86. 

If the water system is unable to collect 

a follow-up sample at a site, the water 

system must provide documentation to 

the State, explaining why it was unable 

to collect a follow-up sample. 

(3) Step 3. Water systems shall 

evaluate the results of the monitoring 

conducted under this paragraph (j)(3) to 

determine if either localized or 

centralized adjustment of the optimal 

corrosion control treatment or other 

distribution system actions are 

necessary and submit the 

recommendation to the State within six 

months after the end of the tap sampling 

period in which the site(s) exceeded the 

lead action level. Corrosion control 

treatment modification may not be 

necessary to address every exceedance. 

Other distribution system actions may 

include flushing to reduce water age. 

Water systems must note the cause of 

the elevated lead level, if known from 

the site assessment, in their 

recommendation to the State as sitespecific issues can be an important 

factor in why the system is not 

recommending any adjustment of 

corrosion control treatment or other 

distribution system actions. Systems in 

the process of optimizing or reoptimizing optimal corrosion control 

treatment under paragraphs (a) through 

(f) of this section do not need to submit 

a treatment recommendation for findand-fix. 

(4) Step 4. The State shall approve the 

treatment recommendation or specify a 

different approach within six months of 

completion of Step 3 as described in 

paragraph (j)(3) of this section. 

(5) Step 5. If the State-approved 

treatment recommendation requires the 

water system to adjust the optimal 

corrosion control treatment process, the 

water system must complete 

modifications to its corrosion control 

treatment within 12 months after 

completion of Step 4 as described in 

paragraph (j)(4) of this section. Systems 

without corrosion control treatment 

required to install optimal corrosion 

control treatment must follow the 

schedule in § 141.81(e). 

(6) Step 6. Water systems adjusting its 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

must complete follow-up sampling 

(§§ 141.86(d)(2) and 141.87(c)) within 

12 months after completion of Step 5 as 

described in paragraph (j)(5) of this 

section. 

(7) Step 7. For water systems 

adjusting its optimal corrosion control 

treatment, the State must review the 

water system’s modification of corrosion 

control treatment and designate optimal 

water quality control parameters 

(§ 141.82(f)(1)) within six months of 

completion of Step 6 as described in 

paragraph (j)(6) of this section. 

(8) Step 8. For a water system 

adjusting its optimal corrosion control 

treatment, the water system must 

operate in compliance with the Statedesignated optimal water quality control 

parameters (§ 141.82(g)) and continue to 

conduct tap sampling (§§ 141.86(d)(3) 

and 141.87(d)). 

■ 8. Revise § 141.84 to read as follows: 

§ 141.84 Lead service line inventory and 

replacement requirements. 

(a) Lead service line inventory. All 

water systems must develop an 

inventory to identify the materials of 

service lines connected to the public 

water distribution system. The 

inventory must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) All water systems must develop an 

initial inventory by January 16, 2024, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4291 

and submit it to the primacy agency in 

accordance with § 141.90. 

(2) The inventory must include all 

service lines connected to the public 

water distribution system regardless of 

ownership status (e.g., where service 

line ownership is shared, the inventory 

would include both the portion of the 

service line owned by the water system 

and the customer-owned portion of the 

service line). 

(3) A water system must use any 

information on lead and galvanized iron 

or steel that it has identified pursuant to 

§ 141.42(d) when conducting the 

inventory of service lines in its 

distribution system for the initial 

inventory under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The water system must also 

review the sources of information listed 

in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of 

this section to identify service line 

materials for the initial inventory. The 

water system may use other sources of 

information not listed in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section if 

approved by the State. 

(i) All construction and plumbing 

codes, permits, and existing records or 

other documentation which indicates 

the service line materials used to 

connect structures to the distribution 

system. 

(ii) All water system records, 

including distribution system maps and 

drawings, historical records on each 

service connection, meter installation 

records, historical capital improvement 

or master plans, and standard operating 

procedures. 

(iii) All inspections and records of the 

distribution system that indicate the 

material composition of the service 

connections that connect a structure to 

the distribution system. 

(iv) Any resource, information, or 

identification method provided or 

required by the State to assess service 

line materials. 

(4) Each service line, or portion of the 

service line where ownership is split, 

must be categorized in the following 

manner: 

(i) ‘‘Lead’’ where the service line is 

made of lead. 

(ii) ‘‘Galvanized Requiring 

Replacement’’ where a galvanized 

service line is or was at any time 

downstream of a lead service line or is 

currently downstream of a ‘‘Lead Status 

Unknown’’ service line. If the water 

system is unable to demonstrate that the 

galvanized service line was never 

downstream of a lead service line, it 

must presume there was an upstream 

lead service line. 

(iii) ‘‘Non-lead’’ where the service line 

is determined through an evidencebased record, method, or technique not 

to be lead or galvanized requiring 

replacement. The water system may 

classify the actual material of the service 

line (i.e., plastic or copper) as an 

alternative to classifying it as ‘‘Nonlead.’’ 

(iv) ‘‘Lead Status Unknown’’ where 

the service line material is not known to 

be lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or a non-lead service line, 

such as where there is no documented 

evidence supporting material 

classification. The water system may 

classify the line as ‘‘Unknown’’ as an 

alternative to classifying it as ‘‘Lead 

Status Unknown,’’ however, all 

requirements that apply to ‘‘Lead Status 

Unknown’’ service lines must also apply 

to those classified as ‘‘Unknown.’’ Water 

systems may elect to provide more 

information regarding their unknown 

lines as long as the inventory clearly 

distinguishes unknown service lines 

from those where the material has been 

verified through records or inspection. 

(5) Water systems shall identify and 

track service line materials in the 

inventory as they are encountered in the 

course of its normal operations (e.g., 

checking service line materials when 

reading water meters or performing 

maintenance activities). 

(6) Water systems must update the 

inventory based on all applicable 

sources described in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (5) of this section and any lead 

service line replacements or service line 

material inspections that may have been 

conducted. The water system may use 

other sources of information if approved 

by the State and must use other sources 

of information provided or required by 

the State. Water systems must submit 

the updated inventory to the State in 

accordance with § 141.90(e). The 

inventory updates must be reflected in 

the publicly accessible inventory no less 

frequently than when required to be 

submitted to the State. 

(i) Water systems whose inventories 

contain only non-lead service lines are 

not required to provide inventory 

updates to the State or to the public. If, 

in the future, such a water system finds 

a lead service line within its system, it 

must prepare an updated inventory in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section on a schedule established by the 

State. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(7) To calculate the number of service 

line replacements applicable to 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the 

replacement rate must be applied to the 

sum of known lead and galvanized 

requiring replacement service lines 

when the system first exceeds the trigger 

or action level plus the number of lead 

status unknown service lines in the 

beginning of each year of a system’s 

annual goal or mandatory lead service 

line replacement program. 

(i) Each service line shall count only 

once for purposes of calculating the 

required number of service line 

replacements, even where the 

ownership of the service line is split 

and both the customer-owned and 

system-owned portions require 

replacement. 

(ii) The number of service lines 

requiring replacement must be updated 

annually to subtract the number of lead 

status unknown service lines that were 

discovered to be non-lead and to add 

the number of non-lead service lines 

that were discovered to be a lead or 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service line. 

(iii) Verification of a lead status 

unknown service line as non-lead in the 

inventory does not count as a service 

line replacement. 

(8) The service line materials 

inventory must be publicly accessible. 

(i) The inventory must include a 

location identifier, such as a street 

address, block, intersection, or 

landmark, associated with each lead 

service line and galvanized requiring 

replacement service line. Water systems 

may, but are not required to, include a 

locational identifier for lead status 

unknown service lines or list the exact 

address of each service line. 

(ii) Water systems serving greater than 

50,000 persons must make the publicly 

accessible inventory available online. 

(9) When a water system has no lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines 

(regardless of ownership) in its 

inventory, it may comply with the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(8) of this 

section using a written statement, in 

lieu of the inventory, declaring that the 

distribution system has no lead service 

lines or galvanized requiring 

replacement service lines. The 

statement must include a general 

description of all applicable sources 

described in paragraphs (a)(3), (5), and 

(6) of this section used to make this 

determination. 

(10) Instructions to access the service 

line inventory (including inventories 

consisting only of a statement in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(9) of this 

section) must be included in Consumer 

Confidence Report in accordance with 

§ 141.153(d)(4)(xi). 

(b) Lead service line replacement 

plan. All water systems with one or 

more lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines in their distribution system 

must, by January 16, 2024, submit a lead 

service line replacement plan to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

State in accordance with § 141.90(e). 

The lead service line replacement plan 

must be sufficiently detailed to ensure 

a system is able to comply with the lead 

service line replacement requirements 

in accordance with this section. The 

plan must include a description of: 

(1) A strategy for determining the 

composition of lead status unknown 

service lines in its inventory; 

(2) A procedure for conducting full 

lead service line replacement; 

(3) A strategy for informing customers 

before a full or partial lead service line 

replacement; 

(4) For systems that serve more than 

10,000 persons, a lead service line 

replacement goal rate recommended by 

the system in the event of a lead trigger 

level exceedance; 

(5) A procedure for customers to flush 

service lines and premise plumbing of 

particulate lead; 

(6) A lead service line replacement 

prioritization strategy based on factors 

including but not limited to the 

targeting of known lead service lines, 

lead service line replacement for 

disadvantaged consumers and 

populations most sensitive to the effects 

of lead; and 

(7) A funding strategy for conducting 

lead service line replacements which 

considers ways to accommodate 

customers that are unable to pay to 

replace the portion they own. 

(c) Operating procedures for replacing 

lead goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors. 

(1) The water system must replace any 

lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector it 

owns when encountered during planned 

or unplanned water system 

infrastructure work. 

(2) The water system must offer to 

replace a customer-owned lead 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; 

however, the water system is not 

required to bear the cost of replacement 

of the customer-owned parts. 

(3) The water system is not required 

to replace a customer-owned lead 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector if the 

customer objects to its replacement. 

(4) The replacement of a lead 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector does 

not count for the purposes of meeting 

the requirements for goal-based or 

mandatory lead service line 

replacements, in accordance with 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, 

respectively. 

(5) Upon replacement of any 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector that is 

attached to a lead service line, the water 

system must follow risk mitigation 

procedures specified in § 141.85(f)(2). 

(6) The requirements of paragraphs 

(c)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of this section do 

not apply if state law includes lead 

connectors in the definition of lead 

service lines, prohibits partial lead 

service line replacements, and requires 

systems to remove all lead service lines 

irrespective of a system’s 90th 

percentile lead level. 

(d) Requirements for conducting lead 

service line replacement that may result 

in partial replacement. (1) Any water 

system that plans to partially replace a 

lead service line (e.g., replace only the 

portion of a lead service line that it 

owns) in coordination with planned 

infrastructure work must provide notice 

to the owner of the affected service line, 

or the owner’s authorized agent, as well 

as non-owner resident(s) served by the 

affected service line at least 45 days 

prior to the replacement. The notice 

must explain that the system will 

replace the portion of the line it owns 

and offer to replace the portion of the 

service line not owned by the water 

system. The water system is not 

required to bear the cost of replacement 

of the portion of the affected service line 

not owned by the water system. 

(i) Before the affected service line is 

returned to service, the water system 

must provide notification meeting the 

content requirements of § 141.85(a) 

explaining that consumers may 

experience a temporary increase of lead 

levels in their drinking water due to the 

replacement, information about the 

health effects of lead, and actions 

consumers can take to minimize their 

exposure to lead in drinking water. In 

instances where multi-family dwellings 

are served by the affected service line to 

be partially replaced, the water system 

may elect to post the information at a 

conspicuous location instead of 

providing individual notification to all 

residents. 

(ii) The water system must provide 

information about service line flushing 

in accordance with the procedure 

developed in paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section before the affected service line is 

returned to service. 

(iii) The water system must provide 

the consumer with a pitcher filter or 

point-of-use device certified by an 

American National Standards Institute 

accredited certifier to reduce lead, six 

months of replacement cartridges, and 

instructions for use before the affected 

service line is returned to service. If the 

affected service line serves more than 

one residence or non-residential unit 

(e.g., a multi-unit building), the water 

system must provide a filter, six months 

of replacement cartridges and use 

instructions to every residence in the 

building. 

(iv) The water system must offer to 

collect a follow up tap sample between 

three months and six months after 

completion of any partial replacement 

of a lead service line. The water system 

must provide the results of the sample 

in accordance with § 141.85(d). 

(2) Any water system that replaces the 

portion of the lead service line it owns 

due to an emergency repair, must 

provide notice and risk mitigation 

measures to the persons served by the 

affected service line in accordance with 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section before the affected service line is 

returned to service. 

(3) When a water system is notified by 

the customer that the customer’s portion 

of the lead service line will be replaced, 

the water system must make a good faith 

effort to coordinate simultaneous 

replacement of its portion of the service 

line. If simultaneous replacement 

cannot be conducted, the water system 

must replace its portion as soon as 

practicable but no later than 45 days 

from the date the customer replaces its 

portion of the lead service line. The 

water system must provide notification 

and risk mitigation measure in 

accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. If the water 

system fails to replace its portion of the 

lead service line within 45 days from 

the date the customer replaces the 

customer’s portion of the lead service 

line, the water system must notify the 

State within 30 days of failing to meet 

the deadline in accordance with 

§ 141.90(e) and complete the 

replacement no later than 180 days of 

the date the customer replaces its 

portion. 

(4) When a water system is notified or 

otherwise learns that replacement of a 

customer-owned lead service line has 

occurred within the previous six 

months and left in place a systemowned lead service line, the water 

system must replace its portion within 

45 days from the day of becoming aware 

of the customer replacement. The water 

system must provide notification and 

risk mitigation measures in accordance 

with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of 

this section within 24 hours of 

becoming aware of the customer 

replacement. If the water system fails to 

replace its portion of the affected service 

line within 45 days of becoming aware 

of the customer replacement, it must 

notify the State within 30 days of failing 

to meet the deadline in accordance with 

§ 141.90(e). The water system must 

complete the replacement no later than 

180 days after the date the customer 

replaces its portion. 

(5) When a water system is notified or 

otherwise learns of a replacement of a 

customer-owned lead service line which 

has occurred more than six months in 

the past, the water system is not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4293 

required to complete the lead service 

line replacement of the system-owned 

portion under this paragraph (d)(5), 

however the system-owned portion 

must still be included in the calculation 

of a lead service line replacement rate 

under paragraph (a)(7) of this section. 

