1950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

[FRL–6515–6]

RIN 2140–AC27

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for Lead and Copper

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is making several minor

revisions to the national primary

drinking water regulations (NPDWRs)

for lead and copper to improve

implementation. The intended effect of

this action is to eliminate unnecessary

requirements, streamline and reduce

reporting burden, and promote

consistent national implementation. The

changes promulgated in today’s action

do not affect the lead or copper

maximum contaminant level goals, the

action levels, or the basic regulatory

requirements. In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this

action also amends the table that lists

the Office of Managment and Budget

(OMB) control numbers issued under

the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and

Copper.

DATES: This final rule is effective April

11, 2000.

For judicial review purposes, this

final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m.,

eastern time on January 26, 2000, as

provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record,

including public comments on the

proposed revisions and EPA’s

responses, applicable Federal Register

notices, other major supporting

documents, and a copy of the index to

the public docket for this rulemaking,

are available for review at EPA’s Water

Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460. For access to the Docket

materials, call (202) 260–3027 between

9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for

an appointment and directions to room

EB57.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free

(800) 426–4791, or Judy Lebowich;

Standards and Risk Management

Division; Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M

Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 260–7595.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions

(LCRMR) rulemaking are public water

systems (PWSs) that are classified as

either community water systems (CWSs)

or non-transient non-community water

systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of

regulated entities

Industry ..................... Privately-owned

CWSs and

NTNCWSs.

State, Tribal, and

local governments.

Publicly-owned CWSs

and NTNCWSs.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities regulated

by the LCRMR. This table lists the types

of entities that EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by the LCRMR.

Other types of entities not listed in the

table could also be regulated. To

determine whether your facility is

regulated by the LCRMR, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in §§ 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). If you have questions regarding

the applicability of the LCRMR to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT Section.

Effective Date

Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Amendments of 1996 specifies that any

amendments to a NPDWR promulgated

under SDWA section 1412 shall take

effect on the date that is 3 years after the

date on which the regulation is

promulgated ‘‘unless the Administrator

determines that an earlier date is

practicable, except that the

Administrator, or a State (in the case of

an individual system), may allow up to

2 additional years to comply with a

maximum contaminant level or

treatment technique if the Administrator

or State (in the case of an individual

system) determines that additional time

is necessary for capital improvements.’’

Section 1445(a) of the SDWA, which

authorizes EPA to establish

recordkeeping, reporting and

monitoring requirements, does not

specifically address when such

requirements shall become effective.

The Agency’s authority to establish

effective dates for requirements under

this provision, therefore, is governed by

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an

Agency publish a final rule in the

Federal Register not less than 30 days

before its effective date, although an

earlier effective date can be established

under certain circumstances.

The Agency believes that a delay of

three years is not necessary, or

appropriate. The revisions in today’s

action are effective April 11, 2000. Until

today’s action takes effect, the existing

requirements of the NPDWRs for Lead

and Copper, and applicable State

requirements, remain in effect and are

enforceable.

As noted above, section 1412(b)(10)

provides the Agency with flexibility to

establish an effective date for a NPDWR

earlier than 3 years after promulgation

where ‘‘practicable’’. In addition, under

section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility

to establish an effective date for

recordkeeping, reporting, and

monitoring requirements any time not

shorter than 30 days after promulgation.

EPA is promulgating the recordkeeping,

reporting, and monitoring requirements

under both sections 1445 and 1412 of

the SDWA, and the remainder of the

rule under section 1412. EPA believes

that a 90-day effective date is

appropriate under both of these

provisions. For purposes of its effective

date under section 1412, EPA believes it

is practicable for systems to implement

the revised rule requirements in today’s

rule in 90 days. First, the revisions to

the existing regulation are minor and

generally do not require any installation

of new or different treatment by PWSs.

Second, this rule in many respects

streamlines existing requirements and

some of the benefits of the regulation

will not be realized if implementation

were to be delayed for three years.

Because the effective date is well in

advance of the deadline for State

adoption of these revised regulations,

EPA will take steps to enter into a

cooperative agreement with the States to

ensure that the primacy States (rather

than EPA) continue to be the lead entity

implementing these new requirements.

Although EPA will enforce the new

regulations until States get primacy for

the revised regulations, States will share

information with EPA about water

system compliance with the new

requirements.

More Stringent State Provisions

For water systems in those States that

have primary enforcement

responsibility for the 1991 Lead and

Copper Rule (LCR), State program

requirements that are more stringent

than revisions in today’s rule will

continue to govern until the primacy

State incorporates these revisions into

its approved Primacy program. As

discussed in the next section, States

have two years, from the date of

promulgation, to revise their Primacy

program to incorporate the revisions in

today’s rule, unless they qualify for an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1951

extension. Table 1 identifies which

provisions in today’s rule, which are

less stringent than the 1991 LCR and

which, therefore, must be adopted into

the primacy State’s regulations before

they can be implemented by water

systems within the State’s jurisdiction.

Water systems, therefore, should check

with their Primacy Agency before

implementing any of these less stringent

provisions.

TABLE 1.—LCRMR PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION

CFR Section Revision

141.81 .................... Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i).

141.82 .................... Compliance determinations under § 141.82(g).

141.85 .................... All revisions to section.

141.86 .................... Following revisions:

• Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample sites

(formerly under § 141.86(a)(9));

• NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw sites under §§ 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5);

• Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior to analysis under § 141.86(b)(2);

• Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for reduced monitoring under §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii);

• Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper tap monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(iv);

• Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap under § 141.86(d)(4)(v);

• Sample invalidation under § 141.86(f); and

• Monitoring waivers under § 141.86(g).

141.87 .................... All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section.

141.88 .................... Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum permissible source water levels.

141.89 .................... All revisions to section.

141.90 .................... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4), 141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).

Primacy State Program Revisions

States with primary enforcement

responsibility (‘‘primacy’’) under 40

CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and

submit to EPA for approval, a primacy

program revision to incorporate all new

and revised EPA regulations into their

approved primacy program. As a

condition of primacy, a State is required

to adopt, a State rule that is no less

stringent than EPA’s regulations. Table

2 identifies those provisions in today’s

action that States must adopt to retain

primacy. The requirements States must

meet to receive primacy are listed in

§ 142.10 and requirements to revise an

approved primacy program are in

§ 142.12. Special primacy requirements

unique to specific regulations are in

§ 142.16.

On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its

State primacy regulations at 40 CFR

142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In

accordance with these regulations,

States must adopt the LCRMR by

January 14, 2002; however, under

certain circumstances States may

receive an extension of up to two years.

These State primacy regulations also

incorporate the new process identified

in the 1996 SDWA amendments for

granting primary enforcement authority

to States while their applications to

modify their primacy programs are

under review. The new process grants

interim primary enforcement authority

for a new or revised regulation during

the period in which EPA is making a

determination with regard to primacy

for that new or revised regulation. This

interim enforcement authority begins on

the date of the primacy application

submission or the effective date of the

new or revised State regulation,

whichever is later, and ends when EPA

makes a final determination. However,

this interim primacy authority is only

available to a State whose existing

approved primacy program is current

with respect to every existing NPDWR

in effect when the new regulation is

promulgated. As a result, States that

have primacy for every existing NPDWR

already in effect may obtain interim

primacy for this rule, beginning on the

date that the State submits its complete

and final application for primacy for

this rule to EPA, or the effective date of

its revised regulations, whichever is

later. In addition, a State which wishes

to obtain interim primacy for future

NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this

rule.

TABLE 2.—LCRM PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIMACY

CFR Section Revision

141.81 .................... All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i).

141.82 .................... All revisions to section except compliance determinations under § 141.82(g).

141.84 .................... All revisions to section.

141.86 .................... Following revisions:

• Requirement to use representative sites under §§ 141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2, or 3

sites;

• Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative and that States may specify sampling locations for reduced monitoring under § 141.86(c); and

• Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or additional of a new source for sysems on reduced monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(vii).

141.88 .................... Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State allows compositing

141.90 .................... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).

1952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions

Used in This Document

A. Background

1. Reason for this rulemaking

2. Overview of public comments received

3. Impacts on costs and benefits

B. Continued exclusion of transient noncommunity water systems

1. Overview and summary of Agency

position

2. Detailed discussion of rationale

a. Background

b. Occurrence and exposure at transient

systems

c. Health effects of lead

d. Objections to the exclusion

C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, requirements for

public water systems

1. Revisions to § 141.81

a. Clarification of the requirement to install

and maintain operation of optimal

corrosion control

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

b. Water systems deemed to be optimized

pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

c. Water systems deemed to have

optimized corrosion control under

§ 141.81(b)(3)

(i) Copper action level requirements

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

(iii) State discretion to impose additional

requirements

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion

control

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

(v) Difference between source water lead

concentrations and 90th percentile lead

levels

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

2. Revisions to § 141.82

a. Clarification of requirement to operate

and maintain optimal corrosion control

b. Excursions from State-designated

optimal water quality parameter ranges

or values

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

3. Revisions to § 141.84

a. Proposed revision and background

b. Comments and analysis

(i) Definition of ‘‘control’’

(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable

presumption

(iii) Possible adverse health effects

associated with partial LSL replacement

(iv) Resident notification of partial LSL

replacement

(v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling

results to the State

(vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement

(vii) Other LSL comments

c. Today’s action

4. Revisions to § 141.85

a. Changes affecting content of written

materials

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

b. Public education delivery requirements

(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

(ii) Timing and method of distribution

(A) Proposed revision and background

(B) Comments and analysis

(C) Today’s action

c. Schedule for reporting completion of

public education tasks

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

5. Revisions to § 141.86

a. Systems with an insufficient number of

tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

b. Elimination of justification letters for use

of non-tier 1 sample sites and

insufficient lead service line sample sites

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to

provide first-draw samples

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

d. Minimum holding time for acidified

lead and copper samples prior to

analysis

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

e. Selection of sample sites under reduced

monitoring

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action f. State determination

of eligibility for reduced monitoring

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

g. Timing of sample collection under

reduced monitoring

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold

(B) Usefulness of proposed provision

(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for

only one contaminant

(D) Monitoring less frequently than

triennially

(E) Prior State approval

(iii) Today’s action

i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and

copper tap water monitoring

j. Requirements for systems subject to

reduced monitoring that change

treatment or source water

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

k. Sample invalidation

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

l. Monitoring waivers for small systems

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(A) Materials specification

(B) Monitoring issues

(C) Changes potentially affecting

monitoring waivers

(D) Waiver renewals

(E) Partial waivers

(F) Pre-existing waivers

(iii) Today’s action

6. Revisions to § 141.87

a. Monitoring for optimal water quality

parameters

b. Use of representative sites for entry

point water quality parameter

monitoring at ground water systems

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for

water quality parameters at the tap

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

d. Summary of water quality monitoring

requirements

7. Revisions to § 141.88

a. Resampling triggers for composite source

water samples

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

b. Reduced source water monitoring for

systems without State-designated

maximum permissible source water

levels

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

8. Revisions to laboratory certification

requirements in § 141.89

a. Proposed revision and background

b. Comments and analysis

c. Today’s action

9. Revisions to system reporting

requirements in § 141.90

a. Timing of reporting of tap water

monitoring for lead and copper and

water quality parameter monitoring

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

b. Elimination of certification requirements

pertaining to first-draw samples

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

(iii) Today’s action

c. State calculation/reporting of 90th

percentile levels

(i) Proposed revision and background

(ii) Comments and analysis

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1953

(iii) Today’s action

10. Revisions to § 141.43

D. Revisions to requirements for States

1. Records kept by States

2. Reporting requirements for States

a. Proposed revision and background

b. Comments and analysis

c. Today’s action

3. Special primacy considerations

E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted

1. Reduced frequency of water quality

parameter monitoring at entry points for

systems subject to water quality

parameter monitoring requirements

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background

b. Comments and analysis

2. Use of flushing/bottled water at

NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion control

treatment

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background

b. Comments and analysis

3. Requirement for water systems to justify

corrosion control methods not

recommended

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background

b. Comments and analysis

4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to

assess corrosion control effectiveness

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background

b. Comments and analysis

5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of

90th percentile and milestone data

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background

b. Comments and analysis

F. Simultaneous compliance comments

1. Request for comments and background

2. Comments and analysis

3. Today’s action

G. Administrative requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

3. Paperwork Reduction Act

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

5. Executive Orders on Federalism

6. Consultation with Indian tribal

governments

7. Risk to children analysis

8. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

9. Likely effect of compliance with the

LCRMR on the technical, financial, and

managerial capacity of public water

systems

10. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

H. References

List of Tables

Table 1—LCRMR provisions requiring State

adoption prior to implementation

Table 2—LCRMR provisions requiring State

adoption to maintain primacy

Table 3—Summary of monitoring

requirements for water quality

parameters

Table 4—Summary of changes to system

reporting requirements

Table 5—Net Effect of LCRMR on Average

Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting

Burden and Cost

Glossary of Abbreviations and

Definitions Used in This Document

The following definitions are

presented to assist the reader in

understanding acronyms and other

short-hand phrases used in the

preamble.

(b)(1) System: A small or medium-size

water system that is deemed to have

optimized corrosion control pursuant to

40 CFR 141.81(b)(1).

(b)(2) System: A water system that is

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2).

(b)(3) System: A water system that is

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(3).

μg/D: Micrograms per day.

μg/L: Micrograms per liter.

1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant

Level Goals and National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations for Lead

and Copper as promulgated on June 7,

1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently

modified by technical amendments

published on July 15, 1991 (56 FR

32113), June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28786) and

June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860).

90th Percentile Value: The

concentration of lead or copper in tap

water exceeded by 10 percent of the

sites sampled during a monitoring

period.

Action Level: The 90th percentile

value for lead or copper in water that

determines, in some cases, whether a

water system must install corrosion

control treatment, monitor source water,

replace lead service lines, and

undertake a public education program.

April 1996 Proposal: Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (61 FR

16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public

comments on proposed minor revisions

to the 1991 Rule.

April 1998 Notice: Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR

20038, April 22, 1998) containing

additional data and regulatory options

relating to the April 1996 Proposal and

requesting public comment on these

new data and options.

August 1998 Notice: Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR

44214, August 18, 1998) requesting

public comment on a refinement of a

regulatory option discussed in the April

1998 Notice.

ASDWA: Association of State

Drinking Water Administrators.

AWWA: American Water Works

Association.

CCT: Corrosion control treatment.

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.

CWS: Community Water System.

DDBP: National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations—Disinfectants and

Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63

FR 69389, Dec. 16, 1998).

DSC: Data Sharing Committee.

EPA: Environmental Protection

Agency.

Excursion: A ‘‘daily value’’

(calculated pursuant to § 141.82(g)) for a

water quality parameter at a sampling

location that is below the minimum

value or outside the range of values

designated by the State under § 141.82(f)

as representing optimal corrosion

control for the water system.

FDA: Food and Drug Administration.

FR: Federal Register.

IESWTR: National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations—Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63

FR 69477, Dec. 16, 1998).

Large System: For purposes of the

Lead and Copper Rule only, a water

system serving more than 50,000

people.

LCR: Lead and Copper Rule.

LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor

Revisions.

LSL: Lead service line.

MCLG: Maximum contaminant level

goal.

MDL: Method Detection Limit.

Medium-Size System: For purposes of

the Lead and Copper Rule only, a water

system serving from 3,301 to 50,000

people.

mg/L: Milligrams per liter.

NAS: National Academy of Sciences.

NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations.

NRDC: National Resources Defense

Council.

NSF: National Sanitation Foundation.

NTNCWS: Non-transient noncommunity water system.

OCCT: Optimal corrosion control

treatment.

OMB: Office of Management and

Budget.

OWQP: Optimal water quality

parameter.

PE: Performance evaluation.

pH: Negative logarithm of the

effective hydrogen-ion concentration.

Phase I Rule: National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic

Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for

Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule

(52 FR 25690, Jul. 8, 1987).

Phase II Rule: National Revised

Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

Synthetic Organic Chemicals and

Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for

Unregulated Contaminants; National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations

Implementation; National Secondary

1954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1This issue was one of several issues included in

legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule

brought by the American Water Works Association

(AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC). (American Water Works

Association, et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir.,

1994).

Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR

3526, Jan. 30, 1991).

Phase V Rule: National Primary and

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;

Synthetic Organic Chemicals and

Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule (57, FR

31776, Jul. 17, 1992).

ppb: Part per billion.

PQL: Practical quantitation level.

PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act.

PWS: Public water system.

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act.

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act.

SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water

Information System.

Small System: For purposes of the

Lead and Copper Rule only, a water

system serving 3,300 or fewer people.

TNCWS: Transient non-community

water system.

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act.

WQP: Water quality parameter.

A. Background

1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA

promulgated maximum contaminant

level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for

lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460,

June 7, 1991). The goal of the LCR is to

provide maximum human health

protection by reducing lead and copper

levels at consumers’ taps to as close to

the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish

this goal, the LCR establishes

requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs.

These systems must conduct periodic

monitoring and optimize corrosion

control. In addition, these systems must

perform public education when the

level of lead at the tap exceeds the lead

action level, treat source water if it is

found to contribute significantly to high

levels of lead or copper at the tap, and

replace lead service lines in the

distribution system if the level of lead

at the tap continues to exceed the lead

action level after optimal corrosion

control has been installed.

In April 1996, EPA proposed a

number of minor revisions to the LCR

(60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The

proposed revisions do not affect the lead

and copper MCLGs, action levels, or

basic regulatory requirements. EPA

proposed some of the minor revisions to

streamline and reduce regulatory

burden where such changes can be

made without jeopardizing the level of

public health protection or protection of

the environment. The Agency proposed

other minor changes to clarify

requirements and to improve the rule’s

implementation. Finally, the Agency

addressed two issues that were the

subject of a judicial remand. The April

1996 Proposal also requested comment

on several provisions for which no

specific regulatory changes were

proposed.

In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency

published, and made available for

public review and comment, new data

relating to two of the provisions

discussed in the April 1996 proposal

and several additional regulatory

options that the Agency was considering

(63 FR 20038, April 22, 1998). Finally,

in August 1998, EPA requested

additional public comment on a

refinement of one of the options

discussed in the April 1996 Notice (63

FR 44214, August 18, 1998).

2. Overview of public comments

received. EPA received approximately

900 comments from 97 commenters in

response to the April 1996 Proposal.

With the exception of the proposed

definition of ‘‘control’’ as it applies to

lead service line (LSL) replacement,

commenters generally supported the

proposed minor revisions; however,

many suggested possible refinements of

specific provisions. A few commenters

also expressed frustration that the

proposed changes were ‘‘too little’’ and

‘‘too late’’ to benefit many systems. The

Agency received comments from 30

commenters in response to the April

1998 Notice and 26 commenters

responded to the August 1998 Notice.

Most of the commenters to the 1998

Notices supported the additional

regulatory options in concept, however,

were concerned with the draft rule

language discussed.

The comments pertaining to topics

addressed in these Notices and EPA’s

response are summarized by topic in

sections B through F of this preamble.

The verbatim comments and EPA’s

responses to them are contained in

EPA’s Response to Comments on the

Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions

(EPA, 1999e).

3. Impacts on costs and benefits.

Today’s action does not affect the

treatment-related costs (e.g., capital

improvements) associated with the LCR.

The revisions affect costs associated

with the monitoring and reporting

requirements of the LCR, however, and

these estimated impacts have been

calculated as part of the Information

Collection Request (EPA, 1999a)

developed in support of today’s action.

These impacts are discussed in section

H.3. of this preamble.

As discussed in the April 1996

Proposal, the revisions in today’s action

are not expected to change the level of

public health protection resulting from

implementation of the lead and copper

regulations. The Agency therefore has

not identified any quantifiable benefits

associated with today’s action. EPA

believes there should be some nonquantifiable benefits, however, because

improved implementation should result

in some health benefits being achieved

sooner.

B. Continued Exclusion of Transient

Non-community Water Systems

1. Overview and summary of Agency

position. In the preamble to the April

1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the

Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) had challenged the rule’s

exclusion of transient non-community

water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to

as ‘‘transient systems’’) on the grounds

that persons served by these systems

may be at risk of non-carcinogenic

adverse effects. The court granted the

Agency’s request for a voluntary remand

so that the Agency could provide a more

detailed justification of this exclusion.1

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

indicated that the Agency was collecting

additional information relevant to this

issue and would make this new

information available for public review

and comment prior to the promulgation

of a final rule. EPA also requested

public comment regarding the

continued appropriateness of the

exclusion, whether modification of the

current exclusion would be appropriate

and, if so, what alternative approaches

are available for addressing those

systems. EPA included the new

information in the April 1998 Notice

and signaled its preliminary

conclusions that the new information

does not resolve significant data gaps or

present a compelling argument to

change the Agency’s policy of excluding

TNCWSs from the provisions of the

LCR.

Eighteen commenters submitted

comments on the appropriateness of the

continued exclusion in response to the

April 1996 Proposal. All of the

commenters supported the continued

exclusion. No new data were submitted;

however, most commenters cited

reasons for continuing the TNCWS

exclusion. These reasons included: the

absence of data suggesting there are

adverse health effects resulting from

short-term exposure to lead; the limited

exposure that is likely to occur at

transient systems; the potential that

subjecting transient systems to the rule’s

requirements will cause many of them

to close, with the possible unintended

consequence that consumers would

utilize other, less protected, sources of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1955

2See section C.5.l. of this preamble for a

discussion of the monitoring waiver provisions.

drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and

streams in National Forests); concern

that the rule’s monitoring and treatment

requirements were not appropriate for

transient systems; and the tremendous

added burden that would be placed on

limited State resources. EPA received 18

comments in response to the April 1998

Notice. Only one of these commenters

raised concerns with the exclusion. This

commenter recommended that

TNCWSs, except those meeting the

materials criteria for monitoring waivers

that EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be

required to monitor tap and source

water lead and copper levels at least

once every nine years. The commenter

argued that transient systems, where the

difference between the source water and

the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per

billion (ppb) lead, should not be

excluded from the Rule’s provisions. As

discussed in the following paragraph,

EPA disagrees with this commenter.

After consideration of the additional

information collected by the Agency

and the public comments received, EPA

believes that it is appropriate to retain

the current exclusion. EPA believes that

maintaining the longstanding exclusion

of transient systems from coverage of

the NPDWR for lead is warranted in

light of the de minimis risk of adverse

health effects cited by NRDC as

justification for regulating these

systems. Very high levels of lead have

clinically evident effects on the brain

(acute encephalopathy). However, the

Agency was not able to identify any

studies that demonstrate critical

neurochemical responses to short-term,

moderate lead exposures. The data on

which the Agency based its health

assessment for short term exposures to

lead came from studies by Cools et al,

(1976), Schlegel and Kufner, (1979) and

Struik, (1974) which indicate that the

most likely adverse effect of the

moderate levels of lead that might on

occasion be encountered at a TNCWS

would be temporary suppression of one

of the enzymes responsible for the

synthesis of hemoglobin, the oxygen

carrying protein in the blood. However,

the data suggest that there are no

clinical effects of the enzyme

suppression unless it continues for a

more extended exposure period than

would typically occur for persons who

drink water at transient systems such as

rest stops, motels, gas stations and

restaurants, which serve customers for

only short periods of time. Morever,

EPA does not believe that even those

persons who may drink water from

transient systems on a more continuous

basis (e.g., employees) would be at

health risk given the likely levels of lead

to which they would be exposed.

2. Detailed discussion of rationale

a. Background. A public water system

is classified as a community water

system if it has at least 15 service

connections used by year-round

residents or if it regularly serves at least

25 year-round residents. All other

public water systems are noncommunity water systems and are

considered to be either ‘‘non-transient’’

or ‘‘transient’’ depending on the number

of the same people regularly served over

6 months of the year. A non-community

water system that does not regularly

serve at least 25 of the same persons

over 6 months of the year is classified

as a transient non-community water

system. Examples of transient systems

include highway rest stops, gas stations,

and recreational facilities where fewer

than 25 of the same individuals

consume the water over an extended

period of time (i.e., at least six months

of the year). In addition, the vast

majority of people who consume water

from such systems (i.e., customers and

members of the public who are at the

facility) generally consume small

quantities over short periods of time.

EPA’s longstanding policy is to

exclude transient systems from drinking

water regulations except for those

contaminants, such as nitrate, that EPA

believes have the potential to cause

immediate adverse human health effects

resulting from short-term exposure.