(e) Requirements for conducting full 

lead service line replacement. Any 

water system that conducts a full lead 

service line replacement must provide 

notice to the owner of the affected 

service line, or the owner’s authorized 

agent, as well as non-owner resident(s) 

served by the affected service line 

within 24 hours of completion of the 

replacement. The water system is not 

required to bear the cost of replacement 

of the portion of the lead service line 

not owned by the water system. 

(1) The notification must meet the 

content requirements of § 141.85(a) 

explaining that consumers may 

experience a temporary increase of lead 

levels in their drinking water due to the 

replacement, information about the 

health effects of lead, and actions 

consumers can take to minimize their 

exposure to lead in drinking water. In 

instances where multi-family dwellings 

are served by the lead service line to be 

replaced, the water system may elect to 

post the information at a conspicuous 

location instead of providing individual 

notification to all residents. 

(2) The water system must provide 

information about service line flushing 

in accordance with the procedure 

developed under paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section before the replaced service line 

is returned to service. 

(3) The water system must provide the 

consumer with a pitcher filter or pointof-use device certified by an American 

National Standards Institute accredited 

certifier to reduce lead, six months of 

replacement cartridges, and instructions 

for use before the replaced service line 

is returned to service. If the lead service 

line serves more than one residence or 

non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit 

building), the water system must 

provide a filter and six months of 

replacement cartridges and use 

instructions to every residence in the 

building. 

(4) The water system must offer to the 

consumer to take a follow up tap sample 

between three months and six months 

after completion of any full replacement 

of a lead service line. The water system 

must provide the results of the sample 

to the consumer in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(f) Goal-based full lead service line 

replacement for water systems whose 

90th percentile lead level is above the 

trigger level but at or below the lead 

action level. Water systems that serve 

more than 10,000 persons whose 90th 

percentile lead level from tap samples 

taken pursuant to § 141.86 is above the 

lead trigger level but at or below the 

lead action level must conduct goalbased full lead service line replacement 

at a rate approved by the state. 

(1) The water system must calculate 

the number of full lead service line 

replacements it must conduct annually 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of 

this section. 

(2) Replacement of lead service lines 

must be conducted in accordance with 

the requirements of paragraph (d) or (e) 

of this section. 

(3) Only full lead service line 

replacements count towards a water 

system’s annual replacement goal. 

Partial lead service line replacements do 

not count towards the goal. 

(4) The water system must provide 

information to customers with lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines as 

required in § 141.85(g). 

(5) Any water system that fails to meet 

its lead service line replacement goal 

must: 

(i) Conduct public outreach activities 

pursuant to § 141.85(h) until either the 

water system meets its replacement 

goal, or tap sampling shows the 90th 

percentile of lead is at or below the 

trigger level for two consecutive oneyear monitoring periods. 

(ii) Recommence its goal-based lead 

service line replacement program 

pursuant to this paragraph (f)(5)(ii) if the 

90th percentile lead level anytime 

thereafter exceeds the lead trigger level 

but is at or below the lead action level. 

(6) The first year of lead service line 

replacement shall begin on the first day 

following the end of the tap sampling 

period in which the lead trigger level 

was exceeded. If sampling is required 

annually or less frequently, the end of 

the tap sampling 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. 

(g) Mandatory full lead service line 

replacement for water systems whose 

90th percentile lead level exceeds the 

lead action level. Water systems serving 

more than 10,000 persons that exceed 

the lead action level in tap samples 

taken pursuant to § 141.86 must conduct 

mandatory full lead service line 

replacement at an average annual rate of 

at least three percent, calculated on a 

two-year rolling basis. 

(1) The average annual number of full 

lead service line replacements must be 

calculated in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(7) of this section. 

(2) Lead service line replacement 

must be conducted in accordance with 

the requirements of paragraphs (d) and 

(e) of this section. 

(3) Only full lead service line 

replacement count towards a water 

system’s mandatory replacement rate of 

at least three percent annually. Partial 

lead service line replacements do not 

count towards the mandatory 

replacement rate. 

(4) Water systems must provide 

information to customers with lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines 

consistent with § 141.85(g). 

(5) Community water systems serving 

10,000 or fewer persons and Nontransient non-community water systems 

for which the state has approved or 

designated lead service line replacement 

as a compliance option must conduct 

lead service line replacement as 

described in § 141.93(a)(1). Replacement 

of lead service lines must be conducted 

in accordance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. 

(6) A water system may cease 

mandatory lead service line replacement 

when it has conducted a cumulative 

percentage of replacements greater than 

or equal to 3%, or other percentage 

specified in paragraph (g)(9) of this 

section, of the service lines specified in 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section 

multiplied by the number of years that 

elapsed from when the system most 

recently began mandatory lead service 

line replacement and the date on which 

the system’s 90th percentile lead level, 

in accordance with § 141.80(c)(4), has 

been calculated to be at or below the 

lead action level during each of four 

consecutive six-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods. If tap samples 

collected in any such system thereafter 

exceed the lead action level, the system 

shall recommence mandatory lead 

service line replacement at the same 

two-year rolling average rate, unless the 

State has designated an alternate 

replacement rate under paragraph (g)(9) 

of this section. 

(7) The water system may also cease 

mandatory lead service line replacement 

if the system has no remaining lead 

status unknown service lines in its 

inventory and obtains refusals to 

conduct full lead service line 

replacement or non-responses from 

every remaining customer in its 

distribution system served by either a 

full or partial lead service line, or a 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service line. For purposes of this 

paragraph (g)(7) and in accordance with 

§ 141.90(e), a water system must provide 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

documentation to the State of customer 

refusals including a refusal signed by 

the customer, documentation of a verbal 

statement made by the customer 

refusing replacement, or documentation 

of no response from the customer after 

the water system made a minimum of 

two good faith attempts to reach the 

customer regarding full lead service line 

replacement. If the water system’s 90th 

percentile exceeds the lead action level 

again, it must contact all customers 

served by a full or partial lead service 

line or a galvanized requiring 

replacement service line with an offer to 

replace the customer-owned portion. 

Nothing in this paragraph (g)(7) requires 

the water system to bear the cost of 

replacement of the customer-owned 

lead service line. 

(8) The first year of lead service line 

replacement shall begin on the first day 

following the end of the tap sampling 

period in which lead action level was 

exceeded. 

(9) The State shall require a system to 

replace lead service lines on a shorter 

schedule than that required by this 

section, taking into account the number 

of lead service lines in the system, 

where the State determines a shorter 

replacement schedule is feasible. The 

State shall make this determination in 

writing and notify the system of its 

finding within six months after the 

system is required to begin lead service 

line replacement under paragraph (g) of 

this section. 

(h) Reporting to demonstrate 

compliance to State. To demonstrate 

compliance with paragraphs (a) through 

(g) of this section, a system shall report 

to the State the information specified in 

§ 141.90(e). 

■ 9. Amend § 141.85 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading, 

introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(1) 

introductory text and (a)(1)(ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(vii); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) 

introductory text, (b)(2)(ii)(B) 

introductory text, and (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(7); 

■ d. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(vii), 

(b)(4) introductory text, (b)(4)(iii), (b)(6), 

and (d)(1), (2), and (4); and 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (e) through (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.85 Public education and 

supplemental monitoring and mitigation 

requirements. 

All water systems must deliver a 

consumer notice of lead tap water 

monitoring results to persons served by 

the water system at sites that are 

sampled, as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section. A water system with lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines must 

deliver public education materials to 

persons with a lead, galvanized 

requiring replacement, or lead status 

unknown service line as specified in 

paragraphs (e) through (g) of this 

section. All community water systems 

must conduct annual outreach to local 

and State health agencies as outlined in 

paragraph (i) of this section. A 

community water system serving more 

than 10,000 persons that fails to meet its 

annual lead service line replacement 

goal as required under § 141.84(f) shall 

conduct outreach activities as specified 

in paragraph (h) of this section. A water 

system that exceeds the lead action level 

based on tap water samples collected in 

accordance with § 141.86 shall deliver 

the public education materials 

contained in paragraph (a) of this 

section and in accordance with the 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Water systems that exceed the 

lead action level shall offer to sample 

the tap water of any customer who 

requests it in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section. All small community 

water systems and non-transient noncommunity water systems that elect to 

implement POU devices under § 141.93 

must provide public education materials 

to inform users how to properly use 

POU devices in accordance with 

paragraph (j) of this section. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Community water systems and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems. Water systems must include 

the following elements in printed 

materials (e.g., brochures and 

pamphlets) in the same order as listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of 

this section. In addition, language in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi) of this 

section must be included in the 

materials, exactly as written, except for 

the text in brackets in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi) of this section for 

which the water system must include 

system-specific information. Any 

additional information presented by a 

water system must be consistent with 

the information in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (vii) of this section and be in 

plain language that can be understood 

by the general public. Water systems 

must submit all written public 

education materials to the State prior to 

delivery. The State may require the 

system to obtain approval of the content 

of written public materials prior to 

delivery. Water systems may change the 

mandatory language in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section only with 

State approval. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Health effects of lead. Exposure to 

lead in drinking water can cause serious 

health effects in all age groups. Infants 

and children can have decreases in IQ 

and attention span. Lead exposure can 

lead to new learning and behavior 

problems or exacerbate existing learning 

and behavior problems. The children of 

women who are exposed to lead before 

or during pregnancy can have increased 

risk of these adverse health effects. 

Adults can have increased risks of heart 

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 

nervous system problems. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Information on lead service lines. 

For systems with lead service lines, 

discuss opportunities to replace lead 

service lines and explain how to access 

the service line inventory so the 

consumer can find out if they have a 

lead service line. Include information 

on programs that provide financing 

solutions to assist property owners with 

replacement of their portion of a lead 

service line, and a statement that the 

water system is required to replace its 

portion of a lead service line when the 

property owner notifies them they are 

replacing their portion of the lead 

service line. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A community water system that 

exceeds the lead action level on the 

basis of tap water samples collected in 

accordance with § 141.86, and that is 

not already conducting public education 

tasks under this section, must conduct 

the public education tasks under this 

section within 60 days after the end of 

the tap sampling period in which the 

exceedance occurred: 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Contact customers who are most at 

risk by delivering materials that meet 

the content requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section to the following 

organizations listed in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) through (7) of this section 

that are located within the water 

system’s service area, along with an 

informational notice that encourages 

distribution to all the organization’s 

potentially affected customers or 

community water system’s users: 

(1) Schools, child care facilities, and 

school boards. 

* * * * * 

(7) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and 

Midwives. 

* * * * * 

(vii) For systems that are required to 

conduct monitoring annually or less 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4295 

frequently, the end of the tap sampling 

period is September 30 of the calendar 

year in which the sampling occurs, or, 

if the State has established an alternate 

tap sampling period, the last day of that 

period. 

* * * * * 

(4) Within 60 days after the end of the 

tap sampling period in which the 

exceedance occurred (unless it already 

is repeating public education tasks 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section), a non-transient noncommunity water system shall deliver 

the public education materials specified 

by paragraph (a) of this section as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(iii) For systems that are required to 

conduct monitoring annually or less 

frequently, the end of the tap sampling 

period is September 30 of the calendar 

year in which the sampling occurs, or, 

if the State has established an alternate 

tap sampling period, the last day of that 

period. 

* * * * * 

(6) A water system may discontinue 

delivery of public education materials if 

the system is at or below the lead action 

level during the most recent six-month 

tap sampling 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 tap 

sampling period. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Reporting requirement. All water 

systems must provide a notice of the 

individual tap results from lead tap 

water monitoring carried out under the 

requirements of § 141.86 to the persons 

served by the water system at the 

specific sampling site from which the 

sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of 

the building where the tap was 

sampled). 

(2) Timing of notification. A water 

system must provide the consumer 

notice as soon as practicable but no later 

than the following timeframes: 

(i) For individual samples that do not 

exceed 15 mg/L of lead, no later than 30 

days after the water system learns of the 

tap monitoring results. 

(ii) For individual samples that 

exceed 15 mg/L of lead, as soon as 

practicable but no later than 3 calendar 

days after the water system learns of the 

tap monitoring results. Water systems 

that choose to mail the notification must 

assure those letters are postmarked 

within three days. 

* * * * * 

(4) Delivery. (i) For lead tap sample 

results that do not exceed 15 mg/L, the 

water systems must provide consumer 

notice to persons served at the tap that 

was sampled, by mail or by another 

method approved by the State. For 

example, upon approval by the State, a 

non-transient non-community water 

system could post the results on a 

bulletin board in the facility to allow 

users to review the information. 

(ii) For lead tap sample results that 

exceed 15 mg/L, the water systems must 

provide consumer notice to persons 

served by the tap that was sampled; 

such notice must be provided 

electronically or by phone, hand 

delivery, by mail, or another method 

approved by the State. 

(e) Notification of known or potential 

service line containing lead—(1) 

Notification requirements. All water 

systems with lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines in their inventory pursuant 

to § 141.84(a) must inform all persons 

served by the water system at the 

service connection with a lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service line. 

(2) Timing of notification. A water 

system must provide the initial 

notification within 30 days of 

completion of the lead service line 

inventory required under § 141.84 and 

repeat the notification on an annual 

basis until the entire service connection 

is no longer a lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service line. For new customers, water 

systems shall also provide the notice at 

the time of service initiation. 

(3) Content—(i) Persons served by a 

confirmed lead service line. The notice 

must include a statement that the 

person’s service line is lead, an 

explanation of the health effects of lead 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, steps 

persons at the service connection can 

take to reduce exposure to lead in 

drinking water, information about 

opportunities to replace lead service 

lines as well as programs that provide 

financing solutions to assist property 

owners with replacement of their 

portion of a lead service line, and a 

statement that the water system is 

required to replace its portion of a lead 

service line when the property owner 

notifies them they are replacing their 

portion of the lead service line. 

(ii) Persons served by a galvanized 

requiring replacement service line. The 

notice must include a statement that the 

person’s service line is galvanized 

requiring replacement, an explanation 

of the health effects of lead, steps 

persons at the service connection can 

take to reduce exposure to lead in 

drinking water, and information about 

opportunities for replacement of the 

service line. 

(iii) Persons served by a lead status 

unknown service line. The notice must 

include a statement that the person’s 

service line material is unknown but 

may be lead, an explanation of the 

health effects of lead that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 

this section, steps persons at the service 

connection can take to reduce exposure 

to lead in drinking water, and 

information about opportunities to 

verify the material of the service line. 

(4) Delivery. The notice must be 

provided to persons served by the water 

system at the service connection with a 

lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 

or lead status unknown service line, by 

mail or by another method approved by 

the State. 

(f) Notification due to a disturbance to 

a known or potential service line 

containing lead. (1) Water systems that 

cause disturbance to a lead, galvanized 

requiring replacement, or lead status 

unknown service line that results in the 

water to an individual service line being 

shut off or bypassed, such as operating 

a valve on a service line or meter setter, 

and without conducting a partial or full 

lead service line replacement, must 

provide the persons served by the water 

system at the service connection with 

information about the potential for 

elevated lead levels in drinking water as 

a result of the disturbance as well as 

instructions for a flushing procedure to 

remove particulate lead. The water 

system must comply with the 

requirements in this paragraph (f)(1) 

before the affected service line is 

returned to service. 

(2) If the disturbance of a lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service line results 

from the replacement of an inline water 

meter, a water meter setter, or 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector, the 

water system must provide the person 

served by the water system at the 

service connection with information 

about the potential for elevated lead 

levels in drinking water as a result of 

the disturbance, public education 

materials that meet the content 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section, a pitcher filter or point-of-use 

device certified by an American 

National Standards Institute accredited 

certifier to reduce lead, instructions to 

use the filter, and six months of filter 

replacement cartridges. The water 

system must comply with the 

requirements of this paragraph (f)(2) 

before the affected service line is 

returned to service. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4296 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) A water system that conducts a 

partial or full lead service line 

replacement must follow procedures in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 141.84(d)(1)(i) through (iv) and (e)(1)(i) 

through (iv), respectively. 

(g) Information for persons served by 

known or potential service lines 

containing lead when a system exceeds 

the lead trigger level—(1) Content. All 

water systems with lead service lines 

that exceed the lead trigger level of 10 

mg/L must provide persons served by the 

water system at the service connection 

with a lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service line information regarding the 

water system’s lead service line 

replacement program and opportunities 

for replacement of the lead service line. 

(2) Timing. Waters systems must send 

notification within 30 days of the end of 

the tap sampling period in which the 

trigger level exceedance occurred. Water 

systems must repeat the notification 

annually until the results of sampling 

conducted under § 141.86 are at or 

below the lead trigger level. 

(3) Delivery. The notice must be 

provided to persons served at the 

service connection with a lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service line, by 

mail or by another method approved by 

the State. 

(h) Outreach activities for failure to 

meet the lead service line replacement 

goal. (1) In the first year after a 

community water system that serves 

more than 10,000 persons does not meet 

its annual lead service line replacement 

goal as required under § 141.84(f), it 

must conduct one outreach activity from 

the following list in the following year 

until the water system meets its 

replacement goal or until tap sampling 

shows that the 90th percentile for lead 

is at or below the trigger level of 10 mg/ 

L for two consecutive tap sampling 

monitoring periods: 

(i) Send certified mail to customers 

with a lead or galvanized requiring 

replacement service line to inform them 

about the water system’s goal-based lead 

service line replacement program and 

opportunities for replacement of the 

service line. 

(ii) Conduct a townhall meeting. 

(iii) Participate in a community event 

to provide information about its lead 

service line replacement program and 

distribute public education materials 

that meet the content requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(iv) Contact customers by phone, text 

message, email, or door hanger. 

(v) Use another method approved by 

the State to discuss the lead service line 

replacement program and opportunities 

for lead service line replacement. 

(2) After the first year following a 

trigger level exceedance, any water 

system that thereafter continues to fail 

to meet its lead service line replacement 

goal must conduct one activity from 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section and two 

additional outreach activities per year 

from the following list: 

(i) Conduct social media campaign. 

(ii) Conduct outreach via newspaper, 

television, or radio. 

(iii) Contact organizations 

representing plumbers and contractors 

by mail to provide information about 

lead in drinking water including health 

effects, sources of lead, and the 

importance of using lead free plumbing 

materials. 

(iv) Visit targeted customers to 

discuss the lead service line 

replacement program and opportunities 

for replacement. 

(3) The water system may cease 

outreach activities when tap sampling 

shows that the 90th percentile for lead 

is at or below the trigger level of 10 mg/ 

L for two consecutive tap sampling 

monitoring periods or when all 

customer-side lead or galvanized 

requiring replacement service line 

owners refuse to participate in the lead 

service line replacement program. For 

purposes of this paragraph (h)(3), a 

refusal includes a signed statement by 

the customer refusing lead service line 

replacement, or documentation by the 

water system of a verbal refusal or of no 

response after two good faith attempts to 

reach the customer. 

(i) Public education to local and State 

health agencies—(1) Find-and-fix 

results. All community water systems 

must provide information to local and 

State health agencies about find-and-fix 

activities conducted in accordance with 

§ 141.82(j) including the location of the 

tap sample site that exceeded 15 mg/L, 

the result of the initial tap sample, the 

result of the follow up tap sample, the 

result of water quality parameter 

monitoring, and any distribution system 

management actions or corrosion 

control treatment adjustments made. 

(2) Timing and content. Community 

water systems must annually send 

copies of the public education materials 

provided under paragraph (a) of this 

section, and of paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section for actions conducted in the 

previous calendar year no later than July 

1 of the following year. 

(3) Delivery. Community water 

systems shall send public education 

materials and find-and-fix information 

to local and State health agencies by 

mail or by another method approved by 

the State. 

(j) Public education requirements for 

small water system compliance 

flexibility POU devices—(1) Content. All 

small community water systems and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems that elect to implement POU 

devices under § 141.93 must provide 

public education materials to inform 

users how to properly use POU devices 

to maximize the units’ effectiveness in 

reducing lead levels in drinking water. 

(2) Timing. Water systems shall 

provide the public education materials 

at the time of POU device delivery. 

(3) Delivery. Water systems shall 

provide the public education materials 

in person, by mail, or by another 

method approved by the State, to 

persons at locations where the system 

has delivered POU devices. 

■ 10. Amend § 141.86 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) 

introductory text, and (g) introductory 

text and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead 

and copper in tap water. 

(a) Sample site location. (1) By the 

applicable date for commencement of 

monitoring under paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, each water system shall 

identify a pool of targeted sampling sites 

based on the service line inventory 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 141.84(a), that meet the requirements 

of this section, and which is sufficiently 

large enough to ensure that the water 

system can collect the number of lead 

and copper tap samples required in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Sampling 

sites may not include sites with 

installed point-of-entry (POE) treatment 

devices and taps used at sampling sites 

may not have point-of-use (POU) 

devices designed to remove inorganic 

contaminants, except for water systems 

monitoring under § 141.93(a)(3)(iv) and 

water systems using these devices for 

the primary drinking water tap to meet 

other primary and secondary drinking 

water standards and all service 

connections have POEs or POUs to 

provide localized treatment for 

compliance with the other drinking 

water standards. Lead and copper 

sampling results for systems monitoring 

under § 141.93(a)(3)(iv) may not be used 

for the purposes of meeting the criteria 

for reduced monitoring specified in 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(2) A water system must use the 

information on lead, copper, and 

galvanized iron or steel that is required 

to be identified under § 141.42(d) when 

conducting a materials evaluation and 

the information on lead service lines 

that is required to be collected under 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4297 

§ 141.84(a) to identify potential lead 

service line sampling sites. 

(3) The sampling sites for a 

community water system’s sampling 

pool must consist of single-family 

structures that are served by a lead 

service line (‘‘Tier 1 sampling sites’’). 

When multiple-family residences 

comprise at least 20 percent of the 

structures served by the water system, 

the system may include these types of 

structures in its Tier 1 sampling pool, if 

served by a lead service line. Sites with 

lead status unknown service lines must 

not be used as Tier 1 sampling sites. 

(4) A community water system with 

insufficient Tier 1 sampling sites must 

complete its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 2 

sampling sites,’’ consisting of buildings, 

including multiple-family residences 

that are served by a lead service line. 

Sites with lead status unknown service 

lines must not be used as Tier 2 

sampling sites. 

(5) A community water system with 

insufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 sampling 

sites must complete its sampling pool 

with ‘‘Tier 3 sampling sites,’’ consisting 

of single-family structures that contain 

galvanized lines identified as being 

downstream of a lead service line (LSL) 

currently or in the past, or known to be 

downstream of a lead gooseneck, pigtail 

or connector. Sites with lead status 

unknown service lines must not be used 

as Tier 3 sampling sites. 

(6) A community water system with 

insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 

sampling sites must complete its 

sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 4 sampling 

sites,’’ consisting of single-family 

structures that contain copper pipes 

with lead solder installed before the 

effective date of the State’s applicable 

lead ban. Sites with lead status 

unknown service lines must not be used 

as Tier 4 sampling sites. 

(7) A community water system with 

insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and 

Tier 4 sampling sites must complete its 

sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 5 sampling 

sites,’’ consisting of single-family 

structures or buildings, including 

multiple family residences that are 

representative of sites throughout the 

distribution system. For the purpose of 

this paragraph (a)(7), a representative 

site is a site in which the plumbing 

materials used at that site would be 

commonly found at other sites served by 

the water system. Water systems may 

use non-residential buildings that are 

representative of sites throughout the 

distribution system if and only if there 

are an insufficient number of singlefamily or multiple family residential 

Tier 5 sites available. 

(8) The sampling sites selected for a 

non-transient non-community water 

system must consist of sites that are 

served by a lead service line (‘‘Tier 1 

sampling sites’’). Sites with lead status 

unknown service lines must not be used 

as Tier 1 sampling sites. 

(9) A non-transient non-community 

water system with insufficient Tier 1 

sites complete its sampling pool with 

‘‘Tier 3 sampling sites,’’ consisting of 

sampling sites that contain galvanized 

lines identified as being downstream of 

an LSL currently or in the past, or 

known to be downstream of a lead 

gooseneck, pigtail, or connector. Sites 

with lead status unknown service lines 

must not be used as Tier 3 sampling 

sites. 

(10) A non-transient non-community 

water system with insufficient Tier 1 

and Tier 3 sampling sites must complete 

its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 5 sampling 

sites,’’ consisting of sampling sites that 

are representative of sites throughout 

the distribution system. For the purpose 

of this paragraph (a)(10), a 

representative site is a site in which the 

plumbing materials used at that site 

would be commonly found at other sites 

served by the water system. 

(11) A water system whose 

distribution system contains lead 

service lines must collect all samples for 

monitoring under this section from sites 

served by a lead service line. A water 

system that cannot identify a sufficient 

number of sampling sites served by lead 

service lines must still collect samples 

from every site served by a lead service 

line, and collect the remaining samples 

in accordance with tiering requirements 

under paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) or 

paragraphs (a)(9) through (10) of this 

section. 

(b) Sample collection methods. (1) All 

tap samples for lead and copper 

collected in accordance with this 

subpart, with the exception of fifth liter 

samples collected under paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, and samples 

collected under paragraphs (b)(5) and 

(h) of this section, must be first draw 

samples. The first draw sample shall be 

analyzed for lead and copper in tap 

sampling periods where both 

contaminants are required to be 

monitored. In tap sampling periods 

where only lead is required to be 

monitored, the first draw sample may be 

analyzed for lead only. 

(2) Each first draw tap sample for lead 

and copper must be one liter in volume 

and have stood motionless in the 

plumbing system of each sampling site 

for at least six hours. Bottles used to 

collect first draw samples must be widemouth one-liter sample bottles. First 

draw samples from residential housing 

must be collected from the cold-water 

kitchen or bathroom sink tap. First draw 

samples from a nonresidential building 

must be one liter in volume and 

collected at a tap from which water is 

typically drawn for consumption. Stateapproved non-first-draw samples 

collected in lieu of first draw samples 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section must be one liter in volume and 

shall be collected at an interior tap from 

which water is typically drawn for First 

draw samples may be collected by the 

system or the system may allow 

residents to collect first draw samples 

after instructing the residents of the 

sampling procedures specified in this 

paragraph (b)(2). Sampling instructions 

provided to residents must not include 

instructions for aerator removal and 

cleaning or flushing of taps prior to the 

start of the minimum six-hour 

stagnation period. To avoid problems of 

residents handling nitric acid, 

acidification of first draw samples may 

be done up to 14 days after the sample 

is collected. After acidification to 

resolubilize the metals, the sample must 

stand in the original container for the 

time specified in the approved EPA 

method before the sample can be 

analyzed. If a system allows residents to 

perform sampling, the system may not 

challenge, based on alleged errors in 

sample collection, the accuracy of 

sampling results. 

(3)(i) All tap samples for copper 

collected in at sites with a lead service 

line shall be the first draw sample 

collected using the procedure listed in 

this paragraph (b)(3). Tap samples for 

copper are required to be collected and 

analyzed only in monitoring periods for 

which copper monitoring is required. 

(ii) Systems must collect tap water in 

five consecutively numbered one-liter 

sample bottles after the water has stood 

motionless in the plumbing of each 

sampling site for at least six hours 

without flushing the tap prior to sample 

collection. Systems must analyze first 

draw samples for copper, when 

applicable, and fifth liter samples for 

lead. Bottles used to collect these 

samples must be wide-mouth one-liter 

sample bottles. Systems must collect 

first draw samples in the first sample 

bottle with each subsequently numbered 

bottle being filled until the final bottle 

is filled with the water running 

constantly during sample collection. 

Fifth liter sample is the final sample 

collected in this sequence. System must 

collect first draw and fifth liter samples 

from residential housing from the coldwater kitchen or bathroom sink tap First 

draw and fifth liter samples from a 

nonresidential building must be one 

liter in volume and collected at an 

interior cold water tap from which 

water is typically drawn for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4298 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

consumption. First draw and fifth liter 

samples may be collected by the system 

or the system may allow residents to 

collect first draw samples and fifth liter 

samples after instructing the residents 

on the sampling procedures specified in 

this paragraph (b)(3)(ii). Sampling 

instructions provided to customers must 

not direct the customer to remove the 

aerator or clean or flush the taps prior 

to the start of the minimum six-hour 

stagnation period. To avoid problems of 

residents handling nitric acid, the 

system may acidify first draw samples 

up to 14 days after the sample is 

collected. After acidification to 

resolubilize the metals, the sample must 

stand in the original container for the 

time specified in the approved EPA 

method before the sample can be 

analyzed. If a system allows residents to 

perform sampling, the system may not 

challenge, based on alleged errors in 

sample collection, the accuracy of 

sampling results. 

(4) A water system must collect each 

first draw tap sample from the same 

sampling site from which it collected 

the previous sample. A water system 

must collect each fifth liter sample from 

the same sampling site from which it 

collected the previous sample. If, for 

reasons beyond the control of the water 

system, the water system cannot gain 

entry to a sampling site in order to 

collect a follow-up tap sample, the 

system may collect the follow-up tap 

sample from another sampling site in its 

sampling pool as long as the new site 

meets the same targeting criteria, and is 

within reasonable proximity of the 

original site. 