These are known as ‘‘acute

contaminants’’ because the adverse

health effects may occur after limited

exposure. Other drinking water

contaminants are considered to be

‘‘chronic contaminants’’ because

adverse effects on human health

generally have been associated with

extended periods of exposure. In the

preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA

explained that the Agency does not

believe it necessary to regulate water

systems that only serve transient

populations for chronic contaminants

because exposure to these contaminants

for only brief periods of time, such as

that which occurs at transient systems,

does not pose a long-term health risk (52

FR 25695, first column). For the reasons

discussed in the following section, EPA

considers lead to be a chronic

contaminant.

b. Occurrence and exposure at

transient systems. In 1995, the

Environmental Quality Institute at the

University of North Carolina at

Asheville conducted a survey to collect

actual data on lead in drinking water

from transient systems in order to better

characterize potential exposure risks. Of

8,000 systems throughout the country

invited to receive free lead testing, 115

participated. The relatively small

number prevents conclusive analysis,

although a fairly representative range of

system types across the country is

included.

First draw (1-liter) and one-minute

purged (30 milliliters) samples were

collected at each site. The median and

average concentrations of the first draw

samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2

ppb, respectively). Approximately 12

percent of the sites (13) exceeded the

action level of 15 ppb. The average oneminute purged sample was 2.3 ppb,

with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The

purged samples had much lower

concentrations (75% lower on average)

and less variable readings than the first

draw samples. The maximum value

reported from all sampling was 229 ppb.

The flushed sample for this sampling

site had a value of 0.7 ppb, raising the

distinct possibility that the results of the

first sample may have been the result of

sampling error such as contamination of

the sample. (EPA, 1995c).

While extensive information is not

currently available, EPA believes that

the results of the University of North

Carolina survey indicate generally that

the levels of lead in transient systems

are not dissimilar to the levels found in

non-transient systems. With both

transient and non-transient systems, it

appears that the levels of lead are

associated strongly with the length of

time that the water has been standing in

household plumbing prior to use.

c. Health effects of lead. Lead is

considered a chronic contaminant that

impairs and damages the nervous

system and other systems or processes

after extended periods of exposure. Lead

toxicity is believed to be a function of

repeated exposures over time that result

in a gradual accumulation of lead in the

soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead

moves from its storage sites to the blood

resulting in adverse effects even after

exposures have diminished.

The Agency decision to exclude

TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by

toxicological data from studies in adults

which identified increased

concentrations of erythrocyte

protoporphrine and depressed activity

of aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as

the critical effects from short-term lead

exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel

and Kufner, 1979; Struik, 1974). These

effects are markers for inhibition of

heme synthesis (ATSDR, 1998;

Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid

dehydratase is the key enzyme

regulating the rate of heme synthesis

and erythrocyte protoporphrine is a

1956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

precursor to heme and, thus, a

biomarker for heme production. Heme is

the iron containing component of

hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying

pigment in red blood cells.

A study by Struik (1974)

demonstrated the effects of short-team

lead exposure on heme synthesis in

adults. Two groups of 5 women and one

group of 5 men were orally

administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in

the form of lead acetate for three weeks.

Suppression of the activity of

erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid

dehydratase became apparent by the

third day of exposure. The degree of

suppression increased until day 14 and

then remained constant for the

remainder of the study. Effects on

erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted

in the women but not the men after 2

weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels

had increased to 40 μg/dL or higher

before effects on erythrocyte

protoporphrine were noted. The effects

on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and

erythrocyte protoporphrine are

reversible and do not persist after

exposure has ceased. A short term

deficit in heme production is not

immediately manifest in a decreased

supply of red blood cells. The average

red cell remains in circulation for about

120 days and physiological controls on

their turnover insure that there is a

continuous replacement of aging and

damaged cells (Montgomery et al.,

1990). Therefore, a short term deficit in

heme production will not immediately

cause anemia or diminish the oxygen

transporting properties of the blood.

Moreover, the lead levels used in this

study were several orders of magnitude

greater than the median lead levels

observed in TNCWSs in the University

of North Carolina study (EPA, 1995c).

As discussed above, there is very

limited information that can assist in

estimating the levels of lead that may be

of concern due to short-term exposures

from drinking water. Because of the

limited data EPA does not believe that

it is possible to develop guidance at this

time. However, based on the data that

are available, from the Struik study,

EPA estimates that average, short-term,

lead exposures would have to exceed

500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb for

infants or children and would have to

persist for an extended period of time to

cause even a transient effect on the

oxygen carrying capacity of the blood

(EPA, 1998b). The value for infants is

lower than that for adults because

infants are able to absorb greater

amounts of lead from the

gastrointestinal track. In the University

of North Carolina study, the average first

draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and

the average fully flushed sample was

approximately 2 ppb. The 90th

percentile value of first draw samples

was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile

fully flushed sample was approximately

3 ppb. Taking into account the available

data regarding acute exposures to lead at

TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there is

any significant risk that exposures

through drinking water at the

concentrations monitored would result

in adverse acute health effects among

users of transient systems, including

infants and children.

d. Objections to the exclusion

As noted above, all but one

commenter during this rulemaking

supported maintaining the exclusion of

transient systems. In its comments on

the original rule—and in subsequent

litigation—NRDC argued that EPA’s

exclusion of transient systems from the

rule was both inconsistent with the

SDWA and not justified by the science.

According to NRDC, the Act mandates

that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without

exception, and therefore EPA lacks the

authority to fashion a de minimis

exclusion for transient systems. NRDC

also argued that, even if EPA had the

legal authority to exclude transient

systems, lead causes acute adverse

health effects from short-term exposure,

and that employees of transient systems

would be at risk from longer term

exposures.

EPA first disagrees that the SDWA

does not permit the Agency to fashion

an appropriate de minimis exclusion for

transient systems from regulation of

contaminants like lead. It is the

exceptional case in which an agency

does not possess such authority. In

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d

323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit

reviewed EPA’s decision to create a de

minimis exclusion under the Clean Air

Act. The court stated that, ‘‘[u]nless

Congress has been extraordinarily rigid,

there is likely a basis for an implication

of de minimis authority to provide

exemption when the burdens of

regulation yield a gain of trivial or no

value.’’ 636 F.2d at 360–361. EPA does

not believe that the SDWA falls within

the very narrow class of statutes that

precludes fashioning appropriate

exclusions for activities with de

minimis impact.

Congress has in numerous respects

accorded EPA substantial flexibility in

focusing implementation on areas of

cognizable public health risks. Indeed,

such flexibility was a theme of the most

recent comprehensive amendments to

the Act in 1996. A major impetus for

this legislation was the ‘‘need for a more

streamlined and flexible approach to

controlling drinking water

contamination consistent with

continued protection of public health.’’

House Report 104–632, 104th Cong., 2d

Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was

concerned that the 1986 amendments to

the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new

contaminants every three years, a

requirement that had ‘‘imposed

significant burdens at the State, local

and Federal level, and have led to

questions about whether the Act is

focused on the most significant risks to

public health.’’ Id. at 9. In numerous

ways, the 1996 amendments reflected

Congress’ desire for EPA to focus its

efforts taking into account risks to

public health, as well as the benefits

and costs involved in setting standards

under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section

1412(b)(1)(C) (directing EPA to

prioritize selection of contaminants for

regulation based on consideration of

those ‘‘that present the greatest public

health concern’’); sections 1412(b)(3)

and (b)(6) (directing EPA to consider

information regarding the incremental

costs and benefits in establishing

NPDWRs). While none of these

amendments addressed the precise

question of what PWSs must be covered

by NPDWRs, in light of Congress’

overall concern with encouraging

flexibility and priority-setting in the

Act’s implementation, EPA does not

believe it is logical or sensible to

conclude that Congress intended to

deprive EPA of its inherent

administrative authority to fashion

appropriate de minimis exclusions from

the Act’s requirements where negligible

risks are present. Moreover, EPA’s

policy of excluding transient systems

from NPDWRs for contaminants posing

chronic health risks has been in place

for over a decade. At no time during this

period has Congress sought to modify

EPA’s approach.

NRDC has also contended that, even

if EPA has the legal authority to create

a de minimis exclusion, EPA’s decision

was unlawful because lead does pose

non-carcinogenic adverse health effects

from short-term, acute exposures. EPA

believes that this contention is based on

misunderstandings by NRDC of several

factors. NRDC’s claim that lead is an

acute contaminant was based on

information from three reports: The

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, Drinking Water and Health

(1982), a study of lead exposure in

infants, and EPA’s recommendation

regarding lead in school drinking water

fountains. The Agency disagrees with

NRDC that these citations support

classification of lead as an acute

contaminant. The Agency’s conclusions

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1957

are discussed in the following

paragraph.

NRDC’s reference to the NAS (1982)

report on Drinking Water and Health

focused on the ‘‘maximum daily

exposure recommendations for

children’’ cited in that report. The NAS

report cites Mahaffey (1977) who

recommended that lead intake for

children less than 6 months of age

should be no more than 100 μg/day and

the intake for children between 6

months and 2 years of age should be no

more than 150 μg/day. These values

would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb,

assuming a daily water intake for

children of 1 liter per day and no

exposure from other sources. Mahaffey

(1977) concluded that water containing

50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to

infants and children when other lead

exposures were minimized. These

values were derived based on an

assumption of chronic exposure, not

short-term exposures similar to those

that would occur at a TNCWS and, thus,

are not relevant. In fact, NAS

determined that there were ‘‘no

adequate data to derive health-based

guidelines for acute exposures, i.e. a 24-

hour or a 7-day ‘Suggested No-Adverse

Response Level’.’’

In its comments on EPA’s prior

rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by

Shannon and Graef (1992) which they

claimed showed that for 15 percent of

the lead poisoned infants at one clinic,

the primary source of the lead was

infant formula made with drinking

water. This is not quite what the authors

reported. Although formula preparation

with lead-contaminated water was the

apparent cause for elevated blood lead

levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in

unboiled, ‘‘first draw’’ water was the

problem for only one case (2%).

Excessive boiling of contaminated tap

water for formula preparation was the

problem in 5 cases (10%) and use of a

leaded vessel for the heating of the

water (tap or spring) was the problem

for the other three cases (6%). In

analysis of formula samples, lead

concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb

were detected, values far greater than

the levels observed at transient

facilities. The blood lead levels of the

children exposed through formula were

similar to those children exposed

through other routes (paint chips,

household renovation), but hemoglobin

and red cell volumes were lower

indicating that the exposures had been

chronic rather than acute.

Finally, NRDC claims that the reason

that the EPA recommends that any

school drinking water outlets that are

found to have more than 20 μg/L lead

in a 250 mL sample be removed from

service is to protect against acute health

risks to young children. This is

incorrect. The Agency developed that

policy to protect children who are

exposed to lead in drinking water on a

chronic, not acute, basis.

NRDC has also argued that transient

systems should not be excluded from

regulation because frequent users of

these systems, such as employees, could

be exposed to lead in the drinking water

over an extended period of time. Such

persons could include pregnant women

and children, who are particularly

vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic

lead exposure. While such users may

consume water from the same system

repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC’s

concern that such persons can

realistically be said to be at risk of

adverse health effects from exposure to

lead. As explained in detail in EPA’s

1991 rulemaking, levels of lead at the

tap correlate with the length of time that

water has been sitting motionless in

plumbing materials containing lead. The

longer the water sits, the more likely

lead will leach from lead-bearing

plumbing materials into the water.

Typically, the highest levels of lead in

the water are contained in the first liter

from the tap after the water has been

sitting for some time. In order to have

the best understanding of the extent to

which corrosivity of the water is causing

leaching of lead, the LCR requires that

sampling be done with such ‘‘first

flush’’ water after the tap has not been

used for at least six hours. This

sampling protocol was designed to

ensure that the water system had the

benefit of the best information regarding

the extent to which water chemistry was

interacting with lead-bearing materials

to cause leaching into drinking water,

and also recognized that some users

could, under some scenarios, repeatedly

drink first flush water.

However, transient systems such as

restaurants and gas stations by their

nature would serve a large number of

persons throughout the day. The vast

majority of the users are, in fact,

‘‘transient.’’ In addition, the nature of

these facilities would mean that taps are

in fairly constant use, reducing the

likelihood of lead leaching into standing

water. Also, given the types of

populations served by transient systems,

we would anticipate that it would be

extremely unlikely that the same

persons would repeatedly be exposed to

the water that has been sitting for an

extended period of time. Data collected

by EPA regarding occurrence of lead in

transient systems suggests that even

frequent users are not at risk. Since it is

unlikely that the same persons would

repeatedly be exposed to ‘‘first flush’’

water in these systems, the vast majority

of water would consist of fully flushed

water. The median level of lead in

running water in transient systems

found by the University of North

Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7

ppb, and the average level was

approximately 2 ppb. The median first

flush level was approximately 2 ppb,

and the average level was 9 ppb, levels

below those of health concern. Thus,

information collected by EPA strongly

supports its conclusion that there are

only de minimis risks in transient

systems from exposure to lead.

Given the de minimis risks posed by

lead in these systems, EPA continues to

believe that excluding these systems

from the lead NPDWR is appropriate.

EPA believes, in fact, that including

them within the regulation could even

have the unintended effect of harming

public health. In the face of monitoring

and treatment requirements for lead,

EPA anticipates, based on the public

comments received and other anecdotal

data, that many transient systems will

opt to stop providing water rather than

to assume the extra burden of the rule’s

requirements. This would leave

consumers in the position of finding

their own alternative source of drinking

water. In some cases, the alternative

source may be less protective of public

health than the transient system. For

example, if National or State parks were

to no longer provide drinking water,

visitors may drink untreated water

directly from nearby lakes, rivers and

streams.

C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141,

Requirements for Public Water Systems

1. Revisions to § 141.81

a. Clarification of the requirement to

install and maintain operation of

optimal corrosion control. (i) Proposed

revision and background. In the April

1998 Notice, EPA requested comment

on possible revisions to the regulatory

language of § 141.81(b) and the first

sentence of § 141.82(g) to clarify that all

water systems are required to operate

and maintain optimal corrosion control

even if there are no specific Federal

requirements for the system to monitor

for water quality parameters (WQPs). As

EPA explained in that Notice, there are

several ‘‘pathways’’ by which systems

may be considered to be optimized.

Many, but not all, require that corrosion

control treatment (CCT) be physically

installed. The Agency is concerned that

some systems deemed to be optimized

pursuant to § 141.81(b) may

misinterpret the absence of specific

Federal controls in the regulatory

language as meaning that they have

1958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3As discussed in Section D.1. of this preamble,

today’s action renumbers existing paragraphs of

§ 142.14(d)(8).

license to ‘‘turn off’’ or depart from

optimal corrosion control treatment

(OCCT) between Federally-prescribed

monitoring periods.

(ii) Comments and analysis. With one

exception, commenters supported the

proposed clarification. The one

commenter who objected to the

proposed clarification argued that it is

not necessary since his State already

had established such controls. EPA

believes clarification is appropriate. The

Agency notes that while most States

have reasonable process controls in

place to assure consistent and proper

operation of CCT, some do not. EPA

believes that it is appropriate to clarify

that all systems are expected to

maintain optimal corrosion control even

if they are not subject to Federallyprescribed WQP monitoring.

Several commenters predicated their

support on the presumption that States

would retain flexibility to determine the

specific nature of the process controls

for (b)(1) and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees

that such flexibility is appropriate.

Today’s action, therefore, does not

prescribe specific operating

requirements for water systems to meet

the criteria of § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3).

A few commenters expressed concern

that the proposed language changes

would preclude a (b)(1) or a (b)(3)

system from ever changing its treatment

once it has been deemed to be

optimized. EPA recognizes that water

systems need to make treatment

changes, on occasion, to react to

changing circumstances (e.g., new

requirements, changes in source water

quality, and changes in the distribution

system). Nothing in today’s action is

intended to prevent a State from

approving treatment changes when they

are warranted and appropriate. Rather,

the intent of today’s action is to ensure

that any such treatment changes are

consistent with the Rule’s goal of

minimizing levels of lead and copper at

the tap to the maximum extent

practicable. The Agency believes the

phrase ‘‘and meet any requirements that

the State determines appropriate to

ensure such treatment is maintained’’

provides States sufficient flexibility to

approve appropriate treatment changes

that may be warranted by emerging

conditions at the water system.

One commenter requested that EPA

clarify in the rule language that (b)(2)

systems are not required to have CCT

physically present. EPA disagrees that

this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2)

applies only to those water systems that

completed corrosion control steps

equivalent to those specified in

§ 141.81(d) or (e) before the effective

date of the LCR. The Agency’s intent is

to relieve such systems of the need to

repeat those steps merely to comply

with the Rule’s milestones. Assuming a

water system had completed an

equivalent corrosion control study and

installed appropriate CCT prior to the

effective date of the Rule, EPA believes

the Rule is clear that additional

treatment may not be warranted if the

State believes the system’s CCT already

is optimized. For large water systems,

§ 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the

need to have any CCT in place, unless

the water system can demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the State that such

treatment will have no effect on

reducing the levels of lead and copper

at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and

copper action levels is not a sufficient

test for large systems since the Rule

requires these systems to reduce

corrosion to the maximum extent

possible to be considered optimized.

EPA expects few, if any, large water

systems can make this demonstration

without CCT.

(iii) Today’s action. After considering

the comments received, the Agency has

decided to promulgate the revisions to

§ 141.81(b) and the first sentence of

§ 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory

text of § 141.81(b) has been revised to

read: ‘‘A system is deemed to have

optimized corrosion control and is not

required to complete the applicable

corrosion control treatment steps

identified in this section if the system

satisfies one of the criteria specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section. Any such system deemed to

have optimized corrosion control under

this paragraph, and which has treatment

in place, shall continue to operate and

maintain optimal corrosion control

treatment and meet any requirements

that the State determines appropriate to

ensure optimal corrosion control

treatment is maintained.’’ The first

sentence (following the paragraph title)

of § 141.82(g) has been revised to read:

‘‘All systems that have installed

treatment optimizing corrosion control

shall continue to operate and maintain

optimal corrosion control treatment,

including maintaining water quality

parameters at or above minimum values

or within ranges designated by the State

under paragraph (f) of this section, in

accordance with this paragraph for all

samples collected under §§ 141.87(d)–

(f).’’

This revision necessitates a change to

the State recordkeeping requirements in

Part 142. A requirement has been added

as a new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) 3 to require

States to retain records of any

conditions imposed by the State on

specific water systems deemed to be

optimized under § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3)

to ensure the continued operation and

maintenance of treatment in place.

These wording changes make clear

the Agency’s intent in the 1991 Rule

that all systems operate and maintain

optimal corrosion control. They do not

add any new requirements.

b. Water systems deemed to be

optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2).

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

requested comment on a regulatory

option that would result in minor

wording changes to the language of

§ 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that systems

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to that paragraph are

required to continue WQP monitoring

after State designation of optimal water

quality parameters (OWQPs). The

Agency proposed this change to

eliminate possible confusion about

monitoring requirements after the

installation of CCT for these systems.

(ii) Comments and analysis. EPA

received several comments on the

proposed clarification. None of the

commenters opposed the proposed

revision, however, one commenter

raised concerns about how the

requirement would be applied in those

instances where no treatment is

installed. The commenter also noted

that the requirement to monitor WQPs

at every entry point could be onerous at

such a system, particularly if it were a

ground water system with many wells.

EPA developed the § 141.81(b)(2)

optimization criteria to address those

water systems that had both completed

a corrosion control study comparable to

that required by the LCR and installed

an appropriate CCT process prior to the

Rule’s schedule. To be comparable, the

study would have had to include an

evaluation of the three corrosion control

options—pH and alkalinity adjustment,

calcium hardness adjustment, and

inhibitor addition. This study also

would have had to use some of the

testing methods specified in the Rule to

evaluate the options. EPA believes that

studies that meet the § 141.81(b)(2)

requirements would indicate that the

installation of a CCT process was

warranted and that it is therefore

appropriate to require (b)(2) systems

deemed to be optimized pursuant to

§ 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated

OWQPs.

EPA recognizes that it may not be

necessary to install treatment at every

entry point, however, especially at

ground water systems. As discussed in

section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1959

is making a change to § 141.87(c)(3) that

will allow ground water systems to limit

entry point WQP sampling to those

entry points that are representative of

water quality and CCT throughout the

system. This provision means that a

ground water system deemed to be

optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)

may be able to reduce—but not

eliminate entirely—the number of entry

point WQP samples that must be

collected.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA therefore is

revising § 141.81(b)(2), as proposed, by

inserting a sentence after the second

sentence in § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify

WQP monitoring requirements for

systems deemed to have optimized

corrosion control. The inserted sentence

reads: ‘‘Water systems deemed to have

optimized corrosion control under this

paragraph shall operate in compliance

with the State-designated optimal water

quality control parameters in

accordance with § 141.82(g) and

continue to conduct lead and copper tap

and water quality parameter sampling in

accordance with § 141.86(d)(3) and

§ 141.87(d), respectively.’’

c. Water systems deemed to have

optimized corrosion control under

§ 141.81(b)(3).

(i) Copper action level requirements.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. In 1996, EPA proposed that

water systems demonstrating, pursuant

to § 141.81(b)(3), that very little lead

corrosion is occurring in the

distribution system (i.e., (b)(3) systems)

be required to meet the copper action

level. The Agency proposed such a

requirement to correct an oversight in

the 1991 Rule.

(B) Comments and analysis. EPA

received mixed comments on this

proposed change. Several commenters

viewed the revision as a new

requirement that could lead to treatment

modifications in some systems. In the

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA

acknowledged that a few systems may

be triggered into CCT because of the

requirement that (b)(3) systems meet the

copper action level. EPA agrees that

there will be additional costs incurred

by the systems if installation/

modification of CCT processes are

necessary. The goal of the LCR,

however, is to minimize the risk from

both lead and copper. EPA believes that

this change is appropriate to better

conform with the stated goal of the LCR.

The copper action level is equivalent to

the copper MCLG, so adverse health

effects from copper should be avoided if

systems meet the action level. Since

(b)(3) systems that do not meet the

copper action level are not triggered into

CCT processes until 18 months after the

LCRMR is published in the Federal

Register, (b)(3) systems that exceeded

the copper action level during the initial

rounds of monitoring have time to make

changes to reduce copper levels before

being triggered out of (b)(3) status.

(C) Today’s action. In addition to the

1991 (b)(3) criteria, today’s action

prevents systems that exceeded the

copper action level on or after July 12,

2001, from being considered to be a

(b)(3) system. This requirement is

specified at § 141.81(b)(3)(iv).

(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and

copper at the tap.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. EPA proposed to correct

another oversight in the 1991 Rule by

requiring (b)(3) systems to continue

routine monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap at least once every three

calendar years (triennially) at the

reduced number of sites specified in

§ 141.86(c). This proposed revision

included a start date for resumption of

monitoring no later than the first full

summer (i.e., June through September

time frame) after the effective date of the

revision.

(B) Comments and analysis.

Commenters generally supported the

reduced monitoring frequency;

however, several preferred less frequent

monitoring cycles, such as once every

six or nine years. EPA disagrees with

the commenters who advocate

monitoring less frequently than once

every three years for (b)(3) systems.

Large systems comprise most, if not all,

of the (b)(3) systems because most small

and medium-size systems that satisfy

§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the

less onerous criteria of § 141.81(b)(1)

that do not require source water

monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not

required to monitor their corrosion

control process using WQPs, lead and

copper tap monitoring is the only

mechanism for determining whether

levels of lead and copper at the tap

remain low. For this reason, EPA does

not believe that monitoring should be

less frequent than once every 3 years for

these systems.

EPA also received comments on the

proposed deadline for the resumption of

monitoring. As proposed, (b)(3) systems

would have been required to resume

monitoring the first full June through

September after publication of the

LCRMR. This requirement would apply

only to those (b)(3) systems that had not

monitored during the three years

immediately preceding promulgation of

the LCRMR. Several commenters did

not realize that the schedule for the

resumption of monitoring would not

apply to those (b)(3) systems that

already are monitoring regularly and

that have conducted at least one round

of monitoring in the past three years.

(C) Today’s action. EPA has added

provisions at § 141.81(b)(3)(ii)

pertaining to the routine monitoring

requirement in today’s action. The

proposed requirement that routine lead

and copper tap water monitoring occur

at least once every three years has been

retained. The Rule language has been

clarified to indicate that those (b)(3)

systems that have conducted a round of

standard or reduced monitoring after

September 30, 1997, may continue

monitoring at the reduced number of

sites every three years based on the date

of their most recent monitoring. All

other (b)(3) systems must conduct a

round of tap water monitoring for lead

and copper no later than September 30,

2000.