(5) A non-transient, non-community 

water system, or a community water 

system that meets the criteria of 

§ 141.85(b)(7), that does not have 

enough taps that can supply first draw 

samples or fifth liter samples meeting 

the six-hour minimum stagnation time, 

as defined in § 141.2, may apply to the 

State in writing to substitute non-first 

draw, first-draw, or fifth liter samples 

that do not meet the six-hour minimum 

stagnation time. Such systems must 

collect as many first draw or fifth liter 

samples from interior taps typically 

used for consumption, as possible and 

must identify sampling times and 

locations that would likely result in the 

longest standing time for the remaining 

sites. The State has the discretion to 

waive the requirement for prior State 

approval of sites not meeting the sixhour stagnation time either through 

State regulation or written notification 

to the system. 

* * * * * 

(d) Timing of monitoring—(1) 

Standard monitoring. Standard 

monitoring is a six-month tap sampling 

monitoring period that begins on 

January 1 or July 1 of the year in which 

the water system is monitoring at the 

standard number of sites in accordance 

to paragraph (c) of this section. 

(i) All water systems with lead service 

lines, including those deemed 

optimized under § 141.81(b)(3), and 

systems that did not conduct monitoring 

that meets all requirements of this 

section (e.g., sites selected in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section, samples collected in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section, etc.) 

between January 15, 2021 and January 

16, 2024, must begin the first standard 

monitoring period on January 1 or July 

1 in the year following the January 16, 

2024, whichever is sooner. Upon 

completion of this monitoring, systems 

must monitor in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) Systems that conducted 

monitoring that meets all requirements 

of this section (e.g., sites selected in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section, samples collected in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section, etc.) 

between January 15, 2021 and January 

16, 2024, and systems that have 

completed monitoring under paragraph 

(d)(1)(i) of this section, must continue 

monitoring as follows: 

(A) Systems that do not meet the 

criteria under paragraph (d)(4) of the 

section must conduct standard 

monitoring. 

(B) Systems that meet the criteria 

under paragraph (d)(4) of this section 

must continue to monitor in accordance 

with the criteria in paragraph (d)(4). 

(C) Any system monitoring at a 

reduced frequency in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section that 

exceeds an action level must resume 

standard monitoring beginning January 

1 of the calendar year following the tap 

sampling monitoring period in which 

the system exceeded the action level. 

Any such system must also monitor in 

accordance with § 141.87(b), (c), or (d) 

as applicable. 

(D) Any system monitoring at a 

reduced frequency that exceeds the lead 

trigger level but meets the copper action 

level must not monitor any less 

frequently than annually and must 

collect samples from the standard 

number of sites as established in 

paragraph (c) of this section. This 

monitoring must begin the calendar year 

following the tap sampling monitoring 

period in which the system exceeded 

the action level. Any such system must 

also monitor in accordance with 

§ 141.87(b), (c), or (d) as applicable. 

(E) Any system that fails to operate at 

or above the minimum value or within 

the range of values for the water quality 

parameters specified by the State under 

§ 141.82(f) for more than nine days in 

any monitoring period specified in 

§ 141.87 must conduct standard tap 

water monitoring and must resume 

sampling for water quality parameters in 

accordance with § 141.87(d). This 

standard monitoring must begin no later 

than the 6-month period beginning 

January 1 of the calendar year following 

the water quality parameter excursion. 

(F) Any water system that becomes a 

large water system without corrosion 

control treatment or any large water 

system without corrosion control 

treatment whose lead 90th percentile 

exceeds the lead practical quantitation 

level must conduct standard monitoring 

for at least two consecutive 6-month tap 

sampling monitoring periods and then 

must continue monitoring in accordance 

with this paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(F). 

(2) Monitoring after installation of 

initial or re-optimized corrosion control 

treatment, installation of source water 

treatment and addition of new source or 

change in treatment. (i) Any water 

system that installs or re-optimizes 

corrosion control treatment, as a result 

of exceeding the lead or copper action 

level, must monitor for lead and copper 

every six months and comply with 

previously designated water quality 

parameter values, where applicable, 

until the State specifies new water 

quality parameter values for optimal 

corrosion control. 

(ii) Any water system that reoptimizes corrosion control treatment as 

a result of exceeding the lead trigger 

level but has not exceeded the lead or 

copper action level must monitor 

annually for lead at the standard 

number of sites listed in paragraph (c) 

of this section. Samples shall be 

analyzed for copper on a triennial basis. 

Small and medium-size systems that do 

not exceed the lead trigger level in three 

annual monitoring periods may reduce 

lead monitoring in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(iii) Any water system that installs 

source water treatment pursuant to 

§ 141.83(a)(3) must monitor every six 

months until the system at or below 

lead and copper action levels for two 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods. Systems that do not exceed the 

lead or copper action level for two 

consecutive 6-month monitoring 

periods may reduce monitoring in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this 

section. 

(iv) If a water system has notified the 

State in writing in accordance with 

§ 141.90(a)(3) of an upcoming addition 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4299 

of a new source or long term change in 

treatment, the water system shall 

monitor every six months at the 

standard number of sites listed under 

paragraph (c) of this section until the 

system is at or below the lead and 

copper action levels for two consecutive 

six-month monitoring periods, unless 

the State determines that the addition of 

the new source or long term change in 

treatment is not significant and, 

therefore, does not warrant more 

frequent monitoring. Systems that do 

not exceed the lead and copper action 

levels, and/or the lead trigger level for 

two consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods may reduce monitoring in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this 

section. 

(3) Monitoring after State specifies 

water quality parameter values for 

optimal corrosion control treatment. (i) 

After the State specifies the values for 

water quality control parameters under 

§ 141.82(f), the system must conduct 

standard six-month monitoring for two 

consecutive six-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods. Systems may then 

reduce monitoring in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section as 

applicable, following a State 

determination that reduced monitoring 

is approved. 

(ii) Systems required to complete the 

re-optimization steps in § 141.81(d) due 

to the exceedance of the lead trigger 

level that do not exceed the lead and 

copper action levels must monitor for 

two consecutive 6-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods. Systems may then 

reduce monitoring in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section as 

applicable following a State 

determination that reduced monitoring 

is approved. 

(4) Reduced monitoring based on 90th 

percentile levels. Reduced monitoring 

refers to an annual or triennial tap 

sampling monitoring period. The 

reduced monitoring frequency is based 

on the 90th percentile value for the 

water system. 

(i) A water system that meets the 

criteria for reduced monitoring under 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section must 

collect these samples from sampling 

sites identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. Systems monitoring annually or 

less frequently must conduct the lead 

and copper tap sampling during the 

months of June, July, August, or 

September unless the State has 

approved a different sampling period in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) 

of this section. 

(A) The State at its discretion may 

approve a different tap sampling period 

for conducting the lead and copper tap 

sampling for systems collecting samples 

at a reduced frequency. Such a period 

must be no longer than four consecutive 

months, within one calendar year, and 

must represent a time of normal 

operation where the highest levels of 

lead are most likely to occur. For a nontransient non-community water system 

that does not operate during the months 

of June through September and for 

which the period of normal operation 

where the highest levels of lead are most 

likely to occur is not known, the State 

must designate a period that represents 

normal operation for the system. This 

monitoring must begin during the 

period approved or designated by the 

State in the calendar year immediately 

following the end of the second 6-month 

monitoring period for systems initiating 

annual monitoring and during the 3- 

year period following the end of the 

third consecutive year of annual 

monitoring for systems initiating 

triennial monitoring. 

(B) Systems monitoring annually that 

have been collecting samples during the 

months of June through September and 

that receive State approval to alter their 

tap sampling monitoring period under 

paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section 

must collect their next round of samples 

during a time period that ends no later 

than 21 months after the previous round 

of sampling. Systems monitoring 

triennially that have been collecting 

samples during the month of June 

through September and receive State 

approval to alter their sampling 

collection period as per paragraph 

(d)(4)(i)(A) of this section must collect 

their next round of samples during a 

time period that ends no later than 45 

months after the previous tap sampling 

period. Subsequent monitoring must be 

conducted annually or triennially, as 

required by this section. 

(C) Small systems with waivers 

granted pursuant to paragraph (g) of this 

section that have been collecting 

samples during the months of June 

through September and receive State 

approval to alter their tap sampling 

period as per paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of 

this section must collect their next 

round of samples before the end of the 

9-year period. 

(ii) Any system that meets the lead 

trigger level and the copper action levels 

during two consecutive 6-month tap 

sampling monitoring periods may 

reduce the monitoring frequency to 

annual monitoring and must sample at 

the standard number of sampling sites 

for lead and the reduced number of sites 

for copper as specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section. Systems operating OCCT 

must also have maintained the range of 

OWQPs set by the State in accordance 

with § 141.82(f) for the same period and 

receive a written determination from the 

State approving annual monitoring 

based on the State’s review of 

monitoring, treatment, and other 

relevant information submitted by the 

system as required by § 141.90. This 

sampling must begin no later than the 

calendar year immediately following the 

last calendar year in which the system 

sampled. 

(iii) Any water system that exceeds 

the lead trigger level but not the lead 

and copper action levels during two 

consecutive 6-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods must monitor no 

less frequently than annually at the 

standard number of sampling sites for 

lead and copper specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section. Systems operating 

OCCT must also have maintained the 

range of OWQPs set by the State in 

accordance with § 141.82(f) for the same 

period of 6-month monitoring and 

receive a written determination from the 

State approving annual monitoring 

based on the State’s review of 

monitoring, treatment, and other 

relevant information submitted by the 

system as required by § 141.90. This 

sampling must begin no later than the 

calendar year immediately following the 

last calendar year in which the system 

sampled. 

(iv) Any water system that exceeds 

the lead trigger level but not the lead 

and copper action levels during three 

consecutive years of monitoring may 

reduce the tap sampling monitoring 

period for copper to once every three 

years; however, the system may not 

reduce the tap sampling monitoring 

period for lead. Systems operating 

OCCT must also maintain the range of 

OWQPs set by the State in accordance 

with § 141.82(f) and receive a written 

determination from the State approving 

triennial monitoring based on the State’s 

review of monitoring, treatment, and 

other relevant information submitted by 

the system as required by § 141.90. This 

sampling must begin no later than the 

third calendar year immediately 

following the last calendar year in 

which the system sampled. 

(v) Any small or medium-sized 

system that does not exceed the lead 

trigger level and the copper action level 

during three consecutive years of 

monitoring (standard monitoring 

completed during both six-month 

periods of a calendar year shall be 

considered 1 year of monitoring) may 

sample at the reduced number of sites 

for lead and copper in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section and reduce 

the monitoring frequency to triennial 

monitoring. Systems operating OCCT 

must also have maintained the range of 

OWQPs set by the State in accordance 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4300 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

with § 141.82(f) for the same three-year 

period and receive a written 

determination from the State approving 

triennial monitoring based on the State’s 

review of monitoring, treatment, and 

other relevant information submitted by 

the system as required by § 141.90. This 

sampling must begin no later than three 

calendar years after the last calendar 

year in which the system sampled. 

(vi) Any water system that 

demonstrates for two consecutive 6- 

month monitoring periods that its 90th 

percentile lead level, calculated under 

§ 141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to 

0.005 mg/L and the 90th percentile 

copper level, calculated under 

§ 141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to 

0.65 mg/L may sample at the reduced 

number of sites for lead and copper in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section and reduce the frequency of 

monitoring to triennial monitoring. For 

water systems with corrosion control 

treatment, the system must maintain the 

range of values for the water quality 

parameters reflecting optimal corrosion 

control treatment specified by the State 

under § 141.82(f) to qualify for reduced 

monitoring pursuant to this paragraph 

(d)(4)(vi). 

(e) Additional monitoring by systems. 

The results of any monitoring 

conducted in addition to the minimum 

requirements of this section (such as 

customer-requested sampling) shall be 

considered by the water system and the 

State in making any determinations (i.e., 

calculating the 90th percentile lead or 

copper level) under this subpart. Lead 

service line water systems that are 

unable to collect the minimum number 

of samples from Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites 

shall calculate the 90th percentile using 

data from all the lead service lines sites 

and the highest lead and copper values 

from lower tier sites to meet the 

specified minimum number of samples. 

Systems must submit data from 

additional tier 3, 4 or 5 sites to the State 

but may not use these results in the 90th 

percentile calculation. Water systems 

must include customer-requested 

samples from known lead service line 

sites in the 90th percentile calculation 

if the samples meet the requirements of 

this section. 

(f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap 

samples used in the calculation of the 

90th percentile. A sample invalidated 

under this paragraph (f) does not count 

toward determining lead or copper 90th 

percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(4) or 

toward meeting the minimum 

monitoring requirements of paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) Monitoring waivers for systems 

serving 3,300 or fewer persons. Any 

water system serving 3,300 or fewer 

persons that meets the criteria of this 

paragraph (g) may apply to the State to 

reduce the frequency of monitoring for 

lead and copper under this section to 

once every nine years (i.e., a ‘‘full 

waiver’’) if it meets all of the materials 

criteria specified in paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section and all of the monitoring 

criteria specified in paragraph (g)(2) of 

this section. If State regulations permit, 

any water system serving 3,300 or fewer 

persons that meets the criteria in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section 

only for lead, or only for copper, may 

apply to the State for a waiver to reduce 

the frequency of tap water monitoring to 

once every nine years for that 

contaminant only (i.e., a ‘‘partial 

waiver’’). 

* * * * * 

(h) Follow-up samples for ‘‘find-andfix’’ under § 141.82(j). Systems shall 

collect a follow-up sample at any site 

that exceeds the action level within 30 

days of receiving the sample results. 

These follow-up samples may use 

different sample volumes or different 

sample collection procedures to assess 

the source of elevated lead. Systems 

shall submit samples collected under 

this section to the State but shall not 

include such samples in the 90th 

percentile calculation. 

(i) Public availability of tap 

monitoring results used in the 90th 

percentile calculation. All water 

systems must make available to the 

public the results of compliance tap 

water monitoring data, including data 

used in the 90th percentile calculation 

under § 141.80(c)(4), within 60 days of 

the end of the applicable tap sampling 

period. Nothing in this section requires 

water systems to make publicly 

available the addresses of the sites 

where the tap samples were collected. 

Large systems shall make available the 

monitoring results in a digital format. 

Small and medium-size systems shall 

make available the monitoring results in 

either a written or digital format. Water 

systems shall retain tap sampling 

monitoring data in accordance to 

recordkeeping requirements under 

§ 141.91. 