(iii) State discretion to impose

additional requirements.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. The April 1996 proposed

revision to § 141.81(b)(3) states: ‘‘The

State may require any system deemed to

have optimized corrosion control

pursuant to this paragraph to conduct

additional monitoring or to take other

action the State deems appropriate to

ensure that such systems maintain

minimal levels of corrosion in the

distribution system (e.g., if there is a

change in treatment or a new source is

added).’’ EPA proposed this provision to

provide States sufficient flexibility to

require additional actions in those cases

where such actions are necessary to

ensure the system maintains minimal

corrosion in the distribution system.

(B) Comments and analysis. Several

commenters raised concern that this

provision could require (b)(3) systems to

conduct lead and copper tap sampling

whenever treatment changes or a new

source is added. The decision to require

additional monitoring will be made by

the State only after considering the

impact of the treatment change or

addition of a new source on the

corrosion control process. The rule does

not, and is not intended to categorically

require monitoring when treatment

changes are made. The additional

monitoring is not limited to lead and

copper monitoring. The State could

require WQP monitoring and/or source

water monitoring instead of, or in

addition to, lead and copper tap

monitoring.

(C) Today’s action. EPA has included

the following provision at

§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii). ‘‘Any water system

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to this paragraph shall

notify the State in writing pursuant to

§ 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment

or the addition of a new source. The

1960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

State may require any such system to

conduct additional monitoring or to take

other action the State deems appropriate

to ensure that such systems maintain

minimal levels of corrosion in the

distribution system’’. EPA also has

added a corresponding State

recordkeeping requirement in a new

§ 142.14(d)(8)(ix).

Section C.5.j. of this preamble

describes the reporting requirement, and

EPA’s rationale for adding it, in more

detail. While the proposed revised

§ 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not

explicitly require (b)(3) systems to

notify the State when a new source is

added or changes in water treatment

occur, the requirement was implicit in

the proposed reporting requirement for

any system subject to a reduced lead

and copper tap water monitoring

frequency. Today’s action clarifies that

(b)(3) systems are included in this

category.

(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion

control.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. Because it would no longer

be possible for large water systems

newly triggered into CCT requirements

to meet the date-specific milestones of

the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in 1996

that any system triggered into CCT steps

because it no longer meets the

§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the

treatment step and deadline

requirements of § 141.81(e) with any

such large system adhering to the

schedule specified in that paragraph for

medium-size systems.

(B) Comments and analysis. EPA did

not receive any comments objecting to

this provision.

(C) Today’s action. Section

141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a

provision at § 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring

any system triggered into CCT steps

because it no longer meets the

§ 141.81(b)(3) criteria to comply with

the treatment steps and deadline

requirements in § 141.81(e). Any such

large system shall adhere to the

schedule specified in that paragraph for

medium-size systems.

(v) Difference between source water

lead concentrations and 90th percentile

lead levels.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. The April 1996 Proposal

did not include any changes to the 1991

criterion that allowed water systems to

demonstrate that the difference between

the highest source water lead

concentration and the 90th percentile

lead tap level is less than the Practical

Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead.

Nevertheless, one commenter suggested

that EPA modify the lead criterion of

§ 141.81(b)(3) because, as written, a

system with very low 90th percentile

lead levels and undetectable source

water lead levels may be precluded from

becoming a (b)(3) system.

(B) Comments and analysis. EPA

agrees with the commenter. Section

141.89(a)(3) requires that all

measurements below the Method

Detection Limit (MDL) be reported as

zero, whereas measurements between

the MDL and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L

may be reported as one-half the PQL

(0.0025 mg/L). A system with source

water lead levels just below an MDL of

0.001 mg/L and a 90th percentile tap

level of 0.005 mg/L would not be

deemed to be optimized using the 1991

(b)(3) criteria which requires the

difference to be less than 0.005 mg/L. In

this example, the difference would be

0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L¥0mg/

L=0.005 mg/L). On the other hand,

assuming a lead MDL of 0.001 mg/L, a

system with source water lead levels of

0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of

0.006 mg/L would be considered to be

optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria

since the source water levels could be

reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this

example, the difference would be 0.0035

mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L¥0.0025 mg/

L=0.0035 mg/L).

(C) Today’s action. Therefore, EPA is

making a slight revision to § 141.81(b)(3)

to address the problem. The following

provision has been added as

§ 141.81(b)(3)(i): ‘‘Those systems having

source water lead levels below the

Method Detection Limit may also be

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control under this paragraph if the 90th

percentile tap water lead level is less

than or equal to the Practical

Quantitation Level for lead for two

consecutive 6-month monitoring

periods.’’

2. Revisions to § 141.82

a. Clarification of requirement to

operate and maintain optimal corrosion

control. As discussed in section C.1.a.,

EPA is revising the first sentence of

§ 141.82(g) to clarify that all systems

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to § 141.81(b) are

required to continuously operate and

maintain any installed CCT properly.

b. Excursions from State-designated

optimal water quality parameter ranges

or values.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested

public comment on a regulatory option

that would revise the way in which

compliance with State-designated

OWQPs is determined under

§ 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a

water system would be out of

compliance with the requirements of

§ 141.82(g) if the results of any WQP

sample were below the minimum value

or outside the range of values

designated by the State under

§ 141.82(f). Systems could take a

confirmation sample within three days

of the original sample, however. If such

a confirmation sample were taken, the

results of the original sample and the

confirmation sample were to be

averaged to determine compliance.

Several commenters responding to

issues raised in the 1996 Proposal

expressed concern about this method of

determining compliance. These

commenters, while advocating frequent

WQP sampling, noted that the Rule’s

approach for determining compliance

creates a significant disincentive for

sampling more frequently than required,

since the more frequently measurements

are taken, the greater the potential that

some of the results will be outside the

State-specified limits. These

commenters urged EPA to adopt a

percentage-based approach to

determining compliance.

The April 1998 Notice contained a

regulatory option that would replace the

confirmation-sample concept with a

repeat-sample concept. Under the

repeat-sample concept, a water system

whose initial monitoring results were

below the minimum value or outside

the range of values designated by the

State could take a repeat sample within

three days of the original sample. If

taken, the results of the repeat sample

would be used to determine compliance

under § 141.82(g); otherwise, the results

of the original sample would be used.

In the August 1998 Notice, EPA

sought public comment on a refinement

of the repeat-sample concept in order to

better address issues associated with

measuring WQPs more frequently than

once a day. Under the refined option,

compliance with § 141.82(g) would be

determined quarterly. To be in

compliance for the quarter, a water

system would need to be in compliance

for each applicable WQP at each

sampling location at which that WQP is

measured during the quarter. The

method of determining compliance for a

WQP at a sampling location would

depend on the frequency with which

that parameter is measured at that

sampling location during the quarter.

Where the measurements are taken once

a day or less often, compliance would

be determined using a repeat-sample

approach similar to the one described in

the April 1998 Notice. That is, if the

result of any measurement is below the

minimum value or outside the range

designated by the State under

§ 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat

sample within 72 hours of the original

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1961

sample; if a repeat sample is taken,

those results would be used to

determine compliance, otherwise the

results of the original sample would be

used. For sampling locations where the

parameter is measured more frequently

than once a day, a system would be in

compliance with the requirements of

§ 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent

of the measurements taken for the

parameter at the sampling location

during the quarter are within the Statedesignated limits and no single

excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In

those instances where monitoring is

continuous, systems would be required

to record the results at least every four

hours and to use the recorded results for

determining compliance. Finally, the

August 1998 option also would revise

the reporting requirements at

§ 141.90(a)(1) to clarify that systems

would be required to report to the State

on a quarterly basis, all water quality

parameter results collected during the

quarter, unless the State specified a

more frequent reporting schedule.

(ii) Comments and analysis. While

commenters responding to the April

1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample

approach represented an improvement

over the confirmation-sample approach,

most expressed concern that the repeatsample approach did not eliminate the

disincentives for frequent monitoring or

the problems in determining

compliance that would occur when

WQPs were measured more frequently

than once a day. These commenters

continued to urge EPA to allow a

percentage-based approach, at least in

those instances where WQPs are

measured frequently.

Most commenters to the refined

approach discussed in the August 1998

Notice expressed support for a

percentage-based approach; however,

many disagreed with some of the

specific provisions proposed. Several

commenters, for example, advocated

using a lower percentage than that

proposed by the Agency as the basis for

determining compliance with the

requirements of § 141.82(g). A number

of commenters suggested that 90 percent

would be more appropriate since lead

and copper action level exceedances are

determined based on the 90th percentile

lead and copper tap water values. Other

commenters supported the use of 90

percent because of system-specific or

uncontrollable factors that may affect

water quality. They argued that, if 10

percent, or more, of the water quality

measurements were allowed to be

outside OWQP limits, the State would

tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than

in those instances where 95 percent of

the results were required to be within

the State-specified OWQP limits. A few

commenters suggested that EPA allow

States the flexibility to determine the

percent of samples that must be within

acceptable levels.

EPA believes setting the performance

measure at 95 percent is appropriate.

Today’s action adopts a percent-of-time

approach to determining compliance. If

the performance measure were set at 90

percent, for example, a water system

could be out of compliance with WQP

requirements for more than 18 days in

a six-month period or 36 days in a

twelve-month period. The Agency does

not believe that allowing this much

deviation from OWQPs provides

adequate levels of public health

protection. Since States will have the

results of the two 6-month rounds of

follow-up monitoring after the

installation of corrosion control before

designating OWQPs, the Agency

believes it is reasonable for States to set

OWQPs that water systems should be

able to maintain at least 95 percent of

the time. The Agency also believes that

determination of OWQP compliance

(intended to demonstrate proper

operation and maintenance of a

treatment process) is not sufficiently

analogous to determination of action

level exceedances (intended to indicate

a need for treatment) to justify the use

of the same percentage for both just to

maintain consistency in the

calculations.

No commenter objected to using a

percentage-based approach for water

systems that measure WQPs more than

once per day. Many commenters

advocated use of the percentage

approach for systems that collect daily

samples and some advocated using the

percentage approach across-the-board

for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees

that it is reasonable for a single

approach to be used when determining

compliance, as long as the approach can

accommodate large variations in

sampling frequency. To maintain

reasonable fairness between systems

that collect entry point measurements

biweekly and those that collect entry

point measurements several times a day,

the Agency has adopted the suggestion

made by several commenters to shift

from a percent-of samples calculation to

a percent-of-time calculation. EPA also

has revised the compliancedetermination period from quarterly to

every six months. To remain in

compliance, a water system may have

no more than nine days during a sixmonth monitoring period when any

excursions occur (or persist). This

corresponds to having no excursions

approximately 95 percent of the time.

Where a system measures a parameter

several times a day at the same location,

the daily value for the purposes of

determining compliance with

§ 141.82(g) will be calculated by

averaging all results collected during the

day unless EPA has approved an

alternative formula under

§ 142.16(d)(1)(ii) in the State’s

application for a primacy revision.

A few commenters also disagreed

with the approach outlined in the

August 1998 Notice that would require

each sampling location to be in

compliance in order for the system to be

considered in compliance. The Agency

disagrees that aggregating the results

from all sampling locations before

determining whether or not an

excursion has occurred provides

sufficient health protection. Aggregating

the results from multiple locations

could mask a problem that affects only

a part of the system. EPA has therefore

retained the requirement that excursions

be determined for each WQP and

sampling location.

Some commenters raised concern

over the requirement that repeat

samples be collected within 72 hours of

the original sample. These commenters

noted that it might not be possible to

make necessary adjustments within 72

hours, particularly if the problem occurs

just before a weekend or holiday and the

system is unable to obtain a necessary

part for several days or if several days

are necessary before the effects of

treatment changes are apparent at

distribution system monitoring sites.

EPA believes the modified approach for

determining compliance in today’s

action will provide some relief to those

systems that need several days to effect

necessary repairs. At the same time, the

Agency believes it is essential to

minimize excursion durations to the

maximum extent possible. One study,

for example, suggests that disruptions of

four to five days in CCT may potentially

affect levels of lead at the tap adversely

(Colling, et al., 1992). The Agency has

no data that suggest the impact on

copper levels would be any different.

The Agency believes it is appropriate,

therefore, for those systems with

chronic equipment problems to develop

and implement appropriate sampling

schedules and contingency plans to

minimize possible ‘‘down’’ time. Since

the LCR does not require frequent

sampling at distribution system tap

locations, the Agency believes systems

should have sufficient flexibility to

avoid sample collection at these

locations during times of known

equipment problems or other factors not

representative of normal operations.

Today’s action eliminates the repeatsample approach and makes no

1962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

distinction for compliance purposes

between samples collected at entry

points and those collected from

distribution system taps. The duration

of an excursion for a WQP measured

less frequently than daily at a sampling

location is the number of days between

the excursion and the day a subsequent

sample taken for the same parameter at

the same sampling location is within the

State-specified limits. The day on which

the daily value is outside the Statespecified limits is the first day of the

excursion. The day preceding the day

that a subsequent sample taken for the

same parameter at the same sampling

location is again within the Statespecified limits is the last day of the

excursion. Thus, if a distribution system

tap location has an excursion (e.g., on a

Monday) and the system collects

another sample three days later (e.g., on

Thursday) that is within the limits, the

system has had an excursion of with a

duration of 3 days and will remain in

compliance if it does not have more

than six other days in the six-month

period during which an excursion

occurs at any sampling location.

The August 1998 Notice proposed

that where a water system is conducting

continuous monitoring, the results be

recorded every four hours for the

purpose of determining compliance

with § 141.82(g). Some commenters

expressed concern that this requirement

could be burdensome for some systems.

One State noted that such a requirement

would necessitate a change to State

reporting forms which currently only

have room for the system to record a

daily value for each WQP. Other

commenters noted that the proposed

provisions did not address those

instances where continuous monitoring

equipment is not working properly. EPA

has dropped the requirement to record

continuous monitoring results every

four hours. States have the discretion to

specify the frequency of recording

continuous monitoring results. Today’s

action makes no distinction between

continuous monitoring results and grab

sample results. If both are collected on

the same day, both must be included in

the calculation of the daily value.

Several commenters objected to the

proposed requirement that OWQP

compliance be determined quarterly and

suggested that a more appropriate

frequency would be annual or every six

months. A few of these commenters

expressed the opinion that a quarterly

compliance determination would be

more stringent than the 1991

requirements. EPA disagrees with this

interpretation. Under the 1991

requirements, a water system could

incur a violation any time the results of

a sample (or the results of a sample

averaged with the results of a

confirmation sample taken within three

days of the original sample) were below

the minimum value or outside the range

of values designated by the State under

§ 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a

violation as frequently as every two

weeks. Under the revisions proposed in

the August 1998 Notice, a water system

would incur no more than one OWQP

violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the

Agency agrees that determining

compliance with OWQPs once every six

months, instead of once every three

months, is more consistent with other

monitoring frequencies in the LCR. For

these reasons, today’s action requires

OWQP compliance to be determined

every six months.

Finally, a few commenters responded

that they did not believe the proposed

modifications made clear the

circumstances that would remove a

system’s eligibility for reduced

monitoring under §§ 141.86 and 141.87.

Today’s action includes some additional

changes to the language of §§ 141.86 and

141.87 to clarify that failure to comply

with the requirements of § 141.82(g)

removes a system’s eligibility for

reduced monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap as well as reduced WQP

monitoring within the distribution

system. Systems that lose this eligibility

must requalify in accordance with the

requirements of § 141.86(d)(4) in order

to resume reduced monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap and must requalify

in accordance with the requirements of

§ 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced

monitoring for WQPs at the tap.

(iii) Today’s action. After considering

the comments received, EPA has

modified the OWQP compliance

requirements of § 141.82(g) as follows:

• Compliance will be calculated for

each 6-month period specified in

§ 141.87(d) during which the water

system is required to conduct WQP

monitoring, regardless of the frequency

of WQP monitoring. The first six-month

period begins on the date the State

specifies the OWQPs under § 141.82(f).

A water system with excursions (see

following paragraph) occurring/

persisting on more than nine (9) days

during the six-month period would be

out of compliance. The 9 days need not

be consecutive, but may be.

• An excursion is defined as a ‘‘daily

value’’ for a parameter that is below the

minimum value or outside the range of

values designated by the State under

§ 141.82(f) as representing optimal

corrosion control.

• ‘‘Daily values’’ will be determined

for each parameter at each sampling

location. The daily values are to be

calculated based on the frequency of

sampling for the parameter at the

sampling location. If measurements for

the parameter are collected at the

sampling location more frequently than

once a day, the daily value will be

calculated by averaging all of the results

measured at the sampling location for

the parameter during the day (regardless

of whether the results are measured

through continuous monitoring, grab

samples, or both) unless EPA has

approved an alternative formula under

§ 142.16 as a part of the State’s

application for a primacy revision

submitted pursuant to § 142.12. If

measurements for the parameter are

collected only once a day at a sampling

location, the daily value will be the

daily measurement. If measurements for

the parameter are collected less

frequently than once a day at the

sampling point, the daily value will be

the most recent measurement taken,

even if that measurement was collected

during a previous monitoring period.

Under this calculation, there is no

distinction between a measurement

taken at an entry point and one

collected from a distribution system tap.

The Agency recognizes that systems

subject to reduced monitoring for WQPs

at the tap may not collect samples from

every site during each six-month period.

In such cases, where the system does

not collect any samples for a

distribution system tap sampling

location during the six-month period,

the sampling location would have no

excursions if the most recent

measurements at that site were within

the State-specified limits. If, on the

other hand, the system’s most recent

measurements were taken at the

distribution system tap sampling

location during the previous monitoring

period and were outside the Statespecified limits, the system would be

out of compliance with § 141.82(g) and

would therefore be triggered back into

standard WQP monitoring.

Corresponding revisions have been

made to the language of §§ 141.86,

141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the

language of §§ 141.86(d)(4)(v)—

redesignated as § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)—and

141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water

system that is out of compliance with

the requirements of § 141.82(g) is

ineligible to conduct reduced

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap and for WQPs within the

distribution system. Systems that lose

their eligibility for reduced monitoring

cannot resume reduced monitoring for

lead and copper at the tap or for WQPs

within the distribution system until

they have completed two consecutive

six-month rounds of monitoring that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1963

4AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

meet the requirements of §§ 141.86(d)(4)

and 141.87(e), respectively.

Section 141.87(d) has been revised to

define the six-month periods for the

purpose of WQP monitoring once the

State has designated OWQPs under

§ 141.82(f). The first such period shall

begin on the date the State specifies the

OWQPs. For small and medium-size

systems conducting reduced monitoring

for lead and copper at the tap that are

triggered into WQP monitoring pursuant

to § 141.87(d), the end of the six-month

period for monitoring under § 141.87(d)

shall be synchronized with the end of

the reduced monitoring period under

§ 141.86(d)(4) during which the action

level exceedance occurred. The wording

of § 141.87(d) has been streamlined by

referencing, but not repeating, the

compliance requirements specified in

§ 141.82(g). The Agency has revised the

requirements of § 141.90(a)(1) to require

that the WQP monitoring results be

provided to the State no less frequently

than ten days after the end of each sixmonth monitoring period, unless the

State has specified a more frequent

reporting requirement.

Finally, today’s action revises the

provisions of § 142.16(d)(1) to add an

optional special primacy condition for

States that want to use a formula, other

than that specified in § 141.82(g), to

calculate the daily value when multiple

measurements are taken on the same

day for a water quality parameter at the

same sampling location.

3. Revisions to § 141.84

a. Proposed revision and background.

Section 141.84 requires systems that fail

to meet the lead action level after

installing CCT and/or source water

treatment to replace lead service lines

(LSLs). As promulgated in 1991,

§ 141.84(d) required a water system to

replace the entire LSL, up to the

building inlet, unless the system

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the

State that it controlled less than the

entire service line. EPA promulgated a

definition of ‘‘control’’ that was

subsequently vacated and remanded to

EPA as a result of a judicial challenge

to this aspect of the Rule to the extent

the definition of control applied to

portions of the line beyond a water

system’s ownership.4 The court in that

case ruled that EPA did not provide an

opportunity for the public to comment

on the Agency’s expansive definition of

control. The court did not address the

question of whether the definition was

within EPA’s authority under SDWA. In

the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested

comment on a revised definition of

‘‘control’’ that would include the

portion of the line the water system

owns as well as any additional portion

over which it has the authority to

replace. The Agency explained that it

was concerned that the LSL replacement

requirements in the 1991 LCR, which

obligated systems to also replace the

privately-owned portion of the line

where the system had the authority to

replace, repair, or maintain the line, or

had other forms of authority over the

line, could result in confusion and delay

in implementation of the Rule.

Confusion could result from different

perceptions of the precise scope of the

system’s legal authority, and resolution

of such disputes could require the

intervention of the State in a potentially

time-consuming process. EPA also

proposed to remove the rebuttable

presumption in § 141.84(e) that the

water system controls the entire length

of the LSL.

EPA is aware of some information

indicating that partial replacement of

LSLs may result in transitory increases

in levels of lead at the tap immediately

following replacement (see 56 FR 26505,

middle of second column, Jun. 7, 1991).

The Agency believes that the entire

length of the service line should be

replaced wherever such replacement is

possible. For this reason, the 1996

proposed revision to § 141.84(d) did not

include any changes to the requirement

that water systems offer to replace the

privately-owned portion of the LSL (at

the building owner’s expense) and, if

requested by the resident(s), collect a

post-partial replacement sample and

report the results to the resident(s)

within 14 days of the partial LSL

replacement.

In light of commenter concerns about

the retention of partial LSL replacement

requirements in the April 1996

Proposal, EPA included a request for

comment in the April 1998 Notice on

additional changes to the LSL

requirements. Specifically, EPA

requested comment on the following: (1)

Clarifying that a system should make

the offer to replace the privately-owned

portion of the LSL to the owner, rather

than the user; (2) adding a requirement

that the system notify the resident(s) of

the building(s) served by the LSL at

least 45 days prior to partial LSL

replacement and provide guidance on

possible short-term lead level increases

and preventive measures consumers can

take to minimize exposure; (3) replacing

the 1991 LCR requirement for a

resident-requested follow-up sample

within 14 days of partial LSL

replacement with a requirement to

collect a sample within 24 hours of

partial LSL replacement, and to notify

the resident(s) within 3 days of the

system’s receipt of the results; and (4)

adding flexibility in the method of

resident notification.

b. Comments and analysis.

(i) Definition of ‘‘control.’’ In the April

1996 Proposal, the Agency solicited

comments, specifically regarding the

degree to which systems may have the

authority to replace the privately-owned

portions of LSLs. In addition, EPA

solicited comments regarding the option

of only requiring replacement of the

portion of the line owned by the water

system, explaining that such an

approach would further simplify

implementation of the rule because the

division in ownership between the

system and the user would be clear to

all parties.

Three commenters supported the

definition of control that EPA proposed,

that is water systems must replace the

portion that they own as well as the

portion over which they have the

authority to replace. All other

commenters supported the more limited

definition that equates control with

ownership. Commenters felt that it is

appropriate to hold the water system

responsible only for the portion of the

service line the system owns. In

addition, the commenters felt that

defining control as ownership would

avoid confusion and ambiguities about

the scope of the water system’s

authority to replace LSLs. These

commenters opposed the idea of also

requiring a water system to replace any

additional portion of the line that it

does not own but for which it has the

authority to replace. Their reasons for

opposing the proposed definition

included: lack of legal authority;

difficulty obtaining permission to

replace LSLs on private property;

concern about using public funds to do

work on private property; and potential

conflicts/lawsuits involving utilities,

homeowners and independent

contractors. Some commenters argued

that EPA does not have the statutory

authority to require LSL replacement by

the water supplier on private property.

After consideration of these

comments, the Agency agrees that the

broader definition of ‘‘control’’ (that is,

the water system would be required to

replace the portion of the LSL that it

owns plus any additional portion of the

line that it has the authority to replace)

could result in unintended delays and

other complications. For this reason,

EPA believes it is appropriate to equate

‘‘control’’ with ‘‘ownership’’ in order to

eliminate potential legal confusion and

delays in implementing the Rule.

(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable

presumption. Most commenters did not

1964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

explicitly address EPA’s proposal to

remove the rebuttable presumption that

the water system controls the entire

length of the LSL. Those who did

address the issue supported the

Agency’s proposal. EPA is eliminating

the rebuttable presumption as proposed,

since it is no longer needed now that the

definition of ‘‘control’’ equals

ownership under today’s rule.

(iii) Possible adverse health effects

associated with partial LSL

replacement. A number of commenters

to the April 1996 Proposal and the April

1998 Notice expressed concern about

the possible adverse health effects

associated with partial replacement of

LSLs. These concerns were similar to

those expressed by commenters to the

1988 proposed LCR. The commenters

felt that replacing only part of the

service line could actually increase the

lead levels at the tap because of galvanic

action, the disruption of the protective

coating on the inside of the pipe and the

entry of particulate lead to the supplied

water. Some of the commenters on the

April 1996 Proposal referred to the case

studies (Britton and Richards, 1981;

EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the

Agency in the preamble to the 1991

LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that

the Agency thought partial LSL

replacement could increase lead levels,

but that EPA believed increased levels,

if they occur, will be temporary and will

decrease over time. A number of

commenters argued that these studies

show increased lead levels from partial

LSL replacement and that the levels do

not necessarily decrease. EPA has

reanalyzed the three case studies to

better assess the lead level increases

resulting from partial LSL replacement

(EPA, 1998c). This reanalysis confirmed

that lead levels at the tap, will in some

instances, increase immediately after

partial replacement of the LSL. The

results of the same studies also revealed

that subsequently, over the long run,

lead levels will decrease below the prereplacement levels after partial LSL

replacement. The commenters on both

the 1996 and 1998 proposals also stated

that several water systems which began

voluntary programs to replace their

portion of the LSL observed increased

lead levels after replacement. However,

no new data were submitted to the

Agency for analysis. The Agency

believes that the temporary rise in lead

levels indicates not only the presence of

lead materials in the distribution system

(i.e., service lines, probably lead pipe),

but also poor corrosion control. It is

expected that potential for temporary

increases in lead levels will be minimal

for those systems where corrosion

control has been fully implemented and

optimized as required by the Rule.

Four case studies were examined to

assess the impact of partial LSL

replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of

the case studies have adequate data to

assess the impact on lead levels at the

tap, relative to time elapsed after

replacement. The first study was

conducted in Scotland. Lead levels were

observed at a residence after partial LSL

replacement over a four-month period

(Britton and Richards, 1981). The other

study was conducted by EPA at several

homes in Oakwood, Ohio and lead

levels were recorded for several weeks

after replacement (EPA, 1991b).

The study by Britton and Richards

showed a temporary rise in lead levels

at the tap. There were four monitoring

periods in this case study: before

replacement, one week after

replacement, two months after

replacement, and four months after

replacement. During each period, 10

first-draw and 10 random daytime

samples were collected daily over a twoweek period. First-draw samples were

taken in the morning before any other

water in the household had been run.

The random daytime samples were

taken later that day without running any

water to waste before sampling.

The elevated lead levels produced by

partial LSL replacement were a shortterm phenomenon. The average

concentrations for the first-draw and

random daytime samples taken ‘‘four

months after replacement’’ are lower

than the average concentrations of the

‘‘before replacement’’ samples. In

addition, the first-draw and random

daytime samples were averaged for each

sampling period to better assess the

impact of partial LSL replacement on

lead levels at the site. The averages of

all samples taken ‘‘four months after

replacement’’ is 25 percent lower than

the averages of all samples taken ‘‘before

replacement.’’ The percentage reduction

is even larger when the average of the

first-draw samples are compared. The

data on the range of concentrations and

the percentages of samples above 0.100

mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the

benefits of partial LSL replacement. The

highest concentration in the first-draw

samples taken ‘‘four months after

replacement’’ is less than half the

highest concentration taken in the firstdraw samples taken ‘‘before

replacement.’’ In addition, the

percentages of samples with

concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and

0.050 mg/L are lower in the data taken

‘‘four months after replacement.’’ This

trend is observed in both the first-draw

and the random daytime samples. This

study supports EPA’s contention that

although lead levels at the tap will in

some instances increase immediately

after partial replacement of the LSL,

over the long run, lead levels will

decrease below the before replacement

levels.

The EPA study was designed to

observe the effects of partial LSL

replacement. First-draw samples and

service line samples were taken before

and after replacement of LSLs at four

sites in Oakwood, Ohio. One limitation

of this study is that the lead levels

before replacement were below the

trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement

would not be required for these sites

under the LCR. Another limitation is the

duration of sampling. A complete set of

post-replacement samples was not taken

at every site making it difficult to fully

examine the impact of time on postreplacement lead levels. The third

limitation is that the date of the partial

LSL replacement for each of the four

sites is not recorded in the summary.

The results from the first round of

post-replacement samples are very

similar to the pre-replacement results.

The averages of the pre- and postreplacement samples for three of the

sites were within 3 ‘‘μ/L of one another,

and all were at or below 10 μ/L. The

average service line lead level almost

doubled at one site and exceeded the

action level of 15 μ/L after replacement.

However, the average for the three

service line samples taken at this site

the following week was dramatically

lower. The averages for the service line

samples taken at the other two sites

during this sampling period were also

lower than the averages for the first after

replacement sampling period. The

results from the second round of postreplacement monitoring showed a

significant decrease in lead levels when

compared to the pre-replacement

averages. The post-replacement averages

from the second monitoring period

showed approximately a 50 percent

reduction from the pre-replacement

averages. The data from the third round

of post-replacement monitoring only

showed a slight additional decrease in

lead levels. The levels are below 5 μ/L,

so further significant reductions would

be unlikely. These data do not support

the commenter’s contentions that lead

levels are elevated after partial LSL

replacement and that lead levels do not

necessarily decrease. These data do

appear to indicate that requiring

replacement of lines where tap levels

are already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1)

might not result in dramatic

improvements in lead levels.

In practice, EPA believes that many

systems required to replace LSLs will

receive consent to remove any privatelyVerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1965

owned portions since it is in the

homeowners’ interest to completely

remove this source of lead in their

drinking water. In those cases where the

PWS cannot obtain permission to

remove the entire line, EPA still

believes there are benefits to partial

replacement. Partial removal of a LSL

will reduce the likelihood of exposure

to lead from drinking water because

there will be a smaller volume of water

in contact with the LSL. Consumers are

more likely to consume water with

elevated lead levels from longer lines

because a larger volume of water will

have elevated lead levels. As previously

explained in detail in the 1991 LCR,

data collected by Pocock (1980) from

over 2,000 homes in the United

Kingdom support the view that the

likelihood of elevated lead levels varies

in relation to the length of the LSL.

These findings are also consistent with

Kuch and Wagner’s (1983) mass transfer

modeling, which predicted the

dependence of lead levels on the length

and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher

lead levels with longer lead pipe).

The Agency believes the water system

should replace the entire length of the

line wherever possible. Today’s action

therefore retains a requirement for the

water supplier to offer to replace the

privately-owned portion of the line.

This requirement has been revised to

exclude those instances where doing so

is precluded by State, local or common

law. There is no requirement for the

system to bear the cost of replacing the

privately-owned portion of the line.

Thus, if the property owner does not

want to pay for removal of the privatelyowned portion of the line, the system is

only required to replace the portion it

owns. The Agency believes that the

requirement for systems to offer

assistance with replacement of

privately-controlled service lines is an

efficient and effective means of

maximizing the public health benefits

achieved by the rule.

(iv) Resident notification of partial

LSL replacement. In response to the

April 1998 Notice, no commenter

objected to requiring the system to

contact the ‘‘owner’’ rather than the

‘‘user’’ when offering to replace the

privately-owned portion of the service

line. Several commenters expressed

concern that requiring notification to

residents 45 days in advance of the

partial replacement would present a

hardship in instances where the system

is replacing the line in conjunction with

making emergency repairs. A few

commenters objected to the requirement

that the water system be responsible for

providing notification to residents of

multi-family buildings and other nonbilling unit residents and suggested this

should be the responsibility of the

building owner. Finally, several

commenters expressed concern about

the requirement for a post-replacement

sample taken within 24 hours of the

replacement. The concerns included

timing problems associated with

weekends and holidays, the likelihood

that such a sample would not be

representative of the lead levels after

stabilization, and the added cost and

burden associated with the requirement.

To minimize the risk that residents

will incur increased exposure because

of partial line replacement, EPA is

including the requirement that water

systems provide a notice of the partial

replacement to the residents at least 45

days before commencing with the

partial LSL replacement, inform

residents that they may experience a

temporary increase of lead levels in

their drinking water, and provide

residents with guidance about the

measures they can take to minimize

their exposure to lead. The Agency feels

that 45 days is a sufficient amount of

time for the recipients to study the

guidance provided by the water

supplier, to familiarize themselves with

the potential ramifications associated

with the partial LSL replacement, and to

plan and implement appropriate

measures to avoid exposure to lead. The

Agency agrees with commenters,

however, that a 45-day lead time is not

practicable in those instances when

replacement is being done in

conjunction with emergency repairs.

EPA has therefore included provisions

giving States the discretion to allow for

notification of less than 45 days in such

instances. States will need to review

such requests on a case-by-case basis

unless they adopt appropriate State

regulations to allow notification of less

than 45 days in conjunction with

emergency repairs.

As an additional precautionary

measure, the water system is required to

collect a follow-up LSL sample, to

determine whether the partial LSL

replacement caused an increase of lead

levels in the drinking water, and to

provide the results to residents. The

1991 LCR required the water supplier to

inform residents served by partiallyreplaced LSLs that they were entitled to

have a tap water sample drawn and

analyzed within 14 days of the

completion of the partial replacement.

Upon further consideration, the Agency

believes the requirement, as codified in

1991, could place an undue burden on

the water system in those instances

where a line serves a large multi-family

residence because the system could be

required to take a large number of

samples if every unit requested one. The

follow-up sampling that would be

required by the changes to § 141.84(d)

discussed in the April 1998 Notice is

intended to show the ‘‘worst-case’’

effects of partial LSL replacement and is

not intended to be used in 90th

percentile calculations or for

determining compliance with optimal

corrosion control or source water

treatment requirements. Under the

revised requirement, the water system is

required to collect only one sample for

each partially-replaced LSL. EPA

therefore does not believe that a large

number of samples is required.

EPA is including the requirement that

the water system collect a tap water

sample representative of the water in

the service line for analysis of lead

content as prescribed in § 141.86(b)(3)

and provide the results to the residents

quickly. Prior to collecting the followup sample, water must remain sitting in

the pipe for at least 6 hours following

partial LSL replacement. The Agency is

sensitive to commenter concerns that

collecting such a sample within 24

hours of the partial replacement may

cause additional burden. In those cases

where the partial replacement is

completed on a Friday or just before a

holiday, staff may not be available

outside of normal working hours to

collect such a sample. For these reasons,

EPA agrees with commenters that

extending the time frame for collecting

the follow-up sample from 24 hours to

72 hours is reasonable and the Agency

has done so in the final rule language.

In response to commenter suggestions,

the Agency also is clarifying in the rule

language that the water system is

expected to pay for this sampling. EPA

does not believe that the follow-up

sampling and notification constitute a

significant burden to the system

compared with the cost of the partial

LSL replacement.

The Agency believes that the affected

parties should be provided with the test

results as quickly as possible so they

can implement appropriate measures,

commensurate with the findings, as

soon as they can to minimize their

exposure to lead. In addition,

unnecessary expenses and further

concerns on the part of consumers could

be alleviated in instances where the

analytical results indicate little or no

increase in lead levels, or an immediate

decrease in lead levels, resulting from

the partial removal of the LSL. EPA

therefore is retaining the requirement

that water systems provide the results of

this post-replacement sample to

consumers within three days of

receiving the results. The Agency has

1966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

clarified the rule language to reflect that

the three days are business days.

While EPA is sensitive to the

difficulties associated with providing

notification to residents of non-billing

units (for example, apartment buildings

and other rental units), the Agency

believes it is important that the water

system take pro-active measures to

notify these residents. The Agency

therefore is including the requirement

that the water system provide the prepartial LSL replacement information

and the post-replacement sample results

to these residents as well as to the

residents of billing units. In the case of

single family residences, this notice

must be made by mail unless another

mechanism is approved by the State. To

avoid problems arising from delivery

delays beyond the system’s control,

notifications which are postmarked

within the required time will be

considered acceptable. In the case of

multi-family residences, the regulation

gives the water supplier the option to

post the information in a conspicuous

place.

(v) Reporting of post-replacement

sampling results to the State. Most

commenters supported the proposed

requirement that water systems provide

the State a copy of the results of samples

collected immediately following partial

LSL replacement within the first ten

days of the month following the month

in which the results are received from

the laboratory. Two commenters,

however, suggested that EPA provide

States flexibility in the manner, format,

and timing of reporting; three other

commenters opposed the requirement

altogether. After consideration of these

comments, EPA has retained the

reporting requirement but has given

States the flexibility to modify or

eliminate it. Even if the State does not

require these results to be reported,

water systems are required to maintain

records of the sampling results in

accordance with § 141.91.

(vi) Financial impacts of LSL

replacement. Some commenters were

concerned about the financial impacts

associated with LSL replacement. They

felt that compliance with the regulation

will be particularly burdensome for

some cities that have a high percentage

of LSLs. One commenter stated the

belief that EPA’s 1991 LCR estimate of

the average removal cost per line was

extremely conservative when made and

is now outdated, and actual costs could

be significantly higher and submitted

supporting data. The cost of the original

LSL replacement requirements is

outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA did not propose any changes to the

basic LSL replacement requirements nor

did EPA ask for comment on those

requirements or otherwise reopen that

issue.

(vii) Other LSL comments. Some

commenters raised issues with the basic

LSL replacement requirements of the

rule, such as the requirement to replace

or sample 7 percent of lines each year

and the basic reasonableness of

requiring systems to replace some

portion of the line when levels at the tap

are above 15 ppb. These comments are

outside the scope of this rulemaking

because EPA did not propose revisions

to, or otherwise reopen, the basic LSL

replacement requirements in this

proceeding. Rather, the only aspects of

the 1991 Rule addressed here are the

definition of ‘‘control’’ for purposes of

determining the portion of the service

line the system is required to replace,

and sampling and notification

requirements that relate to the potential

for partial LSL replacement.

c. Today’s action. EPA has eliminated

the ‘‘control’’ terminology from the

Rule. Today’s action revises § 141.84(d)

to require the water system to replace

only the portion of the LSL that it owns.

Water systems subject to LSL

replacement requirements continue to

be required to offer to replace the

privately-owned portion of the line,

however, § 141.84(d) has been revised to

clarify that the offer must be made to the

owner of the property, or the owner’s

authorized agent, rather than the user.

Today’s action also revises the

requirements in § 141.84(d) that a water

system must satisfy when replacing only

a portion of the LSL. The requirement

that a water system offer to take a postreplacement sample within 14 days of

the partial replacement has been

replaced with the following

requirements.

• At least 45 days prior to the partial

replacement, the water system must

notify all residents of the building

served by the line that the partial

replacement will occur, alert them that

they may experience a temporary

increase of lead levels in their drinking

water, provide them with guidance on

measures they can take to minimize

their exposure to lead, and inform them

that the water system will collect a

follow-up sample within 72 hours of

completing the partial replacement, and

notify them of the results of that sample.

The State has the discretion to allow

less than a 45-day advance notice in

those instances where the partial

replacement is being performed in

conjunction with emergency repairs.

• Within 72 hours of completing the

partial LSL replacement, the water

system shall collect a tap water sample

representative of the water in the service

line for analysis of lead content in

accordance with the procedures

specified in § 141.86(b)(3). The system

shall report the results of the analysis to

the owner and the resident(s) served by

the line within 3 business days of

receiving the results. Mailed notices

post-marked within 3 business days of

receiving the results shall be considered

‘‘on time.’’

• For the purpose of satisfying the

notification requirements of § 141.84(d),

the water system shall provide the

information to the residents of

individual dwellings by mail or by other

methods approved by the State. In

instances where multi-family dwellings

are served by the line, the water system

shall have the option to post the

information at a conspicuous location.

Today’s action also makes three other

changes in § 141.84. Section 141.84(e)

has been deleted, since the rebuttable

presumption is no longer appropriate.

Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been

redesignated as §§ 141.84(e) through (g).

The Agency also has made a slight

modification to § 141.84(b) to explicitly

require the system to document, in

system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s)

owned by the system. The third

sentence of § 141.84(b) has been revised

to read as follows: ‘‘The system shall

identify the initial number of lead

service lines in its distribution system,

including an identification of the

portion(s) owned by the system, based

on a materials evaluation, including the

evaluation required under § 141.86(a)

and relevant legal authorities (e.g.,

contracts, local ordinances) regarding

the portion owned by the system.’’ EPA

does not intend that systems provide

this information to the State; however,

the Agency thinks it is important for a

record to exist that documents the

baseline. These records should be

available for inspection at the system

upon request.

The reporting requirement at

§ 141.90(e)(4), to submit documentation

if the system believes it does not control

the entire length of the line, has been

replaced with a requirement that the

water system report the results of the

post-partial replacement sampling to the

State within the first ten days of the

month following the month in which

the system receives the laboratory

results, unless otherwise specified by

the State. States, at their discretion, may

eliminate this reporting requirement.

Systems shall also report additional

information as specified by the State,

and in a time and manner prescribed by

the State, to verify that all partial LSL

replacement activities have taken place.

Finally, these changes to § 141.84

necessitate conforming changes to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1967

§ 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has

revised the language of § 141.85(a)

slightly to remove references to LSL

control. The phrase ‘‘each lead service

line that we control’’ in § 141.85(a)(1)(i)

(as redesignated) has been revised to

read ‘‘the portion of each lead service

line that we own.’’ The discussion of

LSL replacement in

§ 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated)

has been revised to reflect the

notification and post-partial

replacement sampling requirements in

today’s action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii),

requiring States to maintain records of

their determination that a water system

does not control the entire length of the

LSL, has been deleted; however, two

new State recordkeeping requirements

have been added. Section

142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to

maintain records of any system-specific

determinations regarding the

submission of information, including

post partial replacement test results, to

demonstrate compliance with partial

lead service line replacement

requirements. Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii)

has been added to include a

requirement that States maintain

records related to system compliance

with partial lead service line

replacement requirements. Section

142.16(d)(3) has been revised to

eliminate the requirement that States

describe in their primacy program

revision application how they plan to

make determinations that a water

system does not control the entire

length of the LSL. It has been replaced

with a requirement that States describe

in their primacy program revision how

they will verify that all partial LSL

replacement activities have been

completed properly.

4. Revisions to § 141.85

a. Changes affecting content of written

materials.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

requested comment on a revision that

would provide separate mandatory

public education language for use by

NTNCWSs and certain CWSs, such as

prisons and hospitals, which is more

appropriate for these systems. The

proposed NTNCWS language would

eliminate references to ‘‘homes in the

community’’ and some suggestions for

reducing lead exposure which may be

beyond the control of consumers served

by such water systems. As a part of this

provision, the Agency proposed that the

CWSs approved to use the NTNCWS

language also be permitted to deliver

their public education program as if

they were a NTNCWS. The Agency

proposed these changes to address

concerns of EPA Regions and States that

the mandatory language specified in the

1991 LCR may not be appropriate for

NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such

as prisons and hospitals) that primarily

serve confined populations. In order to

incorporate these changes into the LCR,

EPA proposed to renumber § 141.85(a)

as § 141.85(a)(1) and to incorporate the

NTNCWS language at § 141.85(a)(2).

EPA also proposed to add a paragraph

(c)(7) to § 141.85. This new paragraph

would identify the types of CWSs who

might be eligible to use the NTNCWS

language. As proposed, CWSs would

need State approval to use the NTNCWS

language, however, EPA also solicited

public comment on the necessity of this

up-front approval.

(ii) Comments and analysis. While all

commenters supported the proposed

revisions, some offered additional

suggestions for consideration by EPA.

For example, suggestions were made to

allow CWSs to delete references to LSLs

where none exist, and to delete

references to building permit records

where the records are unavailable.

Another suggestion was to allow

NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems

to distribute the required public

education information electronically in

lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with

these suggestions, and has incorporated

language which gives States the

flexibility to approve these minor

changes to the public education

language.

Some commenters suggested that EPA

allow systems additional flexibility to

tailor public education language. The

public education language specified in

the regulations is a mandatory

minimum. The mandatory language

specified in the regulations was

developed to provide consistent,

beneficial information to consumers

regarding lead in their water supply.

Systems may request approval from

States to include additional language, to

provide consumers with information

specific to a particular system. EPA

believes the LCR, as revised by today’s

action, provides sufficient flexibility to

address system-specific circumstances.

EPA received mixed comments on

whether up-front State approval for

CWSs to use the NTNCWS public

education language should be required

for CWSs that meet the specified criteria

in the proposed § 141.85(c)(7). After

considering these comments, EPA

believes that the issue of whether to

require up-front approval should be

decided by the States. The language at

§ 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to

allow States to decide whether systems

that qualify to use the alternative public

education language need to request

State approval.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the

following revisions to § 141.85 to reflect

the changes discussed above. The

Agency has redesignated paragraph (a),

except for the phrase, ‘‘Content of

written public education materials,’’ as

paragraph (a)(1) and titled it as

‘‘Community water systems.’’ The

subordinate paragraphs have been

redesignated accordingly. The

introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) has

been expanded to allow CWSs, with

State approval, to delete information

pertaining to lead service lines if no

lead service lines exist anywhere in the

water system service area. As discussed

in section C.3.c. of this preamble, EPA

has replaced the phrase ‘‘each lead

service line that we control’’ in

paragraph (a)(1) with the phrase ‘‘the

portion of each lead service line that we

own.’’ Section 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) also

has been revised to reflect that a water

system is only required to replace the

portion of the lead service line that it

owns and to reflect the notification and

post-partial-replacement sampling

requirements contained in § 141.84(d) of

today’s action. Systems, however, may

continue to use pre-printed materials

with the old language, if they so choose.

The language of § 141.85(a)(1) also has

been expanded to allow systems to

modify, with State approval, the

language at (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and

(a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit

record availability and consumer access

to these records if such information is

not available.

EPA has added new paragraphs at

(a)(2) to specify alternative mandatory

language for use by NTNCWSs. These

systems have the discretion to use either

the language in § 141.85(a)(1) or the

language in § 141.85(a)(2). The

introductory text of § 141.85(c)(4) also

has been revised to update the

paragraph references applicable to

repeat public education tasks.

EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to

§ 141.85(c). This paragraph specifies the

characteristics of CWSs that may be

eligible to use the NTNCWS language

and provides flexibility for eligible

CWSs to substitute posting and

distribution of informational pamphlets/

brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS

public education distribution

requirements. CWSs delivering public

education as if they were a NTNCWS

would be required to repeat public

education tasks only once per calendar

year in which the system exceeds the

lead action level. States have the

flexibility to waive the requirement for

prior State approval for these specialVerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2
1968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

case CWSs to deliver public education

as if they are NTNCWSs.

In addition, EPA has revised

§ 141.85(c)(4)(ii) to permit a NTNCWS

to utilize electronic transmission in lieu

of or combined with printed materials

as long as it achieves at least the same

coverage.

Finally, EPA has added provisions in

a new § 142.14(d)(8)(x) that require

States to maintain records pertaining to

any system-specific decisions made

under § 141.85 regarding the content of

written public education materials and/

or the distribution of these materials.

b. Public education delivery

requirements.

(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer

people.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. The April 1996 Proposal

included a provision to allow CWSs

serving 500 or fewer people to forego

the newspaper and electronic media

notifications required as a part of public

education because these systems rarely

are served by general circulation

newspapers and radio/television

stations that have audiences limited to

the public water system’s service area.

The Agency explained that it believes

such a revision is necessary to minimize

the unintended burden resulting from a

system needing to respond to numerous

inquiries from individuals it does not

serve. For the same reason, EPA also

proposed to allow systems serving 500

or fewer people to limit the distribution

of informational brochures to facilities

and organizations likely to be

frequented by pregnant women and

children. Finally, EPA requested public

comment on a burden reduction

suggestion to allow CWSs serving 501 to

3,300 people to forego the public service

announcement requirements contained

in § 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the major

radio/television stations usually

broadcast to a much broader area than

that served by the water system.

(B) Comments and analysis. Most of

the commenters supported the proposed

revision pertaining to the delivery of

public education by CWSs serving 500

or fewer people. Several commenters

noted discrepancies between the

preamble discussion and the rule

language, however, and expressed

concern that the rule language, as

proposed, would not accomplish the

intended objectives.