■ 11. Revise § 141.87 to read as follows: 

§ 141.87 Monitoring requirements for 

water quality parameters. 

All large water systems, and all smalland medium-size water systems that 

exceed the lead or copper action level, 

and all small- and medium-size water 

systems with corrosion control 

treatment that exceed the lead trigger 

level must monitor water quality 

parameters in addition to lead and 

copper in accordance with this section. 

(a) General requirements—(1) Sample 

collection methods. (i) Tap samples 

must be representative of water quality 

throughout the distribution system, 

taking into account the number of 

persons served, the different sources of 

water, the different treatment methods 

employed by the system, and seasonal 

variability. Tap sampling under this 

section is not required to be conducted 

at taps targeted for lead and copper 

sampling under § 141.86(a). Sites 

selected for tap samples under this 

section must be included in the site 

sample plan specified under 

§ 141.86(a)(1). The site sample plan 

must be updated prior to changes to the 

sampling locations. [Note: Systems may 

find it convenient to conduct tap 

sampling for water quality parameters at 

sites used for total coliform sampling 

under § 141.21(a)(1) if they also meet 

the requirements of this section.] 

(ii) Samples collected at the entry 

point(s) to the distribution system must 

be from locations representative of each 

source after treatment. If a system draws 

water from more than one source and 

the sources are combined before 

distribution, the system must sample at 

an entry point to the distribution system 

during periods of normal operating 

conditions (i.e., when water is 

representative of all sources being used). 

(2) Number of samples. (i) Systems 

must collect two tap samples for 

applicable water quality parameters 

during each monitoring period specified 

under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section from the minimum number of 

sites listed in table 1 to this paragraph 

(a)(2)(i). Systems that add sites as a 

result of the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

requirements in § 141.82(j) must collect 

tap samples for applicable water quality 

parameters during each monitoring 

period under paragraphs (b) through (e) 

of this section and must sample from 

that adjusted minimum number of sites. 

Systems are not required to add sites if 

they are monitoring at least twice the 

minimum number of sites list in table 1 

to this paragraph (a)(2)(i). 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)(i) 

System size (number people 

served) 

Minimum number of sites for 

water quality 

parameters 

>100,000 ............................... 25 

10,001–100,000 .................... 10 

3,301–10,000 ........................ 3 

501–3,300 ............................. 2 

101–500 ................................ 1 

≤ 100 ..................................... 1 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4301 

(ii)(A) Except as provided in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, water 

systems without corrosion control 

treatment must collect two samples for 

each applicable water quality parameter 

at each entry point to the distribution 

system during each monitoring period 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. During each monitoring period 

specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of 

this section, water systems must collect 

one sample for each applicable water 

quality parameter at each entry point to 

the distribution system. 

(B) During each monitoring period 

specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of 

the section, water systems with 

corrosion control treatment must 

continue to collect one sample for each 

applicable water quality parameter at 

each entry point to the distribution 

system no less frequently than once 

every two weeks. 

(b) Initial sampling for water systems. 

Any large water system without 

corrosion control treatment must 

monitor for water quality parameters as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 

this section during the first two sixmonth tap sampling monitoring periods 

beginning no later than January 1 of the 

calendar year after the system either 

becomes a large water system, or fails to 

maintain their 90th percentile for lead 

below the PQL for lead. Any medium or 

small system that exceeds the lead or 

copper action level and any system with 

corrosion control treatment for which 

the State has not designated OWQPs 

that exceeds the lead trigger level shall 

monitor for water quality parameters as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 

this section for two consecutive 6- 

month periods beginning the month 

immediately following the end of the 

tap sampling period in which the 

exceedance occurred. 

(1) At taps, two samples for: 

(i) pH; 

(ii) Alkalinity; 

(2) At each entry point to the 

distribution system all of the applicable 

parameters listed in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(c) Monitoring after installation of 

optimal corrosion control or reoptimized corrosion control treatment. 

(1) Any system that installs or modifies 

corrosion control treatment pursuant to 

§ 141.81(d)(5) or (e)(5) and is required to 

monitor pursuant § 141.81(d)(6) or (e)(6) 

must monitor the parameters identified 

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section every six months at the locations 

and frequencies specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section until the 

State specifies new water quality 

parameter values for optimal corrosion 

control pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section. Water systems must collect 

these samples evenly throughout the 6- 

month monitoring period so as to reflect 

seasonal variability. 

(i) At taps, two samples each for: 

(A) pH; 

(B) Alkalinity; 

(C) Orthophosphate, when an 

inhibitor containing an orthophosphate 

compound is used; 

(D) Silica, when an inhibitor 

containing a silicate compound is used. 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section, at each entry 

point to the distribution system, at least 

one sample no less frequently than 

every two weeks (biweekly) for: 

(A) pH; 

(B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part 

of optimal corrosion control, a reading 

of the dosage rate of the chemical used 

to adjust alkalinity, and the alkalinity 

concentration; and 

(C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used 

as part of optimal corrosion control, a 

reading of the dosage rate of the 

inhibitor used, and the concentration of 

orthophosphate or silica (whichever is 

applicable). 

(iii) Any groundwater system can 

limit entry point sampling described in 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section to 

those entry points that are 

representative of water quality and 

treatment conditions throughout the 

system. If water from untreated 

groundwater sources mixes with water 

from treated groundwater sources, the 

system must monitor for water quality 

parameters both at representative entry 

points receiving treatment and 

representative entry points receiving no 

treatment. Prior to the start of any 

monitoring under this paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii), the water system must 

provide to the State, written information 

identifying the selected entry points and 

documentation, including information 

on seasonal variability, sufficient to 

demonstrate that the sites are 

representative of water quality and 

treatment conditions throughout the 

system. 

(2) States have the discretion to 

require small and medium-size systems 

with treatment for which the State has 

not designated OWQPs that exceed the 

lead trigger level but not the lead and 

copper action levels to conduct water 

quality parameter monitoring as 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section or the State can develop its own 

water quality control parameter 

monitoring structure for these systems. 

(d) Monitoring after State specifies 

water quality parameter values for 

optimal corrosion control. (1) After the 

State specifies the values for applicable 

water quality parameters reflecting 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

under § 141.82(f), systems must monitor 

for the specified optimal water quality 

parameters during 6-month periods that 

begin on either January 1 or July 1. Such 

monitoring must be spaced evenly 

throughout the 6-month monitoring 

period so as to reflect seasonal 

variability and be consistent with the 

structure specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) All large systems must measure the 

applicable water quality parameters 

specified by the State and determine 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 141.82(g) every six months with the 

first 6-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). 

(ii) Any small or medium-size water 

system that exceeds an action level must 

begin monitoring during the six-month 

period immediately following the tap 

sampling monitoring period in which 

the exceedance occurs and continue 

monitoring until the water system no 

longer exceeds the lead and copper 

action levels and meets the optimal 

water quality control parameters in two 

consecutive 6-month tap sampling 

monitoring periods under § 141.86(d)(3). 

For any such small and medium-size 

system that is subject to a reduced 

monitoring frequency pursuant to 

§ 141.86(d)(4) at the time of the action 

level exceedance, the start of the 

applicable 6-month monitoring period 

under this paragraph must coincide 

with the start of the applicable tap 

sampling monitoring period under 

§ 141.86(d)(4). 

(iii) Compliance with State-designated 

optimal water quality parameter values 

must be determined as specified under 

§ 141.82(g). 

(2) Any small or medium-size system 

that exceeds the lead trigger level, but 

not the lead and copper action levels for 

which the State has set optimal water 

quality control parameters must monitor 

as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section every six month, until the 

system no longer exceeds the lead 

trigger level in two consecutive tap 

sampling monitoring periods. 

(3) States have the discretion to 

continue to require systems described in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section to 

monitor optimal water quality control 

parameters. 

(e) Reduced monitoring. (1) Any large 

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) and does not exceed the lead 

trigger level during each of two 

consecutive 6-month monitoring 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4302 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

periods under paragraph (d) of this 

section must continue monitoring at the 

entry point(s) to the distribution system 

as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 

section. Such system may collect two 

tap samples for applicable water quality 

parameters from the following reduced 

number of sites during each 6-month 

monitoring period. Water systems must 

collect these samples evenly throughout 

the 6-month monitoring period so as to 

reflect seasonal variability. 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1) 

System size (number of people served) 

Reduced minimum number 

of sites for 

water quality 

parameters 

>100,000 ............................... 10 

10,001–100,000 .................... 7 

3,301–10,000 ........................ 3 

501–3,300 ............................. 2 

101–500 ................................ 1 

≤100 ...................................... 1 

(2)(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) and does not exceed 

the lead trigger level or copper action 

level 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 paragraph (e)(1) 

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 6- 

month monitoring occurs. 

(ii) A water system may reduce the 

frequency with which it collects tap 

samples for applicable water quality 

parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) 

of this section to every year if it 

demonstrates during two consecutive 

monitoring periods that its tap water 

lead level at the 90th percentile is less 

than or equal to the PQL for lead of 

0.005 mg/L that its tap water copper 

level at the 90th percentile is less than 

or equal to 0.65 mg/L in § 141.80(c)(3), 

and that it also has maintained the range 

of values for the water quality 

parameters reflecting optimal corrosion 

control treatment specified by the State 

under § 141.82(f). 

(3) A water system that conducts 

sampling annually must collect these 

samples evenly throughout the year so 

as to reflect seasonal variability. 

(4) Any water system subject to the 

reduced monitoring frequency that fails 

to operate at or above the minimum 

value or within the range of values for 

the water quality parameters specified 

by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than 

nine days in any 6-month period 

specified in § 141.82(g) must resume 

distribution system tap water sampling 

in accordance with the number and 

frequency requirements in paragraph (d) 

of this section. Such a system may 

resume annual monitoring for water 

quality parameters at the tap at the 

reduced number of sites specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it 

has completed two subsequent 

consecutive 6-month rounds of 

monitoring that meet the criteria of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section and/or 

may resume annual monitoring for 

water quality parameters at the tap at 

the reduced number of sites after it 

demonstrates through subsequent 

rounds of monitoring that it meets the 

criteria of either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or 

(ii) of this section. 

(f) Additional monitoring by systems. 

The results of any monitoring 

conducted in addition to the minimum 

requirements of this section must be 

considered by the water system and the 

State in making any determinations (i.e., 

determining concentrations of water 

quality parameters) under this section or 

§ 141.82. 

(g) Additional sites added from findand-fix. Any water system that conducts 

water quality parameter monitoring at 

additional sites through the ‘‘find-andfix’’ provisions pursuant to § 141.82(j) 

must add those sites to the minimum 

number of sites specified under 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section 

unless the system is monitoring at least 

twice the minimum number of sites. 

■ 12. Amend § 141.88 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b), 

(c), (d) heading, (d)(1) introductory text, 

(e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘; or’’ at the end of 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) and adding a period 

in its place; and 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead 

and copper in source water. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Groundwater systems shall take a 

minimum of one sample at every entry 

point to the distribution system after 

any application of treatment or in the 

distribution system at a point which is 

representative of each source after 

treatment (hereafter called a sampling 

point). The system shall take one 

sample at the same sampling point 

unless conditions make another 

sampling point more representative of 

each source or treatment plant. 

* * * * * 

(b) Monitoring frequency after system 

exceeds tap water action level. Any 

system which exceeds the lead or 

copper action level at the tap for the 

first time or for the first time after an 

addition of a new source or installation 

of source water treatment required 

under § 141.83(b)(2) shall collect one 

source water sample from each entry 

point to the distribution system no later 

than six months after the end of the tap 

sampling period during which the lead 

or copper action level was exceeded. 

For tap sampling periods that are annual 

or less frequent, the end of the tap 

sampling 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. If the State determines 

that source water treatment is not 

required under § 141.83(b)(2), the state 

may waive source water monitoring, for 

any subsequent lead or copper action 

level exceedance at the tap, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(1) The State may waive source water 

monitoring for lead or copper action 

level exceedance at the tap under the 

following conditions: 

(i) The water system has already 

conducted source water monitoring 

following a previous action level 

exceedance; 

(ii) The State has determined that 

source water treatment is not required; 

and 

(iii) The system has not added any 

new water sources. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) Monitoring frequency after 

installation of source water treatment 

and addition of new source. (1) Any 

system which installs source water 

treatment pursuant to § 141.83(a)(3) 

shall collect one source water sample 

from each entry point to the distribution 

system during two consecutive sixmonth monitoring periods by the 

deadline specified in § 141.83(a)(4). 

(2) Any system which adds a new 

source shall collect one source water 

sample from each entry point to the 

distribution system until the system 

demonstrates that finished drinking 

water entering the distribution system 

has been maintained below the 

maximum permissible lead and copper 

concentrations specified by the State in 

§ 141.83(b)(4) or the State determines 

that source water treatment is not 

needed. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4303 

(d) Monitoring frequency after State 

specifies maximum permissible source 

water levels. (1) A system shall monitor 

at the frequency specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section, in cases 

where the State specifies maximum 

permissible source water levels under 

§ 141.83(b)(4). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) A water system using only 

groundwater may reduce the monitoring 

frequency for lead and copper in source 

water to once during each nine-year 

compliance cycle (as that term is 

defined in § 141.2) provided that the 

samples are collected no later than 

every ninth calendar year and if the 

system meets the following criteria: 

(i) The system demonstrates that 

finished drinking water entering the 

distribution system has been maintained 

below the maximum permissible lead 

and copper concentrations specified by 

the State in § 141.83(b)(4) during at least 

three consecutive monitoring periods 

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) A water system using surface 

water (or a combination of surface water 

and groundwater) may reduce the 

monitoring frequency in paragraph 

(d)(1) 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 the following criteria: 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 141.89 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1) 

introductory text, and (a)(1)(iii) to read 

as follows: 

§ 141.89 Analytical methods. 

(a) Analyses for lead, copper, pH, 

alkalinity, orthophosphate, and silica 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

methods in § 141.23(k)(1). 