One of the discrepancies involves the

distribution of informational pamphlets

or brochures to facilities and

organizations visited frequently by

pregnant women and children. In the

preamble, EPA stated the Agency’s

intent that these materials be distributed

to appropriate facilities served by the

system and ‘‘only those locations

outside the system’s service area that are

regularly visited by the system’s

consumers.’’ This latter requirement, to

provide informational materials to

facilities and organizations not served

by the system, was not included in the

proposed rule language. Several

commenters expressed concern that

including such a requirement would

result in the same confusion and

unintended consequences as the

original requirements. EPA agrees that

limiting the distribution of materials to

facilities/organizations within the

service area is appropriate and the final

rule language has been revised

accordingly.

The second discrepancy between the

1996 preamble and proposed rule

language involves the question of what,

if anything, the water system would be

required to do in lieu of newspaper and

electronic notification. In the preamble,

EPA indicated that the Agency was

proposing to require CWSs, that serve

500 or fewer people and that desire to

omit tasks requiring submission of

information to newspapers and radio

and television stations, to mail or hand

deliver lead public education materials

to all other regular consumers (e.g.,

tenants of multi-family residences

whose water is included in their rent),

in addition to mailing these materials to

all billing units (60 FR 16355, top of

third column). EPA inadvertently

omitted this requirement from the

proposed rule language. Even though

several commenters expressed concern

that such an alternative requirement

would be as burdensome as the original

requirements, the Agency believes that

such a requirement is appropriate when

newspaper notification and/or broad

distribution of pamphlets/brochures

does not occur. The purpose of these

activities is to ensure that as many

individuals served by the system as

possible receive timely public education

materials. For systems serving 500 and

fewer people, the Agency does not

believe that mailing or hand delivering

these materials to all households served

by the system, in lieu of these activities,

constitutes an undue burden. The

revised provisions allow these systems

the flexibility to select the least

burdensome among the allowable

delivery mechanisms. The Agency has

therefore incorporated this requirement

into the final rule language.

The comments received also

supported the burden reduction

suggestion to eliminate the public

service announcement requirement for

CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA

agrees and today’s action revises the

rule language accordingly.

Several commenters recommended

that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501

to 3,300 people to forego newspaper

notification and broad distribution of

pamphlets and brochures to facilities

and organizations that are visited

frequently by pregnant women and

children. These commenters believe that

the problems associated with newspaper

notification and broad distribution of

informational pamphlets and brochures

affect most small systems. EPA concurs

that many systems serving between 501

and 3,300 people may be on the fringe

of an urban or suburban area and that

distribution of broad-based public

education for these systems may have

unintended consequences. The Agency

believes, however, that allowing these

systems to automatically limit

distribution of public education

materials is inappropriate. Such

systems, for example, are more likely to

be served by local newspapers in which

it may be appropriate to include

information about the system’s lead

levels. EPA believes that States are in

the best position to determine the extent

to which CWSs serving 501 to 3,300

people should limit distribution of

public education materials. The final

rule therefore gives States the authority,

either through State regulations or by

case-by-case written approval, to allow

CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to

omit the newspaper notification

requirements and to limit the

distribution of materials to appropriate

facilities and organizations served by

the system.

Finally, one commenter suggested

that the alternate delivery allowed for

NTNCWSs and some small CWSs

(institutions) should be extended to

mobile home parks, housing projects,

subdivisions and apartments. The

commenter believes such systems serve

a more or less confined population that

is readily accessible through a central

mail area and/or laundry area that

makes hand delivery much easier and

more effective. EPA believes that the

revisions discussed below provide

sufficient flexibility for the delivery of

public education by CWSs. EPA

therefore has no plans at this time to

make further changes to the public

education language requirements

beyond those contained in today’s

action.

(C) Today’s action. EPA has revised

the rule to add a new paragraph at

§ 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving

less than or equal to 3,300 people to

omit the public service announcement

requirements of § 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such

systems are not required to obtain prior

State approval to omit these

announcements, nor are they required to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1969

substitute any other tasks, in lieu of

public service announcements, as part

of meeting the public education

requirements.

In addition to omitting the public

service announcement task for small

CWSs, the new § 141.85(c)(8) provides

some flexibility for small CWSs to omit

the newspaper notification required by

§ 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the

distribution of informational pamphlets

under § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate

facilities and organizations served by

the water system. In addition to mailing

lead public education materials to

billing units, systems electing to limit/

omit these activities must also mail or

hand deliver the required public

education materials to all other regular

customers of the system (i.e.,

households that are not billing units).

CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people must

receive prior written approval from the

State. State approval is not required for

CWSs serving 500 or fewer people,

however, § 141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives

States the authority to require such a

system to distribute to facilities and

organizations not served by the system

in those instances where the State

believes that a broader distribution is

appropriate. As discussed above, today’s

action also adds the corresponding State

recordkeeping requirements at a new

§ 142.14(d)(8)(x).

Finally, § 141.85(c)(8)(ii) clarifies that

small CWSs that omit the public service

announcement tasks are required to

repeat public education tasks only once

during each calendar year until such

time as the results of lead and copper

tap water monitoring indicate that they

no longer exceed the lead action level.

(ii) Timing and method of

distribution.

(A) Proposed revision and

background. In the April 1996 Proposal,

EPA sought comment on proposed

changes pertaining to the mailing and

timing of public education materials by

CWSs that exceed the lead action level.

Specifically, the Agency proposed two

modifications to § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a)

Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that

does not include a billing within 60

days of exceeding the lead action level

to mail the materials on the same

schedule as the system’s billing cycle as

long as the mailing occurs within six

months after the exceedance; and (b)

allow a CWS that cannot insert

information in the water utility bill,

without making major changes to its

billing system, to use a separate mailing

to deliver the public education materials

as long as the information is delivered

within the required time frame. EPA

also proposed to require CWSs utilizing

a separate mailing to include an alert

with the materials to minimize the risk

that they would be discarded as ‘‘junk

mail.’’ The Agency proposed these

changes to minimize the unintended

additional burden associated with

making changes in a water system’s

billing cycle and/or process to

accommodate the rule’s public

education requirements.

(B) Comments and analysis.

Commenters generally were supportive

of these proposed changes, except for

one State which disagreed with

allowing systems up to six months to

deliver the public education materials

because of the potential health risks,

especially for pregnant women, if

customers are not informed in a timely

manner. After further consideration of

the public health issues, EPA has

decided to retain the current

requirement that all systems exceeding

the lead action level distribute public

education materials within 60 days of

the exceedance. The decision to retain

the 60-day requirement is based on

these considerations: (1) Extending the

time period to distribute public

education materials could lessen public

health protection. Pregnant women, in

particular, might not receive timely

notice if the system were allowed up to

six months after becoming aware of an

exceedance to provide the public

education materials. (2) Allowing

different time requirements based on

non-risk-related factors such as billing

cycles could provide unequal health

protection. (3) State administrative costs

would increase since the State would

need to be aware of a system’s billing

cycle in order to determine compliance

with this requirement.

EPA agrees with commenters,

however, that the mailing of public

education materials separately from the

water bill is appropriate in many

instances and is revising the public

education requirements accordingly.

The Agency believes that this change

will provide sufficient flexibility for

systems to meet the public education

requirements without incurring the

added burden of making substantial

changes to their billing processes.

One commenter seems to have

misunderstood the requirements

pertaining to the timing of public

education if a CWS is required to repeat

public education tasks pursuant to

§ 141.85(c)(3). It is not EPA’s intention

that such a system provide public

education materials within 60 days of

any subsequent exceedance as well as

repeat mailing of these materials every

12 months based on the initial

exceedance. Rather, the Agency intends

that public education materials be

mailed every 12 months for as long as

the system continues to exceed the lead

action level. There is nothing in the

regulation, however, that precludes

such a system from mailing the

materials sooner than 12 months after

the initial mailing, in order to

synchronize the repeat mailing with its

billing cycle.

(C) Today’s action. EPA is revising

§ 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a CWS the

option of using a separate mailing when

the system’s billing cycle does not

include a mailing within 60 days of

exceeding the action level or where the

system cannot insert information with

the water utility bill without making

major changes in its billing system. The

separate mailing must occur within 60

days of exceeding the lead action level

and the system must include an alert in

the package or on the outside of the

envelope containing the following

message, in large print: SOME HOMES

IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE

ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR

DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE

A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR

HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE

ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION.

EPA also is revising the introductory

text of §§ 141.85(c)(2) and 141.85(c)(4)

to clarify that the requirement to deliver

public education within 60 days of a

lead action level exceedance applies

only in the following instances:

• The first time the water system

exceeds the lead action level; or

• The first time the water system

again exceeds the lead action level after

one (or more) round(s) of tap water

monitoring for lead and copper where

the system did not exceed the lead

action level.

c. Schedule for Reporting Completion

of Public Education Tasks.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal included a

change in the deadline for a PWS to

report completion of public education

tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule,

the deadline for reporting was December

31 of each year in which the system was

subject to the Rule’s public education

requirements. EPA proposed to replace

the December 31 deadline with a

requirement for the water system to

report completion of public education

tasks to the State within 10 days after

the date by which the system is required

to perform any such tasks. EPA

proposed this revision because the

Agency believes that the schedule for

water systems to report completion of

public education tasks by December 31

of each year (in which the system is

required to conduct any public

education task) fails to provide the

States and EPA with information in a

1970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

manner timely enough to oversee

systems’ compliance with the public

education program requirements.

(ii) Comments and analysis.

Commenters were mixed in their

support for this revision. Those

opposing it believe this will

unnecessarily increase burden. Of those

supporting the revision, some support it

as written and some support it with

changes. Two of those supporting it

with changes wanted the reporting time

to increase from 10 days to 30 days, and

one supporting it with changes

expressed concern about submitting a

full packet of information each reporting

period.

Several commenters who opposed

this revision wanted to retain the annual

reporting requirement. EPA recognizes

that this revision will require those

CWSs that must deliver public service

announcements to radio and television

stations every six months to submit two

letters to the State during a calendar

year instead of the single letter initially

required. However, EPA believes that

accelerating the public education

reporting requirement will improve

compliance because, in addition to

making the requirements easier to

enforce, it also will encourage water

systems that exceed the lead action level

to deliver the public education program

in a more timely manner.

EPA also believes it is appropriate to

require reporting within 10 days after a

public education task is scheduled to be

completed. The 10 days allows systems

time to assemble records and notify the

State. Such a requirement is consistent

with the time frame allowed in other

reporting requirements, which allow 10

days for reporting to the State after an

action or the end of a reporting period.

Very few systems should be required to

conduct public education tasks more

than once per year, since today’s action

also eliminates public service

announcements for small CWSs. In

addition, since it is expected that not

many systems will continue to exceed

the lead action level after installation of

OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that

this new requirement will not increase

burden for most systems.

As stated previously, one commenter

suggested that, for ongoing public

education, it should not be necessary for

a water system to submit the full packet

of information to the State for each

subsequent public education task to

verify that all appropriate actions have

been taken, as long as the State receives

a letter indicating that the information

has been sent out and the letter includes

any changes to the original information.

The 1991 Rule requires that systems

provide sufficient documentation for

States to determine whether all

appropriate actions have been taken.

Today’s action does not alter the

requirement that the demonstration be

supported with appropriate

documentation. The Agency agrees that

it may relieve some reporting burden for

systems if they are not required to

submit the same information more than

once. On the other hand, EPA

recognizes that eliminating the

requirement to submit the supporting

materials each time may increase the

State burden to determine compliance

since all of the information may not be

readily available at the time compliance

is assessed. For this reason, the Agency

believes it is most appropriate to leave

the decision to the State about the need

for repetitious submission of the same

information. If the State elects to

eliminate these repetitious submissions,

however, EPA believes it is appropriate

to require the water system to certify

that there have been no changes in the

supporting documentation. Regardless

of the State’s decision on this matter,

§ 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to

maintain records of system submittals

which should contain the initial and

any subsequent public education

information sent to the State. This

requirement is not affected by today’s

action.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA is revising

§ 141.90(f) to require any water system,

subject to the public education

requirements of § 141.85, to report its

completion of all required public

education tasks to the State within 10

days after the date by which the system

is required to complete semi-annual/

annual public education tasks. The

Agency also is adding language to

§ 141.90(f) that eliminates the need for

systems to submit supporting

documentation that has been submitted

previously unless there is a change in

the information or the State requires

that the documentation be included

with each submission. Systems that do

not submit supporting documentation

must certify that there have been no

changes to the information. A new

§ 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to

maintain records of any system-specific

decisions made under § 141.90(f)

regarding the resubmission of detailed

documentation to demonstrate

completion of public education tasks.

5. Revisions to § 141.86

a. Systems with an insufficient

number of tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal included new

language at § 141.86(a)(5) and

§ 141.86(a)(7) which instructs CWSs and

NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete

their sampling pools with representative

sites throughout the distribution system

if they are unable to locate a sufficient

number of sample sites that meet the

tiering criteria specified in § 141.86(a).

EPA proposed this revision to clarify

that all systems are required to collect

samples from a minimum number of

sites in accordance with § 141.86(c),

even if a sufficient number of high-risk

sites are not available.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters agreed with the proposed

new language. However, one commenter

suggested that EPA provide a clear

definition or understanding of what

constitutes a ‘‘representative site’’. The

Agency believes that a ‘‘representative

site,’’ in this context, is a site in which

the plumbing materials used at that site

would be commonly found at other sites

served by the water system. This

definition for ‘‘representative site’’ is

specific to these two paragraphs and has

been added to the regulatory language at

§ 141.86(a)(5) and § 141.86(a)(7).

One commenter suggested that, rather

than requiring a water system to identify

representative sites to complete its

sampling pool if it cannot identify a

sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites

(if it is a CWS) or a sufficient number

of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS),

a CWS should be allowed to collect

samples from only those sites meeting

the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a

NTNCWS should be allowed to collect

samples from only those sites meeting

the tier 1 or 2 criteria, if they provide

written justification, even if it means

collecting fewer than the minimum

number of required samples.

EPA believes that if a water system

collects fewer than the required number

of samples, the water system will not be

able to accurately characterize a lead or

copper problem, if it exists. The number

of samples specified for initial

monitoring, follow-up monitoring and

reduced monitoring was established to

sufficiently account for variability of

lead and copper at taps while at the

same time being reasonable for a system

to implement. Since there can be

variability in lead and copper levels at

different taps within the same building

and even at the same tap at different

points in time, EPA believes that

systems that do not have the requisite

number of sites must sample at multiple

taps used to provide drinking water for

human consumption within available

buildings. Systems with too few taps

must collect multiple samples from

available taps used to provide drinking

water on different days during the

monitoring period to meet the

monitoring requirements. The Agency

therefore is not revising the minimum

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1971

site requirement to allow fewer samples

to be collected.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised

the language of § 141.86(a)(5) to require

that a CWS complete its sampling pool

with representative sites throughout the

distribution system if it does not have

a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3

sampling sites available. Likewise, the

Agency has revised the language of

§ 141.86(a)(7) to require that a NTNCWS

complete its sampling pool with

representative sites throughout the

distribution system if it does not have

a sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2

sites available. The revised language of

both provisions includes the definition

of a ‘‘representative site,’’ discussed

above, that applies to these provisions.

While today’s action provides systems

the flexibility to use any representative

site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that

are unable to locate a sufficient number

of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and

NTNCWSs that are unable to locate a

sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample

sites to add to their sampling pool those

sites with copper plumbing installed

subsequent to local implementation of

the lead ban (typically 1988 or 1989),

provided these sites can be considered

‘‘representative’’. Sample sites meeting

the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria have a greater

likelihood of experiencing high lead

levels than sample sites not meeting the

tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites

typically contain the newest lead

plumbing materials in a community or

a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead

leaching potential than older lead.)

These same sample sites, however, may

actually have a lesser likelihood of

experiencing high copper levels than

sample sites not meeting these criteria

because these sites may not contain the

newest copper plumbing materials in a

community or a facility. Including sites

in the sample pool that have copper

plumbing installed more recently than

1988 or 1989 may allow a water system

to identify copper corrosion problems

not apparent by sampling sites meeting

the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria.

b. Elimination of justification letters

for use of non-tier 1 sample sites and

insufficient lead service line sample

sites.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

One of the burden reduction measures

that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to

eliminate the requirement at

§§ 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)–(3) that

a system unable to locate a sufficient

number of tier 1 sites send a letter to the

State justifying the selection of non-tier

1 sites. EPA also proposed to eliminate

the requirement at §§ 141.86(a)(9) and

141.90(a)(4) that a system with LSLs,

that cannot identify a sufficient number

of sampling sites served by a LSL for its

sampling pool, send a letter to the State

demonstrating why it is unable to do so.

EPA explained that the original intent of

these requirements was to help ensure

that systems collect samples from highrisk sites. The Agency expected these

justification letters to be completed

prior to the start of initial monitoring.

Water systems are having to adjust their

sampling pools much more frequently

than EPA anticipated because of the

difficulty they are experiencing in

obtaining continued access to the same

sites. The requirement of constantly

justifying the adjustments to the

sampling pool is adding an unintended

extra burden on systems, however, and

the Agency believes that other

appropriate tools available to States,

such as periodic on-site inspections and

file reviews, can be used to ensure that

systems are routinely sampling at

appropriate sites.

(ii) Comments and analysis.

Commenters were supportive of these

proposed changes. One commenter,

however, objected to the basic

requirement in § 141.86(a)(9)

(redesignated by today’s action as

§ 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a

system with LSLs collect 50 percent of

the samples each monitoring period

from taps served by LSLs. EPA did not

propose to revise this requirement. The

commenter noted that requiring the

collection of samples at all sites

identified in the sampling plan is

unrealistic, as not all homeowners

identified in the sampling plan are

willing to participate. EPA recognizes

that there may be times when the

system may be denied access to targeted

sites. In those instances, where there is

an insufficient number of tier 1 sample

sites or an insufficient number of

willing participants served by lead

service lines to constitute 50 percent of

the sampling pool, the system is

expected to collect samples from all

such sites that it can. The system must

then choose other sample sites from

which to collect the remaining number

of samples. Sites where the homeowner

refuses access are no longer available for

inclusion in the sampling pool and the

water system should document the

reason the site was not sampled in its

files. EPA believes this issue is best

clarified through guidance rather than a

change in rule language.

(iii) Today’s action. After considering

the comments received, EPA is revising

the provisions of §§ 141.86(a)(8)–(9) and

141.90(a)(2)–(4) as proposed in April

1996. Specifically, §§ 141.86(a)(8) and

141.90(a)(2)–(3), requiring the system to

send a letter to the State justifying the

use of non-tier 1 sites, have been

deleted. Section 141.86(a)(9) has been

redesignated as § 141.86(a)(8) and

revised to eliminate reference to the

reporting requirement that a water

system with LSLs that does not have

sufficient sites served by LSLs available

to comprise 50 percent of the sampling

pool send a letter to the State justifying

why it cannot do so. Section

141.90(a)(4), which contained the

corresponding reporting requirement,

has been replaced with a new reporting

requirement pertaining to small system

waivers (see section C.5.l. of this

preamble). Although the regulatory

requirement to send these sample site

justifications to the State has been

eliminated, the Agency encourages

systems to provide this information to

the State as a courtesy.

c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to

provide first-draw samples.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

One of the provisions that EPA

proposed in April 1996 would allow

NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps

where the water will have stood in the

plumbing for at least six hours to ask the

State, in writing, for approval to sample

from taps where the water will have

stood for less than six hours. These

systems would be required to collect

first-draw samples from as many taps

having at least a six-hour standing time

as possible. For the remaining samples,

systems would be required to identify

and report to the State, sampling times

and locations that would likely result in

the longest standing time. Systems

would then be required to sample at

times and locations approved by the

State. EPA also requested comment on

an alternative that would give the States

flexibility to eliminate the requirement

for up-front State approval of the

sampling plan. Under this scenario,

NTNCWSs would still be required to

sample from taps with the longest

standing times possible, however, States

would not need to approve these sites

prior to monitoring. In the preamble to

the April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that

States would retain discretion to verify,

at any time, that the proper sampling

was done.

EPA proposed this provision to

address the problem many NTNCWSs

that provide drinking water 24 hours a

day (e.g., a factory operating on a 3-shift

basis) face in complying with the LCR’s

requirements. Such systems may not

have periods of normal operation during

which the water will have stood

motionless in the plumbing for at least

six hours prior to collecting tap water

lead and copper samples. The Agency

believes that it is unnecessary to require

such systems to shut down operations

in order to achieve a standing time that

1972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the

requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(2) for

a CWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sampling sites

has been eliminated.

does normally exist. The proposed

provision would allow these systems to

sample at times and locations that are

most likely to be representative of these

systems’ worst case scenarios.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters supported allowing these

NTNCWSs to substitute non-first-draw

samples for first-draw samples if they

do not have enough taps that can

achieve the required six-hour standing

time. A few of these commenters,

however, suggested that it is not always

practical to try to determine which

tap(s) have the longest standing times.

Others suggested that repeat sampling,

on separate days, at the tap(s) that meet

the six-hour standing time requirement

be permitted, rather than substituting

samples that do not meet the six-hour

standing time requirement.

EPA believes that if a system cannot

locate the requisite number of taps that

satisfy the six-hour standing time

requirement, it must make the effort to

identify the taps having the longest

standing times and collect substitute

samples from these sites. Sampling at

sites that have the longest standing time

will assist the system in determining the

maximum potential level of lead and

copper exposure from drinking water.

EPA also believes that it is more

important to collect samples from the

required number of sites (as long as

these are sites that are typically used to

provide drinking water) than it is to

collect samples that have stood in the

tap for six hours if a six-hour standing

time is not typical at that NTNCWS

because it is operating 24 hours per day.

The minimum number of samples for

initial, follow-up, and reduced

monitoring has been established to

sufficiently account for the variability of

lead and copper at different taps while

at the same time being reasonable for a

system to implement. Collecting the

required number of samples, but from

fewer sample sites, does not address the

variability issue as well, especially if the

system has other taps that are typically

used and that can be sampled. For these

reasons, today’s action retains the

requirement to collect at least the

minimum number of samples specified

in § 141.86(c).

Many of the commenters supporting

the substitution of non-first-draw

samples did not address the issue of upfront State approval. Commenters who

did address this issue were mixed in

their support. While most commenters

who supported up-front approval did

not explain why they did so, one

commenter suggested that up-front

notification and approval may be easier

for States to implement and control.

Another commenter supported up-front

approval but suggested that the system

should be free to proceed without

specific written concurrence from the

State if the State did not respond within

a reasonable period. Several

commenters supported substitution of

samples without prior State approval;

however, some supported such

flexibility only if States were allowed to

conduct verification inspections.

In consideration of these comments,

today’s action gives States discretion to

decide whether or not to require prior

State approval of sampling plans.

Systems in States not requiring prior

State approval must submit

documentation of their sampling plan to

the State, when they submit their

sampling results. This documentation

must include identification of the

substitute sample sites and the length of

standing time for each substitute

sample.

Some commenters also used this

opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs

that have fewer than five sample taps

where five samples are required, or

fewer than ten sample taps where ten

samples are required, be permitted to

collect only as many samples as there

are sample taps. EPA believes that it is

inappropriate to reduce the minimum

number of samples required. The LCR

requires all water systems to collect a

minimum number of samples

(dependent on size of population served

by the system) as per § 141.86(c). As

stated previously, the number of

samples specified for initial, follow-up,

and reduced monitoring has been

established to sufficiently account for

variability of lead and copper at taps

while at the same time being reasonable

for a system to implement. There is also

some variability in concentrations

across multiple samples from the same

tap collected at different points in time.

EPA believes that absent a sufficient

number of appropriate taps, the

variability in lead levels from samples

collected from the same tap at different

times warrants retaining the

requirement for the minimum number

of samples to be collected. Water

systems with fewer sample taps than

required should thus contact the State to

discuss an appropriate sampling plan

that would include collecting the

required number of samples at the

available sample taps.

Finally, one commenter noted that

there also are some CWSs (e.g., prisons,

nursing homes) that have similar

characteristics to NTNCWSs. EPA

agrees. Today’s action therefore also

allows special-case CWSs, such as

prisons and hospitals, that do not have

a sufficient number of taps to provide

first-draw samples to sample from taps

where the water will have stood for less

than six hours.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has added

provisions at § 141.86(b)(5) that require

a NTNCWS which does not have

enough taps that can supply first-draw

samples to collect as many first-draw

samples from appropriate sample taps

as possible and to complete the

sampling pool with locations that would

likely result in the longest standing time

for the remaining samples. These

provisions also apply to special-case

CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those

specified in §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)

where the system is a facility, such as

a prison or hospital, where the

population served is not capable of or is

prevented from making improvements

to plumbing or installing point-of-use

treatment devices and where the system

provides water as part of the cost of

services provided and does not

separately charge for water

consumption.

States have discretion to decide

whether or not prior State approval is

required before a system can substitute

non-first-draw samples. EPA has added

provisions at § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States

to maintain records of any systemspecific decisions made regarding use of

non-first draw samples. Where prior

State approval is not required, systems

must submit documentation with the

sampling results that identify each site

that does not meet the six-hour

minimum standing time and the length

of standing time for the sample(s)

collected from that site. Nothing in the

rule language precludes verification

inspections by the State. A State

conducting a water system inspection

for any purpose can also use that

opportunity to review the sampling plan

that should be available on-site. (Water

systems are required to retain all records

for at least 12 years, as per § 141.91.)

States opting to allow systems to

proceed with sampling without

requesting prior approval from the State

should inform the systems, before the

start of the monitoring period, that upfront approval is not required.

Today’s action also modifies the

language at § 141.90(a)(2) 5 to add the

corresponding reporting requirement. If

the State requires prior State approval,

the system must provide written

documentation to the State identifying

sampling times and locations of the

non-first-draw samples which the

system proposes to use to complete its

sampling pool prior to sampling. If the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1973

State does not require prior State

approval, the modified language at

§ 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to

identify each site that did not meet the

6-hour minimum standing time and the

length of standing time for that

particular sample, and submit this

information at the same time that it

submits its lead and copper tap sample

results.

Finally, today’s action makes a

conforming revision to the language at

§ 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw

samples collected pursuant to

§ 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume

and to be collected at an interior tap

from which water is typically drawn for

consumption. This changed language

provides coverage for those NTNCWSs

and special-case CWSs that must

complete their sampling pool with nonfirst-draw samples and is consistent

with the requirement that first-draw

samples be one liter in volume and be

drawn from taps that are routinely used

to provide drinking water.

d. Minimum holding time for acidified

lead and copper samples prior to

analysis.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA sought

comment on a revision to § 141.86(b)(2)

to make the minimum length of time

that a lead and copper sample must

stand in the original container after

acidification consistent with the

analytical methods for other metals.

Rather than explicitly specifying the

holding time in subpart I, the proposed

revision would require these samples to

stand in the original container ‘‘for the

time specified in the approved EPA

method,’’ eliminating the need to revise

the LCR in the future to reflect methods

changes. The Rule, as promulgated in

1991, requires that a sample stand in the

original container for at least 28 hours

after acidification before sample

analysis can occur. The analytical

method requiring this minimum holding

time was revised in 1994 to allow

laboratories to analyze samples for

metals other than lead and copper 16

hours after acidification, instead of

having to wait 28 hours before this

analysis can occur (59 FR 62456,

December 5, 1994). EPA believes the

revision to § 141.86(b)(2) relieves

laboratories of the burden to have

separate acidification holding times for

lead and copper and increases the

number of samples that can be analyzed

in a day.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Two

commenters had concerns about the

proposed change. One requested

clarification as to why the change was

needed. As explained above, EPA

believes this revision is appropriate to

maintain consistency with the analytical

methods for other metals. Another

commenter opposed the proposed

revision on the basis that it would

decrease the amount of time available

for sample analysis, thereby increasing

the potential for laboratory error

resulting in the need to collect

additional samples. This commenter

apparently interpreted the acidification

holding time as the maximum time that

can elapse between acidification and

analysis. In fact, the acidification

holding time is the minimum time that

must elapse after acidification before the

sample is analyzed. By reducing this

time, EPA believes that, if anything, the

potential for laboratory error will

decrease, as the amount of time

available for sample analysis will

increase.

One commenter who supported the

revision noted that EPA also needs to

revise the laboratory licensure

requirements in the CFR to reflect this

change. Laboratory certification

requirements are defined in the

‘‘Manual for the Certification of

Drinking Water Laboratories’’, not in the

CFR. EPA has revised this manual to

conform with the revised holding times

specified at § 141.86(b)(2).

(iii) Today’s action. Today’s action

revises the next to last sentence of

§ 141.86(b)(2), as proposed, to read:

‘‘After acidification to 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.’’

e. Selection of sample sites under

reduced monitoring.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The LCR specifies the number, location,

and timing of samples to be collected for

standard monitoring of lead and copper

at the tap. At a minimum, systems must

conduct standard monitoring initially

and as a follow-up to installing CCT.

The Rule also allows a reduced number

and frequency of samples for certain

water systems once corrosion control

has been optimized. However, the rule

language promulgated in 1991 failed to

specify which of the previously tested

sampling sites should be included in the

reduced sampling pool. To correct this

omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to

require reduced monitoring sites to be

representative of the sites required for

standard monitoring. EPA also proposed

to allow States the discretion to specify

which sites a system subject to reduced

monitoring should use if, in the

judgment of the State, such an action is

warranted.

EPA proposed this language because

of the concern that some water systems,

if allowed to select sample sites under

reduced monitoring without any

restrictions, might be tempted to select

only those sites that had the lowest

analytical results during the initial

monitoring, thereby skewing the 90th

percentile calculations downward.

(ii) Comments and analysis. In their

comments, some water systems raised

concern that States might require them

to select only those sites with the

highest analytical results during the

initial monitoring, which would skew

the 90th percentile calculation upward.

EPA does not want either of these

extremes to be used in the selection of

sites under reduced monitoring and is

therefore revising § 141.86(c) to require

that the sample sites selected under

reduced monitoring be representative of

those selected initially.

Of the 18 comments received, only 1

commenter directly disagreed with the

proposal. That commenter felt the

proposal displayed a lack of trust in

water systems and increased the burden

on the States. EPA believes that the

revised wording in today’s action

should not be construed as indicating a

lack of trust in all water system

decisions. The intent of the revised

wording is to allow most water systems

to make their own decisions, but to also

allow a State the option of specifying

the sampling sites under reduced

monitoring, if it believes that a system

needs assistance in identifying which of

the sample sites in the system’s

sampling pool are truly representative of

the sampling pool. EPA expects that

States will allow most water systems to

specify reduced monitoring sample site

locations without State involvement.

However, if the State feels the need to

intervene, the Rule now clearly gives

them the authority to do so.

Three commenters questioned the

requirement to draw 50 percent of the

tap samples from sites served by a LSL

during reduced monitoring. These

commenters believe that water systems

should be permitted to sample from any

of the original tap sites during reduced

monitoring. Two of these commenters

also believe that for a water system with

only a few LSLs, the requirement to

collect samples from all of the sites with

LSLs will provide a misleading

characterization of the sampling pool

and the distribution system in general.

The sampling scheme promulgated in

1991 was not established to characterize

lead and copper levels throughout the

entire water system. Rather, it was

established to ensure that systems

collect samples from residences most

likely to experience elevated levels of

lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e.,

high-risk sites). EPA believes that these

high-risk locations should be accounted

1974 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

for in a monitoring plan to better ensure

that high levels of lead are detected and

that the system institutes treatment that

provides uniform and adequate levels of

public health protection throughout the

entire distribution system. EPA feels

that the reasoning that led to the

requirement that 50 percent of the tap

samples be drawn from sites served by

a LSL during initial monitoring is just

as valid for reduced monitoring and has

thus not revised this requirement. In

addition, just as for initial monitoring,

systems with LSLs, which do not have

enough sample sites with LSLs to

comprise 50 percent of their sampling

pool, must collect samples during

reduced monitoring at as many homes

with LSLs as they have access to.

One commenter thought that EPA’s

language in § 141.86(c) could be

interpreted to mean that a water system

is required to collect only one sample in

a round of monitoring (although that

sample would have to represent the

required number of sites, possibly by

being a composite sample or possibly by

being taken randomly from one of the

sites) and suggested a revision to the

wording that would require at least one

sample be collected from each of the

number of sites specified. EPA believes

that the vast majority of water systems

have been interpreting EPA’s intent

correctly and are collecting one sample

per site during reduced monitoring. In

addition, the Agency believes that the

commenter’s suggested wording change,

that systems conducting reduced

monitoring collect at least one sample

from ‘‘each of the number of sites

specified,’’ might confuse those

NTNCWSs that have fewer sites (i.e.,

faucets) available than the number of

samples they are required to collect in

a monitoring period. Those systems

must collect multiple samples from

some sites in order to collect the

required number of samples. The

commenter’s wording could be

interpreted to mean that the system

need only collect as many samples as

there are sample sites. Since this is not

EPA’s intent, the wording has not been

revised as suggested by the commenter.

(iii) Today’s action. For the reasons

discussed above, EPA has revised the

wording of § 141.86(c), as proposed, to

clarify that the reduced monitoring sites

must be representative of the sites

required for standard monitoring and to

give States discretionary authority to

specify the reduced monitoring sites. A

corresponding State recordkeeping

requirement, to maintain records

pertaining to any State designations of

reduced monitoring sites, has been

added as § 142.14(d)(8)(xii).

f. State determination of eligibility for

reduced monitoring.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

Under the 1991 Rule, systems subject to

water quality parameter monitoring after

the installation of corrosion control

treatment must explicitly request State

approval to begin reduced monitoring

for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996,

EPA proposed to eliminate the

requirement for these systems to request

State approval. However, such systems

would still be required to receive

written approval from the State before

reducing the frequency of monitoring.

EPA proposed this provision as a

burden reduction measure. Since most

States routinely review eligibility for

reduced monitoring at the time they

review monitoring results and notify

those systems that have become eligible

to reduce monitoring, the requirement

that systems explicitly request the State

to determine eligibility is an

unnecessary administrative burden.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters agreed with EPA’s

proposal. Some, however, expressed

concern that systems may become

confused as to what their monitoring

requirements are; others expressed

concern that States might not routinely

provide timely notification unless

prompted by a request from the system.

These commenters suggested that EPA

at least provide States flexibility to

retain the current requirement. The

Agency does not believe that such

flexibility needs to be written into the

rule language. Nothing in the Federal

regulations precludes systems from

continuing to request State approval if

they believe that such a request will

ensure timely State notification.

Some commenters also raised the

question of whether the proposed

change effectively reduces burden or

merely shifts it from the system to the

State. The Agency believes that this

provision will reduce burden. EPA

estimates that the current requirement

imposes both a system burden

(requesting approval for reduced

monitoring) and a State burden

(reviewing the request and relevant

monitoring and treatment data and

providing written notification to the

system). The Agency estimates that the

system burden will be eliminated with

the revised provision and that no

increase in State burden will occur

because the State will determine a

system’s eligibility for reduced

monitoring as part of its routine

determination of compliance with the

LCR monitoring requirements.

(iii) Today’s action. Sections

141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii) have been

revised to allow any water system that

maintains the range of values for the

WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the

State under § 141.82(f) to reduce the

frequency of monitoring to once per

year or once every three years,

respectively, if the system meets the

other conditions specified in

§§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii),

respectively, and receives written

notification from the State that it can

reduce the frequency of monitoring. The

system reporting requirement at

§ 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request

approval for reduced monitoring has

been eliminated.

g. Timing of sample collection under

reduced monitoring.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The 1991 Rule language required water

systems subject to reduced monitoring

to conduct that monitoring during the

months of June, July, August, and/or

September. EPA imposed this

requirement because the Agency

believed that the highest levels of lead

at the tap were most likely to occur

during warm weather months. This

requirement, however, has had the

unintended consequence of forcing

seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate

during the summer months to collect

samples during periods that are not

representative of normal operations. To

correct this problem, in 1996, EPA

proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS

that does not operate during the months

of June, July, August, or September, to

collect samples, under reduced

monitoring, during the system’s

warmest month(s) of operation.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters supported this proposed

revision. A few commenters expressed

concern, however, that it would be

difficult to determine alternate

‘‘warmest month(s) of operation’’ or that

the revised requirement would create a

hardship for laboratories by forcing all

monitoring into a single month. These

commenters suggested that EPA give

States the authority to designate the

alternative month(s) of sampling or

retain the current requirements. Two

commenters stated their belief that there

is no justification for requiring any

system to limit reduced monitoring to

warm weather months and suggested

EPA remove this requirement across the

board.

EPA has reviewed recently published

data and analyses pertaining to the

effect of temperature on lead and copper

leaching. The Agency provided notice of

the availability of these data and

requested public comment in the April

1998 Notice on a regulatory option that

would allow systems conducting

reduced tap water monitoring for lead

and copper to collect samples during

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1975

months of normal operation when lead

levels are likely to be the highest, or as

otherwise designated by the State.

Although there is no definitive data,

there are several factors which might

explain why metal levels could

frequently be higher in cold weather

months, various combinations of which

may be simultaneously present in a

given water system. These factors

include:

• The intrinsic net solubility of many

minerals, especially carbonates,

increases as the temperature decreases.

• Corrosion inhibitors, especially

orthophosphate, may react more slowly

at lower temperatures, so passivating

film formation is less effective in colder

water.

• Corrosion inhibitors and other

treatment chemicals may be more

viscous at lower temperatures.

Therefore, the chemical feed rates may

be lower when cold.

• Many pipes are near heating

systems, and in the winter the operation

of the heating systems causes the pipes

to be hotter. Plus, the change in

temperature could also disrupt the

existing protective films in the pipes

built up over the earlier months of more

stable temperatures.

• Dissolved oxygen levels are often

higher in colder waters, resulting in

increased concentrations of oxidants

(e.g., oxygen, free chlorine, chloramines)

in the water. This causes more rapid

increases in metal levels through

enhanced oxidation during short

standing times (less than 16 hours).

Only one commenter opposed such a

revision, on the basis that such a change

might be disruptive to utilities and

laboratories. EPA disagrees. Since the

revised language allows States to retain

the requirement to conduct reduced

monitoring during the months of June

through September, the Agency believes

the regulatory language provides

sufficient flexibility to accommodate the

scheduling issues raised by the

commenter.

Based on a review of the current

science and comments received in

response to the April 1996 Proposal and

the April 1998 Notice, EPA believes that

the requirement to limit reduced

monitoring to warm weather months is

no longer justified. Today’s action

therefore revises § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to

provide States some flexibility to

specify an alternative time for the

collection of samples under reduced

monitoring.

In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also

requested public comment on the need

for the rule language to explicitly allow

a transition period for those water

systems, already on a reduced

monitoring schedule, that want to take

advantage of the greater flexibility in the

revised regulation. Most of the

commenters who addressed this

question strongly supported including

provisions for a transition period in the

rule language. EPA agrees that it is

appropriate to define a transition

period. It is not the Agency’s intent that

systems already on reduced monitoring

be locked into the months of June

through September for sample

collection. Nor is it the Agency’s intent

that such systems be penalized by being

forced into scheduling a subsequent

round of monitoring significantly earlier

than otherwise would be necessary just

to change the allowable months for

sample collection. EPA has therefore

included provisions for a transition

period in today’s action.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised

the language of § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to

require that systems subject to reduced

monitoring collect samples during the

months of June, July, August, or

September unless the State has

approved a different sampling period.

The alternate sampling period must be

no longer than four consecutive months

and represent a time of normal

operation where the highest levels of

lead are most likely to occur. EPA

recognizes that in many cases it will be

difficult to predict when the highest

lead values might occur given a system’s

water chemistry coupled with other

influencing physical factors. There may

be instances, however, where

monitoring data from similar systems or

prior monitoring or survey experience at

a particular system is available to the

States that would suggest when the most

appropriate monitoring time(s) will

occur. If the State is unable to identify

an alternate monitoring period for a

system where the highest levels of lead

are most likely to occur, then the system

must continue monitoring during the

months of June, July, August, or

September. However, if the system is a

NTNCWS that does not operate during

the months of June through September,

the final rule allows these systems to

monitor during a period designated by

the State that represents a time of

normal operation for the system.

For systems already on reduced

monitoring that have been collecting

samples during the June through

September time frame, the revision to

§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv) specifies the deadline

for completing the first round of

monitoring using the alternate period.

Systems on an annual monitoring

schedule must collect their first round

of samples during the alternate months

during a time period that ends no later

than 21 months after the previous round

of sampling. Systems on a triennial

schedule must collect their first round

of samples during the alternate months

during a time period that ends no later

than 45 months after the previous round

of sampling. Thereafter, these systems

must revert to an annual or triennial

schedule based on the alternate months

of sampling.

This transition period allows systems

conducting annual or triennial

monitoring an extra nine months in

which to make the transition without

sampling significantly early or incurring

a monitoring and reporting violation.

For systems transitioning to an alternate

sampling period that includes the

period of March, April, or May, EPA

believes it is not unreasonable that the

first round of samples under the

alternate months be collected slightly

earlier than would otherwise be

required. For similar reasons, the

Agency does not believe it is necessary

to specify a transition period for small

water systems with monitoring waivers

granted under § 141.86(g). The revised

§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that

the first round of monitoring using the

alternate months be completed within 9

years of the previous round of

monitoring for systems with waivers.

Finally, today’s action makes two

conforming changes to Part 142. EPA

has added a State recordkeeping

requirement at § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii).

States must maintain records pertaining

to any system-specific determinations to

alternative sample collection periods for

systems subject to reduced monitoring.

EPA also has added a special primacy

condition at § 141.16(d)(4) for States to

describe how they plan to determine the

months when the lead levels are likely

to be the highest at community water

systems subject to reduced monitoring

where tap water lead and copper

samples will be collected in months

other than June, July, August and/or

September.

h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for

lead and copper at the tap.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

Under the provisions of

§ 141.86(d)(4)(iii), a small or mediumsize water system may reduce the

frequency of lead and copper tap water

monitoring to once every three years if

it does not exceed either action level

during three consecutive years of annual

monitoring. The regulations also allow

any water system that maintains the

range of values for the water quality

control parameters reflecting OCCT

specified by the State during three

consecutive years of monitoring to

reduce the frequency of lead and copper

tap water monitoring to once every three

years, if approved by the State. In the

1976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help

water systems avoid significant

unnecessary monitoring costs and

minimize the inconvenience to

homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA

proposed that systems with very low

levels of lead and copper at the tap

during two consecutive six-month

rounds of monitoring be allowed to

immediately reduce the frequency of

lead and copper tap water monitoring to

once every three calendar years without

having to conduct the required rounds

of annual monitoring first. In the

proposal, the thresholds for ‘‘very low

levels of lead and copper at the tap’’

were defined as ‘‘less than or equal to

the PQL for lead specified in

§ 141.89(a)(1)(ii),’’ which is 0.005 mg/L,

and ‘‘less than or equal to one-half the

copper action level specified in

§ 141.80(c)(2),’’ which is 0.65 mg/L.

(ii) Comments and analysis. While

one commenter specifically disagreed

with the proposal, the vast majority of

commenters either agreed fully or

agreed while raising one or more of the

issues which EPA is addressing below.

(A) Using the PQL as the lead

threshold. A number of commenters

suggested that it is inconsistent to use

the PQL as the threshold for lead while

using one-half the action level as the

threshold for copper. Some commenters

suggested that using the PQL for lead is

too restrictive and that one-half the lead

action level should be used instead. In

the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal,

EPA indicated that accelerated reduced

monitoring would apply only to those

systems whose 90th percentile lead and

copper levels fall significantly below the

lead and copper action levels during

two consecutive six-month monitoring

periods. The Agency’s intent was to

allow for a burden reduction but still

provide adequate public health

protection. Because of the high degree of

variability in lead and copper levels at

household taps, EPA believes it is

important to establish criteria that

minimize the risk of allowing systems

that may have elevated levels of lead or

copper at the tap during subsequent

monitoring periods to be eligible for

accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA

believes that the criteria that minimize

risk are the PQL for lead and one-half

the action level for copper.

EPA disagrees with those commenters

who believe there is an inconsistency

between using the PQL for lead and onehalf the action level for copper when

consideration is given to the

relationship between the action level

and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies

in the fact that the minimized risk levels

(i.e., the threshold levels for allowing

accelerated reduced monitoring) are

those levels most protective of public

health. This is explained as follows. The

MCLG is the level at which no known

or anticipated adverse effect on the

health of persons would occur and

which allows an adequate margin of

safety. EPA must regulate contaminants

in drinking water to a level as close to

the MCLG as is feasible. The action level

for copper is set at the MCLG of 1.3 mg/

L, thus there is no health concern at

copper levels equal to the action level

or, subsequently, at one-half the action

level (0.65 mg/L). In addition, EPA

believes that it is highly unlikely that a

water system having a 90th percentile

copper level equal to one-half the action

level might exceed the copper action

level during subsequent monitoring. In

contrast to copper, the action level for

lead is set at 0.015 mg/L, which is

higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it

is unreasonable to expect that most

systems can achieve a 90th percentile

lead level of zero, EPA established a

lead action level which the Agency

believes is achievable and sufficiently

protective of public health. However,

because there are health concerns for

any lead level above zero, EPA believes

that setting the threshold level for lead

for accelerated reduced monitoring at

the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more protective

of public health than setting the level at

one-half the lead action level (0.0075

mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it

is less likely that a system whose 90th

percentile lead level is equal to or less

than the PQL would exceed the lead

action level during a subsequent round

of monitoring than it is for a system

whose 90th percentile lead level is onehalf the action level.

A few commenters expressed concern

that the PQL is hard to measure

accurately and therefore should not be

used as a threshold. EPA disagrees.

Performance evaluation (PE) studies

have confirmed that at least 75 percent

of EPA, State, and commercial

laboratories can analyze lead at 0.005

mg/L within ±30%. EPA believes that

specifying the PQL for lead as the

threshold for identifying very low levels

is appropriate on the basis of laboratory

capability.

(B) Usefulness of proposed provision.

Several commenters, including the

commenter who specifically disagreed

with the proposal, mentioned that it is

too late for this provision to have any

effect for existing systems. EPA agrees

that this provision will be of no benefit

to those systems that are already

conducting monitoring on a triennial

basis. This provision may benefit new

systems, however, in addition to those

water systems that are in the process of

installing CCT and whose 90th

percentile lead and copper levels meet

the criteria for accelerated reduced

monitoring after conducting the

required two rounds of follow-up

sampling subsequent to the installation

of OCCT. It will also be available for

systems that are triggered into a new set

of two six-month rounds of full tap

sampling due to changes in treatment or

source water. For these reasons, the

Agency still believes it is appropriate to

add provisions for accelerated reduced

monitoring to the LCR.

(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring

for only one contaminant. Two

commenters suggested that States be

given the option to authorize

accelerated reduced monitoring for

either lead or copper if a system is only

able to meet the 90th percentile

threshold for one of the contaminants

but not the other. While EPA wishes to

reduce monitoring burdens where

possible, EPA meant for this provision

to be applicable only to those systems

where there is little likelihood of

discovering elevated levels of either

lead or copper at the tap during

subsequent monitoring periods. EPA

believes that there is less of a risk that

there may be an undetected problem if

both lead and copper levels are below

the threshold levels than if only one of

the contaminant levels is less than the

threshold level and that there is more

uncertainty in the case where one of the

contaminant levels is higher than the

threshold level. To avoid this potential

risk, the Agency has decided to not

allow accelerated reduced monitoring

for one contaminant when the other

contaminant has a 90th percentile level

above the specified threshold level.

(D) Monitoring less frequently than

triennially. Another commenter

suggested changing the frequency of

reduced monitoring to once every nine

years (provided that there is no change

in treatment or new source introduced)

and suggested that this would be

consistent with the ‘‘reliably and

consistently’’ waivers allowed under the

Phase II and Phase V rules. The age

range for the population at risk for lead

is prenatal up to about six years of age.

For systems that contain lead and

copper materials, a nine-year

monitoring cycle would allow large

groups of the sensitive subpopulations

to be exposed to water that was never

tested during their highest risk years.

EPA believes it is inappropriate to

reduce the monitoring to a frequency

where some children would not receive

the benefit of such monitoring. The

Agency considers a 9-year monitoring

cycle appropriate only for systems that

have no lead or copper materials present

and that meet the criteria for a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1977

6As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the

requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(3),

for a NTNCWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sites,

has been eliminated.

monitoring waiver pursuant to

§ 141.86(g).

(E) Prior State approval. One

commenter suggested that written

approval by the State should be required

before a system is permitted to

accelerate reduced monitoring.