(1) Analyses for alkalinity, 

orthophosphate, pH, and silica may be 

performed by any person acceptable to 

the State. Analyses under this section 

for lead and copper shall only be 

conducted by laboratories that have 

been certified by EPA or the State. To 

obtain certification to conduct analyses 

for lead and copper, laboratories must: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Achieve method detection limit 

for lead of 0.001 mg/L according to the 

procedures in appendix B of part 136 of 

this title. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 141.90 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) 

introductory text and (a)(1)(i); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) 

through (vi); 

■ d. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (a)(1)(viii) and adding ‘‘; and’’ 

in its place; 

■ e. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(ix); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) 

introductory text, (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), and 

(a)(4)(i); 

■ g. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(iv); 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (e), 

(f)(1)(i), and (f)(3); 

■ i. Adding paragraphs (f)(4) through 

(7); 

■ j. Revising paragraphs (g), (h) 

introductory text, (h)(1), (h)(2)(i) and 

(ii), and (h)(3); 

■ k. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.90 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Notwithstanding the requirements 

of § 141.31(a), except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a 

water system must report the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section, for 

all tap water samples specified in 

§ 141.86 and for all water quality 

parameter samples specified in § 141.87 

within the first 10 days following the 

end of each applicable tap sampling 

monitoring period specified in §§ 141.86 

and 141.87 (i.e., every six months, 

annually, every three years, or every 

nine years). For tap sampling periods 

with a duration less than six months, 

the end of the tap sampling monitoring 

period is the last date samples can be 

collected during that tap sampling 

period as specified in §§ 141.86 and 

141.87. 

(i) The results of all tap samples for 

lead and copper including the location 

of each site and the site selection 

criteria under § 141.86(a)(3) through 

(10), used as the basis for which the site 

was selected for the water system’s 

sampling pool, accounting for 

§ 141.86(a)(11); 

* * * * * 

(iii) Water systems with lead service 

lines, galvanized service lines requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines in the lead service line 

inventory conducted under § 141.84(a) 

must re-evaluate the tap sampling 

locations used in their sampling pool 

prior to the compliance date specified in 

§ 141.80(a) and thereafter prior to the 

next round of tap sampling conducted 

by the system, or annually, whichever is 

more frequent. 

(A) By the start of the first applicable 

tap sampling monitoring period in 

§ 141.86(d), the water system must 

submit a site sample plan to the State in 

accordance with § 141.86, including a 

list of tap sample site locations 

identified from the inventory in 

§ 141.84(a), and a list a tap sampling 

WQP sites selected under 141.87(a)(1). 

The site sample plan must be updated 

and submitted to the State prior to any 

changes to sample site locations. The 

State may require modifications to the 

site sample plan as necessary. 

(B) For lead service line systems with 

insufficient lead service line sites to 

meet the minimum number required in 

§ 141.86, documentation in support of 

the conclusion that there are an 

insufficient number of lead service line 

sites meeting the criteria under 

§ 141.86(a)(3) or (4) for community 

water systems or § 141.86(a)(8) for nontransient, non-community water 

systems, as applicable; 

(iv) The 90th percentile lead and 

copper concentrations measured from 

among all lead and copper tap water 

samples collected during each tap 

sampling period (calculated in 

accordance with § 141.80(c)(4)), unless 

the State calculates the water system’s 

90th percentile lead and copper levels 

under paragraph (h) of this section; 

(v) With the exception of initial tap 

sampling conducted pursuant to 

§ 141.86(d)(1)(i), the water system must 

identify any site which was not sampled 

during previous tap sampling periods, 

and include an explanation of why 

sampling sites have changed; 

(vi) The results of all water quality 

parameter tap samples that are required 

to be collected under § 141.87(b) 

through (g); 

* * * * * 

(ix) By the start of the first applicable 

tap sampling period in § 141.86(d), the 

water system must submit to the State, 

a copy of the tap sampling protocol that 

is provided to individuals who are 

sampling. The State shall verify that 

wide-mouth collection bottles are used 

and recommendations for pre-stagnation 

flushing and aerator cleaning or removal 

prior to sample collection are not 

included pursuant to § 141.86(b). The 

tap sampling protocol shall contain 

instructions for correctly collecting a 

first draw sample for sites without lead 

service lines and a first draw and a fifth 

liter sample for sites with lead service 

lines, where applicable. If the water 

system seeks to modify its tap sampling 

protocol specified in this paragraph 

(a)(1)(ix), it must submit the updated 

version of the protocol to the State for 

review and approval no later than 60 

days prior to use. 

(2) For a non-transient noncommunity water system, or a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4304 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

community water system meeting the 

criteria of § 141.86(b)(5), that does not 

have enough taps that can provide first 

draw or fifth liter samples, the water 

system must either: 

(i) Provide written documentation to 

the State identifying standing times and 

locations for enough non-first-draw and 

fifth liter samples to make up its 

sampling pool under § 141.86(b)(5) by 

the start of the first applicable 

monitoring period under § 141.86(d) 

unless the State has waived prior State 

approval of non-first-draw and fifth liter 

sample sites selected by the water 

system pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or 

* * * * * 

(3) At a time specified by the State, or 

if no specific time is designated by the 

State, as early as possible but no later 

than six months prior to the addition of 

a new source or any long-term change 

in water treatment, a water system must 

submit written documentation to the 

State describing the addition. The State 

must review and approve the addition 

of a new source or long-term treatment 

change before it is implemented by the 

water system. The State may require the 

system to take actions before or after the 

addition of a new source or long-term 

treatment change to ensure the system 

will operate and maintain optimal 

corrosion control treatment such as 

additional water quality parameter 

monitoring, additional lead or copper 

tap sampling, and re-evaluation of 

corrosion control treatment. Examples 

of long-term treatment changes include 

but are not limited to, the addition of a 

new treatment process or modification 

of an existing treatment process. 

Examples of modifications include 

switching secondary disinfectants, 

switching coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric 

chloride), and switching corrosion 

inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate 

to blended phosphate). Long-term 

changes can also include dose changes 

to existing chemicals if the water system 

is planning long-term changes to its 

finished water pH or residual inhibitor 

concentration. Long-term treatment 

changes would not include chemical 

dose fluctuations associated with daily 

raw water quality changes where a new 

source has not been added. 

(4) * * * 

(i) By the start of the first applicable 

tap sampling monitoring period in 

§ 141.86(d), any small water system 

applying for a monitoring waiver shall 

provide the documentation required to 

demonstrate that it meets the waiver 

criteria of § 141.86(g)(1) and (2). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) For water systems demonstrating 

that they have already optimized 

corrosion control, information required 

in § 141.81(b)(1) through (3). 

* * * * * 

(e) Lead service line inventory and 

replacement reporting requirements. 

Water systems must report the following 

information to the State to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of 

§§ 141.84 and 141.85: 

(1) No later than January 16, 2024, the 

water system must submit to the State 

an inventory of service lines as required 

in § 141.84(a). 

(2) No later than January 16, 2024, any 

water system that has inventoried a lead 

service line, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service line in its distribution system 

must submit to the State, as specified in 

Section § 141.84(b), a lead service line 

replacement plan. 

(3) The water system must provide the 

State with updated versions of its 

inventory as required in § 141.84(a) in 

accordance with its tap sampling 

monitoring period schedule as required 

in § 141.86(d), but no more frequently 

than annually. The updated inventory 

must be submitted within 30 days of the 

end of each tap sampling monitoring 

period. 

(i) When the water system has 

demonstrated that it has no lead, 

galvanized requiring replacement, or 

lead status unknown service lines in its 

inventory, it is no longer required to 

submit inventory updates to the State, 

except as required in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) 

of this section. 

(ii) In the case that a water system 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(e)(3)(i) of this section, subsequently 

discovers any service lines requiring 

replacement in its distribution system, it 

must notify the State within 30 days of 

identifying the service line(s) and 

prepare an updated inventory in 

accordance with § 141.84(a) on a 

schedule established by the State. 

(4) Within 30 days of the end of each 

tap sampling monitoring period, the 

water system must certify that it 

conducted replacement of any 

encountered lead goosenecks, pigtails, 

and connectors in accordance with 

§ 141.84(c). 

(5) Within 30 days of the end of each 

tap sampling monitoring period, the 

water system must certify to the State 

that any partial and full lead service line 

replacements were conducted in 

accordance with § 141.84(d) and (e), 

respectively. 

(6) If the water system fails to meet 

the 45-day deadline to complete a 

customer-initiated lead service line 

replacement pursuant to § 141.84(d)(4), 

it must notify the State within 30 days 

of the replacement deadline to request 

an extension of the deadline up to 180 

days of the customer-initiated lead 

service line replacement. 

(i) The water system must certify 

annually that it has completed all 

customer-initiated lead service line 

replacements in accordance with 

§ 141.84(d)(4). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(7) No later than 30 days after the end 

of the water system’s annual lead 

service line replacement requirements 

under § 141.84(f) and (g), the water 

system must submit the following 

information to the State, and continue to 

submit it each year it conducts lead 

service line replacement under 

§ 141.84(f) and (g): 

(i) The number of lead service lines in 

the initial inventory; 

(ii) The number of galvanized 

requiring replacement service lines in 

the initial inventory; 

(iii) The number of lead status 

unknown service lines in the inventory 

at the onset of the water system’s annual 

lead service line replacement program; 

(iv) The number of full lead service 

lines that have been replaced and the 

address associated with each replaced 

service line; 

(v) The number of galvanized 

requiring replacement service lines that 

have been replaced and the address 

associated with each replaced service 

line; 

(vi) The number of lead status 

unknown service lines remaining in the 

inventory; 

(vii) The total number of lead status 

unknown service lines determined to be 

non-lead; and 

(viii) The total number of service lines 

initially inventoried as ‘‘non-lead’’ later 

discovered to be a lead service line or 

a galvanized requiring replacement 

service line. 

(8) No later than 30 days after the end 

of each tap sampling period, any water 

system that has received customer 

refusals about lead service line 

replacements or customer nonresponses after a minimum of two good 

faith efforts by the water system to 

contact customers regarding full lead 

service line replacements in accordance 

with § 141.84(g)(7), must certify to the 

State the number of customer refusals or 

non-responses it received from 

customers served by a lead service line 

or galvanized requiring replacement 

service line, and maintain such 

documentation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4305 

(9) No later than 12 months after the 

end of a tap sampling period in which 

a water system exceeds the lead action 

level in sampling conducted pursuant to 

§ 141.86, the system must provide to the 

State its schedule for annually replacing 

an average annual rate, calculated on a 

two year rolling basis, of at least three 

percent, or otherwise specified in 

§ 141.84(g)(9), of the number of known 

lead service lines and galvanized lines 

requiring replacement when the lead 

trigger or action level was first exceeded 

and lead status unknown service lines at 

the beginning of each year that required 

replacement occurs in its distribution 

system. 

(10) No later than 12 months after the 

end of a sampling period in which a 

system exceeds the lead trigger level in 

sampling conducted pursuant to 

§ 141.86, and every 12 months 

thereafter, the system shall certify to the 

State in writing that the system has: 

(i) Conducted consumer notification 

as specified in §§ 141.84(f)(4) and 

141.85(g) and 

(ii) Delivered public education 

materials to the affected consumers as 

specified in § 141.85(a). 

(iii) A water system that does not 

meet its annual service line replacement 

goal as required under § 141.84(f) must 

certify to the State in writing that the 

water system has conducted public 

outreach as specified in § 141.85(h). The 

water system must also submit the 

outreach materials used to the State. 

(11) The annual submission to the 

State under paragraph (e)(10) of this 

section must contain the following 

information: 

(i) The certification that results of 

samples collected between three months 

and six months after the date of a full 

or partial lead service line replacement 

were provided to the resident in 

accordance with the timeframes in 

§ 141.85(d)(2). Mailed notices postmarked within three business days of 

receiving the results shall be considered 

‘‘on time.’’ 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(12) Any system which collects 

samples following a partial lead service 

line replacement required by § 141.84 

must report the results to the State 

within the first ten days of the month 

following the month in which the 

system receives the laboratory results, or 

as specified by the State. States, at their 

discretion may eliminate this 

requirement to report these monitoring 

results, but water systems shall still 

retain such records. Systems must also 

report any additional information as 

specified by the State, and in a time and 

manner prescribed by the State, to verify 

that all partial lead service line 

replacement activities have taken place. 

(13) Any system with lead service 

lines in its inventory must certify on an 

annual basis that the system has 

complied with the consumer 

notification of lead service line 

materials as specified in § 141.85(e). 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The public education materials that 

were delivered, and a demonstration 

that the water system has delivered the 

public education materials that meet the 

content requirements in § 141.85(a) and 

the delivery requirements in 

§ 141.85(b); and 

* * * * * 

(3) No later than three months 

following the end of the tap sampling 

period, each water system must mail a 

sample copy of the consumer 

notification of tap results to the State 

along with a certification that the 

notification has been distributed in a 

manner consistent with the 

requirements of § 141.85(d). 

(4) Annually by July 1, the water 

system must demonstrate to the State 

that it delivered annual consumer 

notification and delivered lead service 

line information materials to affected 

consumers with a lead, galvanized 

requiring replacement, or lead status 

unknown service line in accordance 

with § 141.85(e) for the previous 

calendar year. The water system shall 

also provide a copy of the notification 

and information materials to the State. 

(5) Annually by July 1, the water 

system must demonstrate to the State 

that it conducted an outreach activity in 

accordance with § 141.85(h) when 

failing to meet the lead service line 

replacement goal as specified in 

§ 141.84(f) for the previous calendar 

year. The water system shall also submit 

a copy to the State of the outreach 

provided. 

(6) Annually, by July 1, the water 

system must certify to the State that it 

delivered notification to affected 

customers after any lead service line 

disturbance in accordance with 

§ 141.85(f) for the previous calendar 

year. The water system shall also submit 

a copy of the notification to the State. 

(7) Annually, by July 1, the water 

system must certify to the State that it 

delivered the required find-and-fix 

information to the State and local health 

departments for the previous calendar 

year. 

(g) Reporting of additional monitoring 

data. Any water system which collects 

more samples than the minimum 

required, shall report the results to the 

State within the first 10 days following 

the end of the applicable monitoring 

period under §§ 141.86, 141.87, and 

141.88 during which the samples are 

collected. This includes the monitoring 

data pertaining to ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

pursuant to §§ 141.86(h) and 141.87(g). 

The system must certify to the State the 

number of customer refusals or nonresponses for follow-up sampling under 

§ 141.82(j) it received and information 

pertaining to the accuracy of the refusals 

or non-responses, within the first 10 

days following the end of the applicable 

tap sampling period in which an 

individual sample exceeded the action 

level. 