Elsewhere in § 141.86(d), written

authorization by the State to reduce lead

and copper tap monitoring is required

only when the basis for the reduction is

compliance with optimal water quality

control parameters for two consecutive

6-month monitoring periods or three

consecutive years. Those cases are more

complex and require greater State

oversight. The basis for a system being

able to accelerate reduced monitoring is

straightforward and EPA does not

believe it is necessary to mandate prior

State approval in this case. Nothing in

the rule language, however, prevents a

State from requiring such approval.

(iii) Today’s action. After careful

consideration of all comments

pertaining to this issue, EPA has

decided to promulgate the provisions

for accelerated reduced monitoring as

proposed in April 1996. EPA is adding

these provisions to § 141.86(d)(4) by

redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as

(d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph

(d)(4)(v). This new paragraph allows any

water system that demonstrates for two

consecutive six-month monitoring

periods that the 90th percentile lead

level is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/

L and the 90th percentile copper level

is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to

reduce the frequency of sampling to

once every three calendar years.

i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead

and copper tap water monitoring. As

discussed in section C.2.b. of this

preamble, today’s action contains a

conforming change to the requirements

of the newly designated

§ 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system

subject to reduced monitoring that also

is subject to the WQP monitoring

requirements of § 141.87(d) or (e) loses

its eligibility for reduced monitoring for

lead and copper at the tap (until such

time when it may again qualify) if it

fails to meet the compliance

requirements of § 141.82(g). Today’s

action also corrects an error in this

paragraph. The first sentence has been

corrected to read: ‘‘A small or mediumsize water system * * * shall resume

sampling in accordance with paragraph

(d)(3) of this section and collect the

number of samples specified for

standard monitoring under paragraph

(c) of this section.’’ The paragraph

previously read: ‘‘ * * * collect the

number of samples specified for

standard monitoring under paragraph

(d) of this section.’’

j. Requirements for systems subject to

reduced monitoring that change

treatment or source water.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

requested comment on a provision that

would require water systems operating

under reduced monitoring to report any

changes in treatment or changes in

source water to the State within 60 days.

If the State believes the change merits

additional monitoring, the State may

require the system to resume standard

monitoring, increase WQP monitoring,

or re-evaluate its corrosion control and/

or source water treatment given the

potentially different water quality

considerations. EPA proposed this

requirement to help ensure that timely

and appropriate action is taken to

maintain optimal corrosion control

when events occur that could

significantly affect water quality.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters supported the proposed

change. Several commenters thought the

proposed rule was too general and

should include more information

describing a reportable treatment

change. These commenters provided

language to limit reportable treatment

changes to those that affect the WQPs or

interfere with the efficacy of the

corrosion control strategy. EPA

disagrees with these commenters. EPA

does not believe that all systems

understand the potential impacts of

other treatments on corrosivity and,

thus, is requiring that systems report all

treatment changes to the State to avoid

situations where systems could

potentially overlook factors that

influence corrosivity. The State will

then review the treatment change and

determine if additional monitoring or

other action is necessary. EPA does

agree, however, that it should not be

necessary for the system to notify the

State every time the system makes

changes among approved sources of

water. For this reason, today’s action

limits the reportable source water

changes to those involving the addition

of a new source of water.

The only other major concern relayed

by commenters is that some believe that

water systems may be required to

conduct unnecessary monitoring every

time treatment is changed. EPA has

addressed this issue in section C.1.c. of

today’s preamble as a part of the

discussion pertaining to water systems

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control in accordance with

§ 141.81(b)(3).

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised

the LCR by adding a provision at

§ 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water

system subject to reduced tap

monitoring that either adds a new

source of water or changes any water

treatment to inform the State in writing

no later than 60 days after making the

change or addition, unless the State

requires earlier notification. The State

has the authority to require the system

to take appropriate steps to ensure that

optimal treatment is maintained. The

corresponding system reporting

requirements have been added as a new

§ 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State

recordkeeping requirements have been

included as a part of the

§ 142.14(d)(8)(ix) provisions.

k. Sample invalidation.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal included

provisions which defined four

conditions under which States could

invalidate tap water lead and copper

samples:

• If the laboratory establishes that

improper sample analysis caused

erroneous results;

• If the State determines that the

sample was taken from a site that does

not meet the site selection criteria of

§ 141.86;

• If the sample container is damaged

in transit; or

• If the State has substantial reason to

believe that the sample was subject to

tampering.

The proposed provisions also

specified documentation requirements

and provided a window for replacement

samples to be taken, if needed, to avoid

a monitoring and reporting violation.

EPA believes sample invalidation under

any of the above-mentioned conditions

is appropriate to avoid the use of sample

results that may not represent the tap

water levels of lead and copper taken

from the water system’s high risk sites.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Several

States, PWSs, and water utility trade

associations commented on the

proposed sample invalidation

provisions. None of the commenters

objected to the four conditions

proposed; however, several advocated

providing States even more flexibility

than proposed. A few commenters, for

example, recommended that EPA allow

States to invalidate any samples they

believe are inappropriate. Other

commenters suggested adding a fifth

condition, such as allowing for sample

invalidation when improper sample

collection procedures are used or when

the water has been standing in the pipes

for longer than the six-hour standing

time required by the Rule. EPA believes

1978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

that the conditions proposed in April

1996 will allow sufficient flexibility to

ensure that samples can be invalidated

where appropriate. Sample invalidation

provisions are not intended to replace

the need for proper guidance in the

collection of samples. The Agency

believes that proper education is a more

appropriate method to address incorrect

sample collection procedures.

Although the 1996 Proposal did not

address the provision that prohibits a

system from challenging the results of

samples collected by residents, several

commenters objected to its retention.

Those comments are outside the scope

of this rulemaking because EPA did not

reopen that provision in the 1991 Rule

or otherwise solicit comment on that

provision.

One commenter requested that EPA

clarify the rule language to specify that

only one of the four conditions needs to

be met for a sample to be invalidated.

EPA agrees that clarification would be

useful and has made this correction in

today’s action. Another commenter

recommended that systems be allowed

to proceed with follow-up samples and

then submit all results including followup results with detailed documentation

to the request for sample invalidation.

The Agency believes States have

sufficient flexibility to decide whether

to allow this without expressly adding

this provision to the Rule. EPA also

encourages water systems to collect

more than the minimum number of

required samples to minimize the need

to collect replacement samples in the

first place.

The preamble to the April 1996

Proposal stated the Agency’s intent that

States be prohibited from invalidating a

sample solely on the grounds that the

lead or copper concentration found in a

follow-up sample is higher or lower

than the lead or copper concentration

found in the original sample. EPA

inadvertently omitted this prohibition

in the proposed rule language for

§ 141.86(f)(3). Although a few

commenters objected to this prohibition,

the Agency believes it is appropriate. A

number of factors may cause the levels

of lead and copper at the tap to vary at

times and the existence of an elevated

result may be an indicator that

additional treatment is warranted. The

mere fact that the level in the follow-up

sample has changed would not alone be

an indicator that the sample is invalid,

especially because lead levels can be so

variable at the tap. EPA has therefore

inserted this language in the final rule.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA is

promulgating sample invalidation

provisions, as proposed, in a new

§ 141.86(f). Section 141.86(f)(1) defines

four circumstances, described above,

under which the State may invalidate a

sample. A water system requesting

sample invalidation must submit

appropriate documentation to the State

along with the results of all samples

collected, pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2). The

requirement for States to document all

decisions in writing and provide the

rationale for the decision is contained in

§ 141.86(f)(3). This paragraph also

prohibits States from invalidating a

sample solely because a follow-up

sample has a higher or lower

concentration than the original sample.

Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any

replacement samples for samples

invalidated pursuant to § 141.86(f) be

taken as soon as possible, either within

20 days of the date the State invalidates

the sample or by the end of the

applicable monitoring period,

whichever is later. Replacement

samples are necessary only in those

instances where there otherwise would

be too few samples, due to the

invalidation of one or more of the

original samples, to meet minimum

sampling requirements. Replacement

samples taken after the end of the

applicable monitoring period may not

also be used to meet the monitoring

requirements of a subsequent

monitoring period. This paragraph also

requires that any replacement sample be

taken at the same location as the

invalidated sample or, if that is not

possible, then at a location other than

one already used for sampling during

the monitoring period.

Today’s action also includes a

revision to the system reporting

requirements in § 141.90. As proposed,

EPA is adding the requirement for a

system requesting sample invalidation

to submit the appropriate

documentation to the State at

§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii). Corresponding State

recordkeeping requirements have been

added at § 142.14(d)(10)(iii).

l. Monitoring waivers for small

systems.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal included a new

provision at § 141.86(g) that would

allow States to grant monitoring waivers

to small systems that satisfy specific

90th percentile lead and copper levels

and meet certain materials

requirements. The intent of the

proposed provision was to provide

monitoring relief to small systems that

provide substantive documentation or

equivalent evidence that they are free of

sources of lead and copper

contamination. EPA believes that

monitoring relief is appropriate for these

systems because there is no value in

requiring States and water systems to

invest limited resources on frequent

monitoring where sources of lead and

copper contamination appear to be nonexistent.

(ii) Comments and analysis. While all

commenters supported this monitoring

waiver concept, many commenters took

issue with how § 141.86(g) and the

preamble were worded. Section

141.86(g) has been reworded in today’s

action to address these comments.

These changes should remove the

ambiguity of the proposed rule and

clarify requirements that were unclear

in the proposal. The major comments

received are discussed below.

(A) Materials specification.

Commenters raised several concerns

with the language that addressed the

materials requirements. Several of these

commenters objected to the use of the

terminology ‘‘all plastic system.’’ These

commenters felt that EPA’s use of such

terminology would send a message that

EPA considers other plumbing materials

unacceptable. They pointed out that

there are other plumbing materials that

pose no concern from the standpoint of

lead and copper contamination and

identified the many benefits of metallic

plumbing, including copper pipes. One

commenter noted that copper from

copper pipes contributes to meeting the

essential nutrient requirements for

humans. Commenters also noted that

many manufacturers of brass and bronze

fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint

devices) are attempting to meet the

standard established by National

Sanitation Foundation (NSF)

International for lead leaching for

faucets and other drinking water

plumbing components that contain low

levels of lead or are completely free of

lead-containing materials.

EPA, in utilizing the terminology ‘‘all

plastic system,’’ did not intend to

advocate the use of one particular type

of plumbing over any other. The

proposed rule used the phrase ‘‘all

plastic system’’ as short-hand for

systems that are free of lead-containing

and copper-containing materials that

have the potential to adversely affect

levels of lead and copper at the tap. The

Agency recognizes the benefits of many

different types of plumbing materials.

EPA recognizes the confusion that the

‘‘all plastic system’’ terminology has

caused and agrees that the wording in

the proposal could be interpreted to

preclude the granting of a waiver to a

water system even if none of the

buildings connected to the system have

any ‘‘lead-containing’’ or ‘‘coppercontaining’’ materials. EPA has dropped

the use of the ‘‘all plastic system’’

terminology in today’s action.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1979

7 Information regarding the suitability of different

plastic materials may be obtained by investigating

compliance with third-party standards such as NSF

Standard 61.

8Section C.5.h. of this preamble provides EPA’s

rationale for utilizing the PQL for lead instead of

one-half the action level when establishing a

threshold lead level for implementing accelerated

reduced monitoring.

The language in today’s action is

specific as to what materials are

considered lead-containing and coppercontaining. Lead-containing materials

include: Plastic pipes and service lines

which contain lead plasticizers; lead

service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered

pipe joints; and leaded brass or bronze

alloy fittings and fixtures that do not

meet the specifications of any leadleaching standard established pursuant

to section 1417(e) of the SDWA

Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g–

6(e)). While the proposed rule did not

specify the exclusion of plastic pipes

and service lines which contain lead

plasticizers, this exclusion can be

inferred from the proposed regulatory

language since this kind of plastic pipe

is a ‘‘lead-containing material.’’ 7 The

language pertaining to plastic pipes and

service lines which contain lead

plasticizers has been added to the final

rule for the purpose of clarification.

Copper-containing materials include

copper pipes and copper service lines.

EPA agrees that copper in drinking

water can contribute to meeting dietary

requirements. However, humans have

limited tolerance to copper. Although

low levels of exposure (below the

MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels,

especially when present in water or

beverages, can cause nausea, vomiting

and/or diarrhea. The MCLG for copper

in potable water was established to

protect humans from these adverse

effects. Thus, because changing

circumstances at systems with coppercontaining materials could result in

copper levels above the MCLG, EPA

believes it would be inappropriate to

allow such systems to monitor for

copper less frequently than once every

three years.

Today’s action does not preclude

small water systems with leaded brass

or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that

meet the ‘‘lead free’’ criteria defined

under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the

SDWA from qualifying for a monitoring

waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA

published a Federal Register Notice

recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9,

as meeting the requirements for a

voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR

44686). This standard, developed with

the assistance of EPA, the plumbing

industry, numerous State and local

regulatory officials, water utilities,

independent health consultants, and the

academic community covers endpoint

devices including kitchen and bar

faucets, lavatory faucets, water

dispensers, drinking fountains, water

coolers, glass fillers, residential

refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and

endpoint control valves. Today’s action

does not incorporate specific reference

to the NSF standard, however, in case

other standards that meet the

requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d)

and (e) are established in the future.

Notification of additional third-party

standards that meet these specifications

will be published in future Federal

Registers as appropriate.

The rule language remains silent on

the materials composition of in-line

devices, such as valves and meters. EPA

has no data that suggest that in-line

devices will contribute lead or copper at

levels that will leach these materials in

excess of the action levels. Thus, water

systems with in-line devices containing

lead or copper components may apply

for a waiver, if they meet the other

eligibility requirements.

Some commenters pointed out that

the language in the proposed rule could

preclude the issuance of any monitoring

waivers because it would have required

that all ‘‘buildings’’ (rather than

‘‘plumbing’’) connected to the system be

free of materials containing lead and

copper. Commenters interpreted this to

mean that water systems with buildings

containing materials such as copper

wiring, brass screws, or any coppercontaining or lead-containing materials

in building wastewater systems, would

be ineligible to receive a waiver.

Today’s action clarifies that the

materials requirement applies only to

the drinking water distribution or

service lines and the drinking water

supply plumbing (including plumbing

conveying drinking water within all

residences and buildings connected to

the system).

Other commenters suggested that only

a limited number of CWSs would be

able to qualify for a waiver, either

because it would be difficult for most

water systems to identify all the

plumbing materials used in all buildings

or because few water systems, when

examining all the buildings connected

to the water system, would actually be

able to meet the materials requirement.

EPA recognizes that it may be quite

difficult for CWSs to identify all the

plumbing materials used in all buildings

connected to the system and that it is

possible that very few systems may be

able to meet the materials requirement.

The Agency believes that some systems

will qualify, however, and is including

the waiver provisions in today’s action

to benefit those systems.

(B) Monitoring issues. Under the

provisions proposed in 1996, a system

meeting the materials criteria could

apply for a waiver once it had

completed one six-month round of

standard tap monitoring for lead and

copper subsequent to becoming free of

materials containing lead and copper.

To qualify for the waiver, the system’s

90th percentile lead and copper levels

could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or

0.65 mg/L for copper. Systems with

waivers would be required to complete

at least one round of monitoring, at the

reduced number of sites specified in

§ 141.86(c) at least once every nine

years.

One commenter requested that the

language be modified to require ‘‘at

least’’ one six-month round of standard

tap water monitoring to provide States

some flexibility and authority to require

additional testing if the State believes

these additional data are needed to

make the waiver decision. EPA agrees

that this is appropriate and has

incorporated this modification into

today’s action.

A few commenters questioned the

rationale for establishing the lead PQL

(0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for

waiver eligibility and suggested that the

threshold be set at one-half the action

level, as proposed for copper. EPA does

not believe that setting the lead

threshold for waivers at one-half the

lead action level is as protective of

public health as setting it at the PQL.8

In addition, since systems receiving a

monitoring waiver will be required to

monitor lead and copper levels only

once every 9 years, the Agency believes

it is essential to minimize the risk that

these systems will have elevated levels

of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower

90th percentile lead level for allowing

waivers will help to minimize this risk.

Today’s action, therefore, retains using

the lead PQL, for determining if a

system may qualify for a waiver.

Another commenter disagreed with

setting the lead level for States to

consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because,

under this requirement, source water

with lead levels at or slightly above this

level could exclude a system from

qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes

that if a system’s 90th percentile lead

level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter

what the reason, tap water lead levels

should not go unchecked for as long as

nine years.

One commenter suggested that EPA

rethink and expand the waiver option

included in the April 1996 Proposal to

allow any system that ‘‘reliably and

consistently’’ meets the action levels for

1980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

9See section C.5.h. in this preamble for

discussion pertaining to ‘‘accelerated reduced

monitoring.’’

lead and copper to reduce its

monitoring to once every nine years.

The commenter also pointed out that

this concept would tie in to most of the

existing State waiver programs. The

Agency believes that a ‘‘reliably and

consistently’’ waiver is appropriate for

many inorganic and organic

contaminants regulated under the Phase

II and Phase V rules because source

water levels of these contaminants are

not highly variable. Lead and copper

levels, which are measured at the tap,

can be highly variable. Tap water lead

and copper levels can vary from day to

day and even hour to hour at the same

sample site. Because of this high

variability, EPA does not believe a

waiver program based solely on lead

and copper analytical values is

sufficiently protective of public health

because there is a risk that such an

approach would allow a system with an

undetected lead or copper problem to

reduce monitoring to a point where the

population most at risk (children)

would not receive the benefit of such

monitoring if it occurred only once

every nine years. The Agency has

therefore coupled very low tap water

lead and copper levels with the

materials criteria to further reduce this

risk.

A few other commenters proposed

that a system not be required to monitor

at all once it meets the materials

requirements and demonstrates that its

90th percentile lead level is less than or

equal to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th

percentile copper level is less than or

equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not

incorporated this suggestion into the

final rule. The Agency believes that the

risks from ingesting copper and lead are

too much of a health hazard to totally

ignore. Tap water monitoring (even if

conducted only once every nine years)

could point out use of lead-containing

plumbing fixtures or copper pipes that

have been installed unbeknownst to the

system owner/operator in the years

following receipt of a waiver.

One commenter stated that if new

systems are properly installed under

State specification and approval, if

approved plumbing materials are used,

and if there is no lead in the source

water, there is little reason for

conducting lead and copper monitoring.

The commenter also stated that the

standard number of sites to be sampled

is excessive for these systems even if

some confirmatory monitoring is

performed.

EPA believes that monitoring for lead

and copper is still necessary in these

circumstances. Even if a system is

‘‘properly installed,’’ the water may be

corrosive to copper pipes and leadcontaining faucets used within the

homes and buildings served by this new

public water supply. Many faucets

purchased in the last ten years, although

labeled ‘‘lead free,’’ may contain up to

8 percent lead, which had been allowed

under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments, and thus may leach high

levels of lead. Prior to August 6, 1998,

States may have approved the use of the

aforementioned ‘‘lead-free’’ faucets

(although they may have required

warning labels on these faucets).

In addition, all States allow the use of

copper pipes in distribution systems

and/or interior building plumbing. New

copper pipes frequently leach high

levels of copper until the pipes stabilize.

Additionally, copper in source water

can still be a concern in systems with

no lead in the source water. While the

1996 SDWA Amendments require all

faucets introduced into commerce after

August 6, 1998, to meet the

specifications of an approved leadleaching standard which will lessen the

amount of lead that can leach from a

tap, there is still the potential for some

lead to leach from some taps. With this

continued potential for lead leaching,

copper leaching, and copper in source

water, EPA disagrees with the

commenter’s contention that there is

little reason for conducting lead and

copper monitoring if new systems are

properly installed under State

specification and approval, if approved

plumbing materials are used, and if

there is no lead in the source water.

EPA also disagrees with the

commenter’s statement that the standard

number of sample sites is excessive for

new systems. Such systems have yet to

confirm that their water supply is

minimally corrosive. The number of

samples required for initial monitoring

was established to sufficiently account

for variability of lead and copper at taps

while at the same time being reasonable

for a system to implement. Assuming

these systems do not otherwise qualify

for a monitoring waiver, if testing does

confirm that these new systems are very

low in lead and copper (i.e., the

system’s 90th percentile lead level is

less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the

system’s 90th percentile copper level is

less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during

two consecutive six-month monitoring

periods, today’s action allows these

systems to reduce sampling to once

every three years and allows systems

that collected 10 samples or more

during initial monitoring to reduce the

number of sample sites by half.9

(C) Changes potentially affecting

monitoring waivers. The April 1996

proposed rule language included a

requirement for a water system subject

to a monitoring waiver to notify the

State within 60 days of the addition of

a new source of water or any change in

water treatment. EPA proposed to give

the State discretion to require additional

monitoring or other appropriate action,

if the State believes such action is

warranted in these cases, to ensure that

low levels of tap water lead and copper

are maintained. The proposed language

also required a water system to revert to

monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) if,

as a result of new construction or

repairs, the system could no longer

certify it was free of lead-containing and

copper-containing materials. Finally,

the proposed language would have

given States the discretion to require a

system to revert to more frequent

monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(3) or

(4) and/or to take other appropriate

action if the system’s 90th percentile

lead levels exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or

the 90th percentile copper levels

exceeded 0.65 mg/L during a

subsequent round of monitoring. No

commenters addressed these provisions

specifically; however, upon further

consideration, the Agency believes a

few modifications to these provisions

are appropriate.

The requirement for a water system

subject to a monitoring waiver to notify

the State if the system adds a new

source of water or makes a change in

water treatment has been revised

slightly to keep it consistent with the

comparable requirement for (b)(3)

systems and other systems subject to

reduced monitoring. Today’s action

clarifies that the notification must occur

no later than 60 days after the change is

made, unless the State requires earlier

notification. The LCR does not require

prior State approval of these changes;

however, it may be required by other

drinking water regulations or by the

State. In those cases where prior State

approval is not required, EPA

nevertheless encourages water systems

to notify the State before making the

change to minimize the risk that the

change will result in unanticipated

adverse effects on tap water lead and

copper levels. Today’s action does not

prescribe that additional tap water

monitoring for lead and copper occur as

a part of these changes; however, States

have the authority to require additional

round(s) of monitoring and/or other

appropriate action, if the State thinks

such action(s) are warranted to ensure

that the water system continues to meet

waiver eligibility criteria.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1981

10EPA does not believe it is necessary that these

systems monitor more frequently than once every

three years since they would have been on a

triennial schedule already if the waiver had not

been issued and they had reduced monitoring in

accordance with the schedule in § 141.86(d)(4).

Today’s action also clarifies that a

water system that becomes aware that it

can no longer certify that it is free of

lead-containing or copper-containing

materials must notify the State within

60 days of becoming aware of this

situation. Such systems no longer are

eligible for a monitoring waiver.

Likewise, a system loses its waiver

eligibility if it has a 90th percentile lead

level greater than 0.005 mg/L or a 90th

percentile copper level greater than 0.65

mg/L subsequent to receiving the

waiver. Assuming a system that loses its

waiver eligibility has not exceeded

either action level, it must revert to a

triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such

systems may be able to take action to

identify and remove source(s) of lead

and/or copper before they are due to

collect samples again and may reapply

for a waiver. Systems exceeding an

action level, however, must begin

implementation of CCT in accordance

with the deadlines in § 141.81(e). EPA

believes these rule language

modifications are consistent with the

intent of the monitoring waiver program

which only allows a system to monitor

once every nine years if it can provide

an acceptable materials certification and

demonstrate acceptable 90th percentile

lead and copper levels.

(D) Waiver renewals. The proposed

rule language neglected to specifically

address what happens with a waiver if

the system continues to satisfy the

waiver requirements. Some commenters

suggested that systems be required to recertify periodically that they remain free

of lead-containing and coppercontaining materials. EPA agrees that

periodic re-certification is appropriate

and has therefore included a

requirement in today’s action for the

water system to submit the recertification every nine years, along

with its lead and copper tap water

results and 90th percentile calculations.

States may require re-certification

sooner, for example, if the system adds

a new source of water, modifies water

treatment, or undergoes new

construction. Any system that loses

eligibility for a monitoring waiver must

revert to more frequent monitoring and/

or implement CCT as discussed above.

(E) Partial waivers. A few commenters

suggested that a copper waiver should

be available to those systems that are

unable to meet the rule’s lead waiver

criteria because of lead-containing

components within the system, if the

system could meet the copper-related

waiver criteria. Similarly, a lead waiver

should be available to those systems

that meet the waiver criteria with

respect to lead but not with respect to

copper. These commenters suggested

that this would allow additional

reductions in monitoring and reporting

for such systems and would allow the

States to focus more of their limited

resources elsewhere. EPA has

considered these suggestions. While the

Agency questions whether such

provisions will significantly reduce

burden, today’s action gives States the

discretion to grant a waiver for either

lead or copper, if the system meets all

the criteria relevant to that contaminant.