(h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead 

and copper concentrations where the 

State calculates a water system’s 90th 

percentile concentrations. A water 

system is not required to report the 90th 

percentile lead and copper 

concentrations measured from among 

all lead and copper tap water samples 

collected during each tap sampling 

monitoring period, as required by 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section if: 

(1) The State has previously notified 

the water system that it will calculate 

the water system’s 90th percentile lead 

and copper concentrations, based on the 

lead and copper tap results submitted 

pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this 

section, and the water system provides 

the results of lead and copper tap water 

samples no later than 10 days after the 

end of the applicable tap sampling 

monitoring period; 

(2) * * * 

(i) The results of all tap samples for 

lead and copper including the location 

of each site and the criteria under 

§ 141.86(a)(3) through (10) under which 

the site was selected for the water 

system’s sampling pool; and 

(ii) An identification of sampling sites 

utilized during the current tap sampling 

monitoring period that were not 

sampled during previous monitoring 

periods, and an explanation of why 

sampling sites have changed; and 

(3) The State has provided the results 

of the 90th percentile lead and copper 

calculations, in writing, to the water 

system within 15 days of the end of the 

tap sampling period. 

(i) Reporting requirements for a 

community water system’s public 

education and sampling in schools and 

child care facilities. (1) A community 

water system shall send a report to the 

State by July 1 of each year for the 

previous calendar year’s activity. The 

report must include the following: 

(i) Certification that the water system 

made a good faith effort to identify 

schools and child care facilities in 

accordance with § 141.92(e). The good 

faith effort may include reviewing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

customer records and requesting lists of 

schools and child care facilities from the 

primacy agency or other licensing 

agency. A water system that certifies 

that no schools or child care facilities 

are served by the water system is not 

required to include information in 

paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this 

section in the report. If there are 

changes to schools and child care 

facilities that a water system serves, an 

updated list must be submitted at least 

once every five years in accordance with 

§ 141.92(e). 

(ii) Certification that the water system 

has delivered information about health 

risks from lead in drinking water to the 

school and child care facilities that they 

serve in accordance with § 141.92(a)(2) 

and (g)(1). 

(iii) Certification that the water 

system has completed the notification 

and sampling requirements of § 141.92 

and paragraphs (i)(1)(iii)(A) through (E) 

of this section at a minimum of 20 

percent of elementary schools and 20 

percent of child care facilities. 

Certification that the water system has 

completed the notification and sampling 

requirements of § 141.92(g) and 

paragraphs (i)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (E) of 

this section for any secondary school(s) 

sampled. After a water system has 

successfully completed one cycle of 

required sampling in all elementary 

schools and child care facilities 

identified in § 141.92(a)(1), it shall 

certify completion of the notification 

and sampling requirements of 

§ 141.92(g) and paragraphs (i)(1)(iii)(A), 

(B), and (E) of this section for all 

sampling completed in any school or 

child care facility, thereafter. 

(A) The number of schools and child 

care facilities served by the water 

system; 

(B) The number of schools and child 

care facilities sampled in the calendar 

year; 

(C) The number of schools and child 

care facilities that have refused 

sampling; 

(D) Information pertaining to outreach 

attempts for sampling that were 

declined by the school or child care 

facility; and 

(E) The analytical results for all 

schools and child care facilities sampled 

by the water system in the calendar 

year. 

(iv) Certification that sampling results 

were provided to schools, child care 

facilities, and local and State health 

departments. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(j) Reporting requirements for small 

system compliance flexibility options. 

By the applicable dates provided in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), water systems 

implementing requirements pursuant to 

§ 141.93, shall provide the following 

information to the State: 

(1) Small water systems and nontransient, non-community water 

systems implementing the point-of-use 

device option under § 141.93(a)(3), shall 

report the results from the tap sampling 

required under § 141.93 no later than 10 

days after the end of the tap sampling 

monitoring period. If the trigger level is 

exceeded, the water system must reach 

out to the homeowner and/or building 

management within 24 hours of 

receiving the tap sample results. The 

corrective action must be completed 

within 30 days. If the corrective action 

is not completed within 30 days, the 

system must provide documentation to 

the State within 30 days explaining why 

it was unable to correct the issue. Water 

systems selecting the point-of-use 

device option under § 141.93(a)(3) shall 

provide documentation to certify 

maintenance of the point-of-use devices 

unless the State waives the requirement 

of this paragraph (j)(1). 

(2) Small community water systems 

and non-transient, non-community 

water systems implementing the small 

system compliance flexibility option to 

replace all lead-bearing plumbing under 

§ 141.93(a)(4) must provide certification 

to the State that all lead-bearing material 

has been replaced on the schedule 

established by the State, within one year 

of designation of the option under 

§ 141.93(a)(4). 

■ 15. Revise § 141.91 to read as follows: 

§ 141.91 Recordkeeping requirements. 

Any system subject to the 

requirements of this subpart shall retain 

on its premises original records of all 

sampling data and analyses, reports, 

surveys, letters, evaluations, schedules, 

State determinations, and any other 

information required by §§ 141.81 

through 141.88, 141.90, 141.92, and 

141.93. Each water system shall retain 

the records required by this section for 

no fewer than 12 years. 

■ 16. Add § 141.92 to read as follows: 

§ 141.92 Monitoring for lead in schools 

and child care facilities. 

All community water systems must 

conduct directed public education and 

lead monitoring at the schools and child 

care facilities they serve if those schools 

or child care facilities were constructed 

prior to January 1, 2014 or the date the 

State adopted standards that meet the 

definition of lead free in accordance 

with Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, as amended by the 

Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water 

Act, whichever is earlier. Water systems 

must conduct lead sampling at 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities they serve once and on request 

of the facility thereafter. Water systems 

shall also conduct lead sampling at 

secondary schools they serve on request. 

The provisions of this section do not 

apply to a school or child care facility 

that is regulated as a public water 

system. The provisions in paragraph (a) 

of this section apply until a water 

system samples all the elementary 

schools and child care facilities they 

serve once as specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section. Thereafter, water 

systems shall follow the provisions as 

specified in paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(a) Public education to schools and 

child care facilities. (1) By the 

compliance date specified in 

§ 141.80(a)(3), each water system must 

compile a list of schools and child care 

facilities served by the system. 

(2) Each water system must contact 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities identified by the system in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section to 

provide: 

(i) Information about health risks from 

lead in drinking water on at least an 

annual basis consistent with the 

requirements of § 141.85(a); 

(ii) Notification that the water system 

is required to sample for lead at 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities, including: 

(A) A proposed schedule for sampling 

at the facility; 

(B) Information about sampling for 

lead in schools and child care facilities 

(EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in 

Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA–815–B– 

18–007 or subsequent EPA guidance); 

and 

(C) Instructions for identifying outlets 

for sampling and preparing for a 

sampling event 30 days prior to the 

event. 

(3) The water system must include 

documentation in accordance with 

§ 141.90(i) if an elementary school or 

child care facility is non-responsive or 

otherwise declines to participate in the 

monitoring or education requirements of 

this section. For the purposes of this 

section, a school or child care facility is 

non-responsive after the water system 

makes at least two separate good faith 

attempts to contact the facility to 

schedule sampling with no response. 

(4) The water system must contact all 

secondary schools in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section on at least an annual basis 

to provide information on health risks 

from lead in drinking water and how to 

request lead sampling as specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

(b) Lead sampling in schools and 

child care facilities. (1) Five samples per 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4307 

school and two samples per child care 

facility at outlets typically used for 

consumption shall be collected. Except 

as provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (vi) of this section, the outlets 

shall not have point-of-use (POU) 

devices. The water system shall sample 

at the following locations: 

(i) For schools: two drinking water 

fountains, one kitchen faucet used for 

food or drink preparation, one 

classroom faucet or other outlet used for 

drinking, and one nurse’s office faucet, 

as available. 

(ii) For child care facilities: one 

drinking water fountain and one of 

either a kitchen faucet used for 

preparation of food or drink or one 

classroom faucet or other outlet used for 

drinking. 

(iii) If any facility has fewer than the 

required number of outlets, the water 

system must sample all outlets used for 

consumption. 

(iv) The water system may sample at 

outlets with POU devices if the facility 

has POU devices installed on all outlets 

typically used for consumption. 

(v) If any facility does not contain the 

type of faucet listed above, the water 

system shall collect a sample from 

another outlet typically used for 

consumption as identified by the 

facility. 

(vi) Water systems must collect the 

samples from the cold water tap subject 

to the following additional 

requirements: 

(A) Each sample for lead shall be a 

first draw sample; 

(B) The sample must be 250 ml in 

volume; 

(C) The water must have remained 

stationary in the plumbing system of the 

sampling site (building) for at least 8 but 

no more than 18 hours; and 

(D) Samples must be analyzed using 

acidification and the corresponding 

analytical methods in § 141.89. 

(2) The water system, school or child 

care facility, or other appropriately 

trained individual may collect samples 

in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(c) Frequency of sampling at 

elementary schools and child care 

facilities. (1) Water systems shall collect 

samples from at least 20 percent of 

elementary schools served by the system 

and 20 percent of child care facilities 

served by the system per year, or 

according to a schedule approved by the 

State, until all schools and child care 

facilities identified under paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section have been sampled 

or have declined to participate. For the 

purposes of this section, a water system 

may count a refusal or non-response 

from an elementary school or child care 

facility as part of the minimum 20 

percent per year. 

(2) All elementary schools and child 

care facilities must be sampled at least 

once in the five years following the 

compliance date in § 141.80(a)(3). 

(3) After a water system has 

completed one required cycle of 

sampling in all elementary schools and 

child care facilities, a water system must 

sample at the request of an elementary 

school or child care facility in 

accordance with paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(4) A water system must sample at the 

request of a secondary school as 

specified in paragraph (g) of this 

section. If a water system receives 

requests from more than 20 percent of 

secondary schools identified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section in any of 

the five years following the compliance 

date in § 141.80(a)(3), the water system 

may schedule the requests that exceed 

20 percent for the following year and is 

not required to sample an individual 

secondary school more than once in the 

five year period. 

(d) Alternative school and child care 

lead sampling programs. (1) If 

mandatory sampling for lead in drinking 

water is conducted for schools and child 

care facilities served by a community 

water system due to State or local law 

or program, the State may exempt the 

water system from the requirements of 

this section by issuing a written waiver: 

(i) If the sampling is consistent with 

the requirements in paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section; or 

(ii) If the sampling is consistent with 

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (vi) and (c) of this section and 

it is coupled with any of the following 

remediation actions: 

(A) Disconnection of affected fixtures; 

(B) Replacement of affected fixtures 

with fixtures certified as lead free; and 

(C) Installation of POU devices; or 

(iii) If the sampling is conducted in 

schools and child care facilities served 

by the system less frequently than once 

every five years and it is coupled with 

any of the remediation actions specified 

in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section; or 

(iv) If the sampling is conducted 

under a grant awarded under Section 

1464(d) of the SDWA, consistent with 

the requirements of the grant. 

(2) The duration of the waiver may 

not exceed the time period covered by 

the mandatory or voluntary sampling 

and will automatically expire at the end 

of any 12-month period during which 

sampling is not conducted at the 

required number of schools or child care 

facilities. 

(3) The State may issue a partial 

waiver to the water system if the 

sampling covers only a subset of the 

schools or child care facilities served by 

the system as designated under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(4) The State may issue a written 

waiver applicable to more than one 

system (e.g., one waiver for all systems 

subject to a statewide sampling program 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of this section). 

(e) Confirmation or revision of schools 

and child care facilities in inventory. A 

water system shall either confirm that 

there have been no changes to its list of 

schools and child care facilities served 

by the system developed pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or 

submit a revised list at least once every 

five years. 

(f) Notification of results. (1) A water 

system must provide analytical results 

as soon as practicable but no later than 

30 days after receipt of the results to the 

school or child care facility, along with 

information about remediation options. 

(2) A water system must provide 

analytical results annually to: 

(i) The local and State health 

department; and 

(ii) The State in accordance with 

§ 141.90(i). 

(g) Lead sampling in schools and 

child care facilities on request. (1) A 

water system must contact schools and 

child care facilities identified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section on at 

least an annual basis to provide: 

(i) Information about health risks from 

lead in drinking water; 

(ii) Information about how to request 

sampling for lead at the facility; and 

(iii) Information about sampling for 

lead in schools and child care facilities 

(EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in 

Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA–815–B– 

18–007, or subsequent EPA guidance). 

(2) A water system must conduct 

sampling as specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section when requested by the 

facility and provide: 

(i) Instructions for identifying outlets 

for sampling and preparing for a 

sampling event at least 30 days prior to 

the event; and 

(ii) Results as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(3) If a water system receives requests 

from more than 20 percent of the 

schools and child care facilities 

identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section in a given year, the water system 

may schedule sampling for those that 

exceed 20 percent for the following 

year. A water system is not required to 

sample an individual school or child 

care facility more than once every five 

years. 

(4) If voluntary sampling for lead in 

drinking water is conducted for schools 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4308 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and child care facilities served by a 

community water system that meets the 

requirements of this section, the State 

may exempt the water system from the 

requirements of this section by issuing 

a written waiver in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

■ 17. Add § 141.93 to read as follows: 

§ 141.93 Small water system compliance 

flexibility. 

The compliance alternatives 

described in this section apply to small 

community water systems serving 

10,000 or fewer persons and all nontransient, non-community water 

systems. Small community water 

systems and non-transient, noncommunity water systems with 

corrosion control treatment in place 

must continue to operate and maintain 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

until the State determines, in writing, 

that it is no longer necessary, and meet 

any requirements that the State 

determines to be appropriate before 

implementing a State approved 

compliance option described in this 

section. 

(a) A small community water system 

and non-transient, non-community 

water systems that exceeds the lead 

trigger level but does not exceed the 

lead and copper action levels must 

collect water quality parameters in 

accordance with § 141.87(b) and 

evaluate compliance options in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section and make a compliance option 

recommendation to the State within six 

months of the end of the tap sampling 

period in which the exceedance 

occurred. The State must approve the 

recommendation or designate an 

alternative from compliance options in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section within six months of the 

recommendation by the water system. If 

the water system subsequently exceeds 

the lead action level it must implement 

the approved compliance option as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Water systems must select from 

the following compliance options: 

(1) Lead service line replacement. A 

water system must implement a full 

lead service line replacement program 

on a schedule approved by the State but 

not to exceed 15 years. A water system 

must begin lead service line 

replacement within one year after the 

State’s approval or designation of the 

compliance option. 

(i) Lead service line replacement must 

be conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of § 141.84(e) and (g)(4), 

(8), and (9). 

(ii) A water system must continue 

lead service line replacement even if the 

system’s 90th percentile lead level is at 

or below the action level in future tap 

sampling monitoring periods. 

(iii) A water system must have no lead 

service lines, galvanized service lines 

requiring replacement, or ‘‘Lead status 

unknown’’ service lines in its inventory 

by the end of its lead service line 

replacement program. 

(2) Corrosion control treatment. A 

water system must install and maintain 

optimal corrosion control treatment in 

accordance with §§ 141.81 and 141.82, 

even if its 90th percentile is at or below 

the action level in future tap sampling 

monitoring periods. Any water system 

that has corrosion control treatment 

installed must re-optimize its corrosion 

control treatment in accordance with 

§ 141.81(d). Water systems required by 

the State to optimize or re-optimize 

corrosion control treatment must follow 

the schedules in § 141.81(d) or (e), 

beginning with Step 3 in paragraph 

(d)(3) or (e)(3) of § 141.81 unless the 

State specifies optimal corrosion control 

treatment pursuant to either 

§ 141.81(d)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(i) or (ii), as 

applicable. 

(3) Point-of-use devices. A water 

system must install, maintain, and 

monitor POU devices in each household 

or building even if its 90th percentile is 

at or below the action level in future tap 

sampling monitoring periods. 

(i)(A) A community water system 

must install a minimum of one POU 

device (at one tap) in every household 

and at every tap that is used for cooking 

and/or drinking in every non-residential 

building in its distribution system on a 

schedule specified by the State, but not 

to exceed one year. 

(B) A non-transient, non-community 

water system must provide a POU 

device to every tap that is used for 

cooking and/or drinking on a schedule 

specified by the State, but not to exceed 

three months. 

(ii) The POU device must be 

independently certified by a third party 

to meet the American National 

Standards Institute standard applicable 

to the specific type of POU unit to 

reduce lead in drinking water. 

(iii) The POU device must be 

maintained by the water system 

according to manufacturer’s 

recommendations to ensure continued 

effective filtration, including but not 

limited to changing filter cartridges and 

resolving any operational issues. POU 

device must be equipped with 

mechanical warnings to ensure that 

customers are automatically notified of 

operational problems. The water system 

shall provide documentation to the state 

to certify maintenance of the point-ofuse devices, unless the state waives this 

requirement, in accordance with 

§ 141.90(j)(1). 

(iv) The water system must monitor 

one-third of the POU devices each year 

and all POU devices must be monitored 

within a three-year cycle. First draw tap 

samples collected under this section 

must be taken after water passes through 

the POU device to assess its 

performance. Samples must be one-liter 

in volume and have had a minimum 6- 

hour stagnation time. All samples must 

be at or below the lead trigger level. The 

water systems must report the results 

from the tap sampling no later than 10 

days after the end of the tap sampling 

monitoring period in accordance with 

§ 141.90(j)(1). The system must 

document the problem and take 

corrective action at any site where the 

sample result exceeds the lead trigger 

level. If the trigger level is exceeded, the 

water system must reach out to the 

homeowner and/or building 

management no later than 24 hours of 

receiving the tap sample results. The 

corrective action must be completed 

within 30 days. If the corrective action 

is not completed within 30 days, the 

system must provide documentation to 

the State within 30 days explaining why 

it was unable to correct the issue. 

(v) The water system must provide 

public education to consumers in 

accordance with § 141.85(j) to inform 

them on proper use of POU devices to 

maximize the units’ lead level reduction 

effectiveness. 

(vi) The water system must operate 

and maintain the POU devices until the 

system receives State approval to select 

one of the other compliance flexibility 

options and implements it. 

(4) Replacement of lead-bearing 

plumbing. A water system that has 

control over all plumbing in its 

buildings, and no unknown, galvanized, 

or lead service lines, must replace all 

plumbing that is not lead free in 

accordance with Section 1417 of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended by 

the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water 

Act and any future amendments 

applicable at the time of replacement. 

The replacement of all lead-bearing 

plumbing must occur on a schedule 

established by the State but not to 

exceed one year. Water systems must 

provide certification to the State that all 

lead-bearing material has been replaced 

in accordance with § 141.90(j)(2). 

(b)(1) A water system that exceeds the 

lead action level after exceeding the 

lead trigger level but does not exceed 

the copper action level must implement 

the compliance option approved by the 

State under paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) A water system that exceeds the 

lead action level, but has not previously 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4309 

exceeded the lead trigger level, and does 

not exceed the copper action level must 

complete the provisions in paragraph (a) 

of this section and must implement the 

compliance option approved by the 

State under paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) A water system that exceeds the 

trigger level after it has implemented a 

compliance option approved by the 

State under paragraph (a) of this section, 

must complete the steps in paragraph (a) 

and if it thereafter exceeds the action 

level, it must implement the compliance 

option approved by the State under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

■ 18. Amend § 141.153 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi); 

■ b. Removing the periods at the ends of 

paragraphs (d)(4)(ix) and (x) and adding 

semicolons in their places; and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d)(4)(xi) and 

(xii). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.153 Content of the reports 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th 

percentile concentration of the most 

recent round(s) of sampling, the number 

of sampling sites exceeding the action 

level, and the range of tap sampling 

results; 

* * * * * 

(xi) The report shall include a 

statement that a service line inventory 

(including inventories consisting only of 

a statement that there are no lead 

service lines) has been prepared and 

include instructions to access the 

service line inventory; and 

(xii) The report shall notify 

consumers that complete lead tap 

sampling data are available for review 

and shall include information on how to 

access the data. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 141.154 by revising 

paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 141.154 Required additional health 

information. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) A short informational statement 

about lead in drinking water and its 

effects on children. The statement must 

include the following information: 

Lead can cause serious health 

problems, especially for pregnant 

women and young children. Lead in 

drinking water is primarily from 

materials and components associated 

with service lines and home plumbing. 

[NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for 

providing high quality drinking water 

and removing lead pipes, but cannot 

control the variety of materials used in 

plumbing components in your home. 

You share the responsibility for 

protecting yourself and your family 

from the lead in your home plumbing. 

You can take responsibility by 

identifying and removing lead materials 

within your home plumbing and taking 

steps to reduce your family’s risk. 

Before drinking tap water, flush your 

pipes for several minutes by running 

your tap, taking a shower, doing laundry 

or a load of dishes. You can also use a 

filter certified by an American National 

Standards Institute accredited certifier 

to reduce lead in drinking water. If you 

are concerned about lead in your water 

and wish to have your water tested, 

contact [NAME OF UTILITY and 

CONTACT INFORMATION]. 

Information on lead in drinking water, 

testing methods, and steps you can take 

to minimize exposure is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Amend appendix A to subpart O 

by removing the entry ‘‘Lead (ppb)’’ and 

adding the entry ‘‘Lead’’ in its place to 

read as follows: 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O OF 

PART 141—REGULATED 

CONTAMINANTS 

Contaminant 

Traditional 

MCL in 

mg/L 

To convert 

for CCR, multiply by 

MCL in CCR 

units MCLG Major sources in drinking water Health effects language 

* * * * * * * 

Lead ............. AL = .015 1000 AL = 15 0 Corrosion of 

household 

plumbing systems, Erosion of 

natural deposits..

Exposure to lead in drinking water can 

cause serious health effects in all 

age groups. Infants and children 

can have decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead exposure can 

lead to new learning and behavior 

problems or exacerbate existing 

learning and behavior problems. 

The children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy can have increased risk of 

these adverse health effects. Adults 

can have increased risks of heart 

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 21. Amend § 141.201 by adding 

paragraph (a)(3)(vi) and revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 141.201 General public notification 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 141.201—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC NOTICE

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) Exceedance of the lead action level. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) A copy of the notice must also be 

sent to the primacy agency and the 

Administrator (as applicable) in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 141.31(d). 

■ 22. Amend § 141.202 by adding 

paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Violations and other situations not listed in this 

table (e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence 

Reports), do not require notice, unless otherwise 

determined by the primacy agency. Primacy 

agencies may, at their option, also require a more 

stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of 

Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific 

violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as 

authorized under § 141.202(a) and § 141.203(a). 

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL— 

Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT— 

Treatment technique. 

§ 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form, 

manner and frequency of notice. 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC

NOTICE

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC

NOTICE—Continued 

* * * * * 

(10) Exceedance of the Action Level for lead 

as specified in § 141.80(c). 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Amend appendix A to subpart Q 

by revising the entry for ‘‘C. Lead and 

Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 

0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 mg/L)’’ to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A To Subpart Q of Part 141— 

NPDWR Violations and Other 

Situations Requiring Public Notice 1

* * * * * 

Contaminant 

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations 

Tier of 

public notice 

required 

Citation Tier of 

public notice 

required 

Citation 

* * * * * * * 

C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, 

for copper is 1.3 mg/L).

1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT) ..................................................... 2 141.80 (except 141.80(c))– 

141.84, 141.85(a)–(c) and 

(h), and 141.93.

3 141.86–141.90 

2. Exceedance of the Action Level for lead ................................. 1 141.80(c).

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * ■ 24. Amend appendix B to subpart Q 

by revising the entry for ‘‘23. Lead’’ to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141— 

Standard Health Effects Language for 

Public Notification 

Contaminant MCLG 1

mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification 

* * * * * * * 

D. Lead and Copper Rule 

23. Lead ...... zero ............. TT 13 .......... Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects in all age groups. Infants and 

children can have decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning 

and behavior problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The children of 

women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy can have increased risk of these 

adverse health effects. Adults can have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, 

kidney or nervous system problems. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

1 MCLG—Maximum contaminant level goal. 

* * * * * 

2 MCL—Maximum contaminant level. 

* * * * * 

13 Action Level = 0.015 mg/L. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Amend § 141.401 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 141.401 Sanitary surveys for ground 

water systems. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Treatment including corrosion 

control treatment and water quality 

parameters as applicable; 

* * * * * 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

■ 26. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– 

2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

■ 27. Amend § 142.14 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) 

through (v) and (viii); 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (d)(8)(xvi); 

■ c. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (d)(8)(xvii) and adding ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4311 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (d)(8)(xviii) 

through (xx); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(11). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 142.14 Records kept by States. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) Section 141.82(d)—designations 

of optimal corrosion control treatment 

and any simultaneous compliance 

considerations that factored into the 

designation; 

(iv) Section 141.84(b)—lead service 

line replacement plans; 

(v) Section 141.86(a)—compliance 

sampling pools and any changes to 

sampling pools; 

* * * * * 

(viii) Section 141.84(f) and (g)— 

determinations of lead service line 

replacement goal rate and 

determinations as to whether a shorter 

replacement schedule is feasible for 

mandatory full lead service line service 

line replacement; 

* * * * * 

(xviii) Section 141.88—evaluation and 

approval of water system source water 

or treatment changes; 

(xix) Section 141.93—identification of 

small water systems and non-transient 

non-community water systems utilizing 

the compliance alternatives, and the 

compliance alternative selected by the 

water system and the compliance option 

approved by the State; and 

(xx) Section 141.84(a)—completed 

lead service line inventories and 

required updates to inventories. 

* * * * * 

(11) Records of each system’s 

currently applicable or most recently 

designated monitoring requirements. If, 

for the records identified in paragraphs 

(d)(8)(i) through (xx) of this section, no 

change is made to State determinations 

during a 12-year retention period, the 

State shall retain the record until a new 

decision, determination, or designation 

has been issued. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Amend § 142.15 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) 

introductory text, (c)(4)(i) introductory 

text, and (c)(4)(i)(A); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iii) 

introductory text and (c)(4)(iii)(A) 

through (E). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 142.15 Reports by States. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Timing. States shall report 

quarterly, in a format and on a schedule 

prescribed by the Administrator, the 

following information related to each 

system’s compliance with the treatment 

techniques for lead and copper under 40 

CFR part 141, subpart I, during the 

preceding calendar quarter. Specifically, 

States shall report as follows: 

(i) States shall report the name and 

PWS identification number: 

(A) Each public water system which 

exceeded the lead and copper action 

levels and the date upon which the 

exceedance occurred; 

* * * * * 

(iii) States shall report the PWS 

identification number of each public 

water system identified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section. 

(A) For each public water system, 

regardless of size, all 90th percentile 

lead levels calculated during each tap 

sampling period specified in § 141.86 of 

this chapter, and the first and last days 

of the tap sampling period for which the 

90th percentile lead level was 

calculated; 

(B) For each public water system 

(regardless of size), the 90th percentile 

copper level calculated during each 

monitoring period in which the system 

exceeds the copper action level, and the 

first and last days of each monitoring 

period in which an exceedance 

occurred; 

(C) For each public water system for 

which the State has designated optimal 

water quality parameters under 

§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the 

State has deemed to have optimized 

corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(1) or 

(3) of this chapter, the date of the 

determination and the paragraph(s) 

under which the State made its 

determination, the corrosion control 

treatment status of the water system, 

and the water system’s optimal water 

quality parameters; 

(D) For each public water system, the 

number of lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, and lead status unknown 

service lines in its distribution system, 

reported separately; 

(E) For each public water system 

required to begin replacing lead service 

lines after a lead trigger level or action 

level exceedance, as specified in 

§ 141.84 of this chapter, the goal or 

mandatory replacement rate, and the 

date each system must begin 

replacement; and 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Amend § 142.16 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through 

(10); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (o)(2)(i)(B). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Treatment, including corrosion 

control treatment and water quality 

parameters as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Section 141.84—Providing or 

requiring the review of any resource, 

information, or identification method 

for the development of the initial 

inventory or inventory updates. 

Requiring water systems whose 

inventories contain only non-lead 

service lines and the water system 

subsequently finds a lead service line to 

prepare an updated inventory on a 

schedule determined by the State. 

(6) Section 141.84—For community 

water systems serving greater than 

10,000 persons, approving the lead 

service line replacement goal rate as 

recommended by the water system in its 

lead service line replacement plan, or 

designating an alternative goal rate than 

recommended, within six months of the 

compliance date specified in § 141.80(a) 

of this chapter. 

(7) Section 141.84(g)(9)—Determining 

whether a greater mandatory lead 

service line replacement rate is feasible 

and notifying the system of the 

determination in writing within 6 

months after the system is required to 

begin lead service line replacement 

(LSLR). 

(8) Section 141.92—Defining a school 

or child care facility and determining 

any existing State or local testing 

program is at least as stringent as the 

Federal requirements. 

(9) Section 141.82—Verifying 

compliance with ‘‘find-and-fix’’ 

requirements. 

(10) Section 141.88—Reviewing any 

change in source water or treatment and 

making related determinations, 

including approval; establishment of 

additional requirements to ensure the 

system will operate and maintain 

optimal corrosion control treatment; and 

an evaluation of how this change may 

impact other national primary drinking 

water regulations in part 141 of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
4312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) Treatment, including corrosion 

control treatment and water quality 

parameters as applicable; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28691 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4