The Agency is adding this provision

because some water systems, if granted

a waiver for either lead or copper,

although still required to collect tap

water samples every three years (or

more often) for the non-waived

contaminant, may be able to benefit

from reduced analytical costs due to the

fact that the tap water samples will only

have to be analyzed for one of the

contaminants in two of the three

monitoring periods (assuming the nonwaived contaminant is on a triennial

schedule) that constitute the nine-year

waiver period.

On the other hand, the Agency also

recognizes that the issuance of partial

waivers may add administrative burden

to States who would now be required to

track additional monitoring schedules.

For this reason, EPA is leaving the

decision whether, or not, to issue partial

waivers up to the State.

(F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware

that several States already may have

issued monitoring waivers for small

systems based on guidance provided to

the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a).

In some cases, the State’s

implementation of waiver provisions is

very similar to those contained in

today’s rule. That is, in addition to

requiring that the system demonstrate it

is free of lead-containing and coppercontaining materials, the State required

that the system demonstrate, through at

least one round of standard tap water

monitoring, that the 90th percentile lead

level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and

the 90th percentile copper level does

not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that

monitoring waivers issued prior to April

11, 2000 should remain in effect as long

as the water system meets the ongoing

waiver monitoring requirements and

continues to meet the waiver eligibility

requirements. The next round of

monitoring for such systems should

occur no later than nine years after the

date of the most recent lead and copper

tap water monitoring conducted by the

system. EPA has incorporated these

provisions into today’s action.

In some cases, however, States may

have issued waivers without requiring

any prior tap water lead and copper

monitoring. Although such waivers

were not precluded by the 1995

guidance memo, they are inconsistent

with the provisions of today’s action

that make clear the requirement that all

community and non-transient noncommunity water systems conduct some

monitoring to verify that they do not

have undetected lead or copper

problems. Today’s action, therefore,

requires water systems with waivers

issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have

not conducted at least one round of tap

water monitoring consistent with the

requirements of § 141.86(g)(2) to

complete a round of monitoring

pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) no later than

September 30, 2000. Assuming such a

system continues to meet the waiver

eligibility criteria, the next round of

monitoring under the waiver would be

due no later than nine years later.

(iii) Today’s action. After considering

the comments received and other factors

as discussed above, today’s action

includes new provisions at § 141.86(g)

that allow States to grant monitoring

waivers to small water systems if

specified conditions are met. In order to

qualify for a full waiver, a small water

system must meet all of the materials

criteria specified in § 141.86(g)(1) and

the monitoring criteria specified in

§ 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the system

must certify, with appropriate

supporting documentation, that the

distribution system and service lines

and all drinking water supply plumbing,

including plumbing conveying drinking

water within all residences and

buildings connected to the system, are

free of lead-containing and coppercontaining materials. A system is

considered to be free of lead-containing

materials if it contains no plastic pipes

with lead plasticizers or plastic service

lines with lead plasticizers and if it is

free of lead service lines, lead pipes,

lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded

brass or bronze fittings and fixtures,

unless such fittings and fixtures meet

the specifications of any lead-leaching

standard established pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section

1417(e)). Systems are considered free of

copper-containing materials if they

contain no copper pipes or copper

service lines. Systems also must have

completed at least one 6-month round of

standard tap water monitoring for lead

and copper, subsequent to becoming

free of lead-containing and coppercontaining materials, at sites approved

by the State and from the number of

1982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

11Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would

have reflected guidance provided in a policy memo

issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). That memo

addressed systems that were free of both leadcontaining and copper-containing materials. EPA

therefore does not believe that there should be any

systems with partial waivers issued prior to the

effective date of the LCRMR. 12See section C.5.j. of this preamble.

sites required for standard monitoring

under § 141.86(c) that demonstrates that

the 90th percentile levels of lead and

copper at the tap do not exceed 0.005

mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper.

If permitted by State regulation,

§ 141.86(g) also permits a small system

that meets the lead-related criteria of

§§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the

copper-related criteria, to apply for a

partial waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead

waiver). Likewise, a small system that

meets the copper-related criteria of

§§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the leadrelated criteria, may apply for a partial

waiver for copper only (i.e., a copper

waiver).

Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State

to notify the system, in writing, of its

waiver determination, setting forth the

basis for the decision and any

conditions of the waiver. States have the

authority to impose conditions such as

requiring limited monitoring in addition

to the once every nine year monitoring

required by § 141.86(g)(4) and/or

requiring the system to provide periodic

outreach to consumers to remind them

to avoid installation of materials that

might void the waiver. A system cannot

reduce to a nine-year tap water

monitoring frequency before it receives

the written waiver approval from the

State.

Routine tap water monitoring

requirements and requirements for

reporting certain system changes

between tap water monitoring events are

specified in § 141.86(g)(4). Systems with

waivers must conduct a round of

monitoring for the waived

contaminant(s) at least once every nine

years at the reduced number of sites

specified in § 141.86(c) and provide

appropriate materials re-certification to

the State along with the monitoring

results. Systems with partial waivers

must continue to monitor for the nonwaived contaminant in accordance with

the provisions of § 141.86(d)(1), (d)(3),

or (d)(4), as appropriate. Systems with

waivers must notify the State no later

than 60 days after the addition of a new

source of water or any changes in water

treatment. As discussed above, systems

may be required by other Federal

drinking water regulations or State

regulations to receive prior State

approval before making any of these

changes. Where prior State approval is

not required, EPA encourages systems to

notify the State before making the

change to minimize the risk it will

result in an unanticipated adverse effect

on tap water lead and copper levels.

States have the authority to impose

additional waiver conditions (e.g.,

requiring a materials re-certification

and/or requiring additional rounds(s) of

monitoring), if it deems such additional

conditions are necessary to assess and/

or address treatment or source water

changes at the system. A system with a

full or partial waiver also must notify

the State within 60 days of becoming

aware that it is no longer free of leadcontaining and/or copper-containing

materials.

As long as the water system is in

compliance with the requirements of

§ 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the

appropriate eligibility materials criteria

of § 141.86(g)(1), and maintains 90th

percentile lead levels that do not exceed

0.005 mg/L (unless the system has a

copper waiver) and 90th percentile

copper levels that do not exceed 0.65

mg/L (unless the system has a lead

waiver), § 141.86(g)(5) specifies that the

waiver will be renewed automatically

unless the State notifies the system

otherwise, in writing, setting forth the

basis of its decision. Systems with

waivers that have been revoked may reapply for a full or partial waiver, as

appropriate, at such time as it again

meets the eligibility criteria of

§§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2).

Systems whose waivers have been

revoked must complete appropriate CCT

and/or lead and copper tap water

monitoring requirements. This

provision is specified in § 141.86(g)(6).

In other words, if the system’s waiver is

revoked because the system has

exceeded the lead or copper action

level, the system must implement CCT

in accordance with the deadlines

specified in § 141.81(e). If the system’s

waiver is revoked for other reasons, and

the system meets both action levels, the

system must monitor for lead and

copper at the tap no less frequently than

once every three years using the

reduced number of sample sites

specified in § 141.86(c).

Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if

anything, a system with a full waiver 11

granted prior to April 11, 2000 must do

for the waiver to remain in effect. Preexisting waivers issued to a small

system that have previously met the

eligibility requirements of both

§§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2) remain in

effect so long as the system continues to

meet the waiver eligibility criteria of

§ 141.86(g)(5). The first round of tap

water monitoring conducted pursuant to

§ 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no

later than nine years after the last time

the system has monitored for lead and

copper at the tap. If, on the other hand,

the pre-existing waiver was issued to a

small system that met the materials

criteria in § 141.86(g)(1) but was not

required to conduct any tap water

monitoring and/or to meet the lead and

copper threshold levels specified in

§ 141.86(g)(2), the waiver will remain in

effect only if the system continues to

meet the eligibility requirements of

§ 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of

standard monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap by September 30, 2000 in

which the 90th percentile lead and

copper levels do not exceed 0.005 mg/

L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet

the eligibility criteria of § 141.86(g)(2)).

After completing this round of

monitoring, the system must continue

monitoring at a frequency of once every

nine years.

Today’s action also makes two

changes to the provisions of § 141.90(a)

to reflect system reporting requirements

associated with small system waivers.

As discussed previously,12 § 141.90(a)(3)

now specifies the reporting requirement

for a water system monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap less frequently

than every six months to report, in

writing, the addition of a new source or

a change in water treatment to the State

no later than 60 days after the change

has occurred, unless the State requires

earlier notification. Section 141.90(a)(4)

contains the reporting requirements

associated with applying for a waiver

and submitting appropriate

documentation demonstrating whether

or not the system continues to meet the

continuing waiver eligibility criteria.

Finally, two new changes in State

recordkeeping requirements have been

made to § 142.14. A new

§ 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the

requirement for States to maintain

records pertaining to monitoring waiver

determinations, waiver recertifications,

and waiver revocations. As previously

discussed, § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains

the State recordkeeping requirements

pertaining to systems monitoring less

frequently than every six months that

change treatment or add a new source

of water.

6. Revisions to § 141.87

a. Monitoring for optimal water

quality parameters. As discussed in

section C.2.b. of this preamble, today’s

action revises the way in which

compliance with OWQPs is determined

under § 141.82(g). Corresponding

changes have been made to §§ 141.87(d)

and (e)(4). The language of § 141.87(d)

has been streamlined to refer to, but not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1983

13The reporting requirement associated with

systems requesting approval for reduced

monitoring, previously codified at § 141.90(a)(5),

has been eliminated. See section C.5.f. of this

preamble.

repeat, the compliance requirements of

§ 141.82(g). The language of

§ 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify

that a system subject to the reduced

frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the

tap must revert to standard WQP

monitoring if it fails to comply with the

requirements of § 141.82(g).

b. Use of representative sites for entry

point water quality parameter

monitoring at ground water systems.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal included a

provision that would allow ground

water systems to limit entry point WQP

monitoring to those locations that are

representative of the water quality

conditions throughout the system. As

explained in the 1996 preamble, some

ground water systems, especially in the

western States, can have dozens or even

more than a hundred wells and it can

be difficult and expensive to conduct

biweekly monitoring at each entry

point. The Agency believes that

monitoring at each entry point for large

ground water systems may not be

necessary in all cases. Ground water

systems can limit entry point sampling

to those entry points that are

representative of water quality and

treatment conditions throughout the

system. If water from untreated ground

water sources mixes with water from

treated ground water sources, the

system must monitor for WQPs both at

representative entry points receiving

treatment and representative entry

points receiving no treatment. For

example, a ground water system with

seven entry points may draw water from

a distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where

water from the zone does not mix with

water from any other zone). If the

system can demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the State that all seven

entry points drawing water from the

same distinct hydraulic zone have

similar water quality characteristics,

taking seasonal variability into account,

the State can allow the system to

conduct biweekly entry point

monitoring at one or two of the entry

points instead of all seven. However, if

CCT is applied at one of the seven entry

points and not at the other six entry

points, then a representative sample or

samples would need to be taken for the

six entry points and a sample would

also need to be taken at the entry point

where the CCT is applied.

(ii) Comments and analysis.

Commenters generally supported this

proposed revision. Two commenters

expressed concern that the proposed

changes still would require extensive

monitoring for large water systems

relying on ground water sources, even

when no CCT is required. EPA believes

that entry point monitoring for WQPs at

least once every two weeks is

appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water

systems after the installation of CCT and

for those small and medium-size

systems that continue to exceed an

action level after the installation of CCT.

The regulations, as revised by today’s

action, provide sufficient flexibility for

systems to meet this requirement

without imposing an unreasonable

monitoring burden where it is not

warranted.

(iii) Today’s action. The Agency

therefore is making the following

regulatory changes. First, EPA is

revising the wording of §§ 141.87(a)(2)

and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the

§ 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to

entry point monitoring ‘‘except as

provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section’’ (which contains the provisions

pertaining to ground water systems).

EPA also has revised § 141.87(c)(2) to

clarify that once every two weeks

(biweekly) is the minimum sampling

frequency for routine entry point WQP

monitoring. The Agency has replaced

the phrase, ‘‘one sample every two

weeks (biweekly),’’ with the phrase, ‘‘at

least one sample no less frequently than

every two weeks (biweekly).’’ Since

many systems are monitoring WQPs

more frequently than biweekly, EPA

believes this change is appropriate to

clarify that entry point monitoring is to

be conducted no less frequently than

every two weeks.

EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3)

to § 141.87 to allow ground water

systems subject to WQP monitoring

requirements after the installation of

CCT to limit their entry point

monitoring to those locations that are

representative of water quality

conditions throughout the system. At a

minimum, these systems must monitor

for WQPs both at some points receiving

treatment and at some points receiving

no CCT if the water from those points

mixes with other source water in the

system that is treated. Systems taking

advantage of this provision are required

to provide sufficient documentation to

the State to demonstrate that the

locations monitored are, in fact,

representative of water quality

throughout the system. The specific

documentation to be provided may vary

depending on the system’s

characteristics and State reporting

requirements. For locations that are not

treated, for example, such

documentation might include complete

water analyses from the different wells

over time, or taken for the purpose of

determining equivalence. For wells

receiving treatment, documentation

might include records of chemical

identity, well flow rates and total

volumes per day into the distribution

system, observed chemical dosages per

unit of flow and usage rates that are

demonstrated to be the same as those at

the ‘‘equivalent’’ entry point(s). The

documentation supporting the selection

of these representative sites must be

submitted to the State prior to the start

of any routine WQP monitoring

pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). EPA is

adding the corresponding system

reporting requirement at

§ 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding

§ 142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to

maintain records of any determinations

made pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3).

c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for

water quality parameters at the tap.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The April 1996 Proposal also included

new language at § 141.87(e)(2) that

would allow water systems meeting the

criteria for accelerated reduced

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap to also accelerate reduced

monitoring for WQPs at the tap to once

every three years, more rapidly than

previously allowed. This revision

applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3),

systems but could apply to any system

subject to the monitoring requirements

of § 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained

in the preamble to the April 1996

Proposal, this revision would not affect

the requirement that systems subject to

WQP monitoring after the installation of

CCT collect WQP samples at entry

points no less frequently than once

every two weeks, as specified in

§ 141.87(c)(2).

(ii) Comments and analysis. In

general, commenters supported the

proposed accelerated reduced

monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only

two commenters opposed the provisions

allowing accelerated reduced

monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of

these, one advocated retaining the

current monitoring frequency; the other

suggested EPA require daily monitoring.

These commenters may have

misunderstood the intent of the

proposed revision and thought that EPA

was proposing to also reduce the

frequency of entry point WQP

monitoring. As explained in section E.1.

of this preamble, EPA is retaining the

requirement that water systems subject

to water quality parameter monitoring

requirements after the installation of

CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry

points no less frequently than once

every two weeks. The Agency agrees

1984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

that this monitoring is essential for good

process control and encourages water

systems to conduct such monitoring

even more frequently than once every

two weeks. The LCR already permits

systems to reduce the frequency of

water quality parameter monitoring

within the distribution system to

triennial. The proposed revision would

allow this to occur more rapidly. EPA

also encourages systems to perform this

monitoring more frequently but has not

made it a regulatory requirement

because of the potential burden

involved.

Two commenters who supported the

idea of accelerated reduced WQP

monitoring at the tap suggested

alternative eligibility criteria. One

recommended the copper threshold be

set at one-half the copper PQL instead

of one-half the copper action level.

EPA’s rationale for setting the copper

threshold at one half the copper action

level is discussed in section C.5.h. of

this preamble.

Another commenter pointed out a

discrepancy between the April 1996

preamble and the proposed revised rule

language. The proposed rule language

would have required lead and copper

levels to be ‘‘ less than’’ the lead PQL

and one-half the copper action level,

respectively; the preamble stated that

systems with lead and copper levels

‘‘less than or equal to’’ the lead PQL and

one-half the copper action level,

respectively, would be eligible for

reduced monitoring. The preamble

language reflected EPA’s intent and the

Agency has corrected this error in

today’s action.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA is

promulgating the following revisions to

§ 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph

§ 141.87(e)(2) has been redesignated as

§ 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph,

§ 141.87(e)(2)(ii) has been added to

allow a water system to reduce the

frequency with which it collects tap

samples for applicable WQPs specified

in § 141.87(e)(1) to every three years if

the system demonstrates during two

consecutive monitoring periods that its

tap water lead level at the 90th

percentile is less than or equal to the

PQL for lead specified in

§ 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water

copper level at the 90th percentile is

less than or equal to one-half the action

level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in

§ 141.80(c)(2), and that it also has

maintained the range of values for the

WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the

State under § 141.82(f).

d. Summary of water quality

monitoring requirements. The table

shown below summarizes the WQP

monitoring requirements, and reflects

the clarification that entry point

monitoring after the installation of CCT

must occur no less frequently than every

two weeks.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial Monitoring .............................. pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium, conductivity,

temperature.

Taps and at entry point(s) to distribution system.Every 6 months.

After Installation of Corrosion Control.pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ............................................. Every 6 months.

pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and

concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and

inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than every two

weeks.

After State Specifies Parameter

Values for Optimal Corrosion

Control.

pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ............................................. Every 6 months.

pH, alkalinity dosage rate and

concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and

inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than every two

weeks.

Reduced Monitoring ........................ pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ............................................. Every 6 months, annually 7 or

every 3 years 8; reduced number of sites.

pH, alkalinity dosage rate and

concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and

inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than every two

weeks.

1Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.

2Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for WQPs only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper

action level. 3Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an

inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.

5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.

7Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range

of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may

accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th

percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1985

14Since up to five samples may be composited for

analysis, in 1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers

that are one-fifth of the levels above which EPA

recommends source water treatment. (EPA’s

guidance document Lead and Copper Rule

Guidance Manual Volume II: Corrosion Control

recommends source water treatment when the

concentration of lead in the source water is greater

than 0.005 mg/L or the concentration of copper in

source water is greater than 0.800 mg/L.)

7. Revisions to § 141.88

a. Resampling triggers for composite

source water samples.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

EPA proposed to revise § 141.88(a) to

delete the reference to § 141.23, which

pertains to inorganic chemical sampling

requirements, and to spell out the

specific requirements for lead and

copper source water monitoring in

§ 141.88(a). The Agency explained that

it believed it would be less confusing to

specify the requirements regarding lead

and copper in Subpart I, where all other

lead and copper sampling is addressed.

In addition, the Agency proposed to

retain the resampling trigger for

composite source water samples for lead

at the detection limit of 0.001 mg/L and

to change the resampling trigger for

composite source water samples for

copper from the detection limits of

0.001 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L to 0.160 mg/

L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule

language to clarify that compositing of

samples must be done by certified

laboratory personnel and to allow

systems to use duplicates or original

samples, where possible, instead of

resampling. The remaining

requirements in § 141.88(a), pertaining

to sample location and number of

samples, were retained from § 141.23.

(ii) Comments and analysis. While

most commenters supported the

proposed revisions to § 141.88(a), a few

commenters raised issues. One

commenter asked how the 90th

percentile would be calculated when

samples are composited. EPA would

like to clarify that compositing applies

to source water samples only. Tap

samples cannot be composited.

Therefore, compositing does not affect

the way in which the 90th percentile is

to be calculated.

Another commenter discussed the

potential impact of rounding the

reported value for the composite

sample. The commenter was concerned

that if water systems with a source

water lead level just above 0.001 mg/L

rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the

proposed rule, resampling of the

composite sample would not need to

occur. EPA has addressed this potential

problem by revising the language in

today’s action to change the resampling

triggers from lead levels greater than

0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater

than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater

than or equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper

levels greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/

L.

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

requested public comment on whether

compositing should be allowed in light

of the fact that the resampling trigger for

composited lead source water samples

is the detection limit and therefore, half

the samples whose true value is at the

MDL could be reported as false

negatives. While no commenters

suggested eliminating compositing due

to the above-mentioned concern, several

commenters wanted compositing to be

eliminated because of a concern about

the ability of laboratories to successfully

analyze samples near the detection

limit. The Agency does not believe that

it is appropriate to eliminate flexibility

and potential cost savings for some

utilities because some laboratories may

not be able to meet the criteria to

perform compositing. Therefore,

compositing is being retained in today’s

action.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the

following changes to § 141.88(a)(1). The

requirements for source water sample

location, number of source water

samples, and collection methods have

been incorporated directly into

§ 141.88(a)(1) and the reference to

§ 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems

may composite up to five source water

samples. The compositing must be done

by certified laboratory personnel. If the

lead concentration in the composite

sample is greater than or equal to 0.001

mg/L or the copper concentration in the

composite sample is greater than or

equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the system

must take and analyze a follow-up

sample at each sampling site used in the

composite within 14 days; however, if

duplicates of, or sufficient quantities

from, the original samples from each

sampling point used in the composite

are available, the system may use these

instead of resampling.

b. Reduced source water monitoring

for systems without State-designated

maximum permissible source water

levels.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

In 1996, EPA proposed to add

provisions to the source water

monitoring requirements that would

allow the same reduction in the

frequency of source water monitoring

for systems that exceed an action level

if the source water lead and copper

levels are low and the State has

determined that source water treatment

is not required. This change would

allow such systems to reduce the

frequency of source water monitoring on

the same schedule as systems that are

treating their source water and

complying with the State-specified

maximum permissible source water

levels. EPA proposed that the systems

exceeding an action level after the State

has determined that source water

treatment is not required be allowed to

reduce the frequency of source water

monitoring if the source water lead

concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/

L and the source water copper

concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L.

EPA proposed these levels since Agency

guidance suggests these are the levels

above which source water treatment

may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c).

(ii) Comments and analysis. Several

commenters suggested refinements to

the rule language to make it more

consistent with other parts of the rule.

One of these commenters suggested that

reduced source water monitoring be

allowed if source water levels are ‘‘less

than or equal to’’ (instead of ‘‘less than’’)

0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8 mg/L copper.

EPA agrees that the lead and copper

concentrations should be ‘‘less than or

equal to’’ the source water threshold

levels and has made this change in

today’s action.

A second commenter suggested that

EPA set the same lead and copper

concentrations for reduced source water

monitoring as for accelerated reduced

lead and copper monitoring at the tap.

The Agency agrees that it is less

confusing to use the same lead and

copper thresholds for both accelerated

reduced tap water monitoring and

reduced source water monitoring where

the State has determined that source

water treatment is not required. Today’s

action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as

the copper threshold for reduced source

water monitoring where the State has

determined that no source water

treatment is required. The Agency

estimates that less than one percent of

water systems have source water copper

levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/

L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus believes that

very few, if any, systems will be

precluded from reducing source water

monitoring as a consequence of

establishing this slightly more stringent

threshold than the Agency proposed in

1996.

Another commenter criticized the

Agency for not proposing to revise the

reduced source water monitoring

frequency consistent with a 5/10/15

year monitoring framework for chemical

contaminants regulated by the Phase II/

V rules that the Agency was

considering. In 1997, EPA published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking that requested comment on

possible Chemical Monitoring Reform

1986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and Permanent Monitoring Relief

provisions for the chemicals regulated

under the Phase II/V rules (62 FR 36100,

Jul. 3, 1997). EPA has since decided not

to move forward with Chemical

Monitoring Reform. However, the

Agency has published Alternative

Monitoring Guidance (formerly known

as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that

permit States meeting specified

conditions to issue five-year monitoring

waivers for contaminants to which the

State has determined the system is not

vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a

waiver has been issued, the system must

continue to monitor for the Phase II/V

chemicals within the 3/6/9 year

framework.

The Agency agrees that a consistent

framework for chemical contaminants is

desirable to the extent that it does not

jeopardize public health protection or

the environment. EPA does not believe

it would be appropriate to revise the

monitoring frequency for lead and

copper in source water along the lines

being considered for the Chemical

Monitoring Reform/Permanent

Monitoring Relief, however. Other

regulated chemical contaminants

address chemicals where existing

contamination and vulnerability to

future contamination can be identified

relatively easily and where the public

health concern is overall lifetime

exposure. The issues pertaining to the

control of lead and copper are

significantly different. The health effect

of primary concern is exposure to lead

for children. Since systems triggered

into source water monitoring exceed

one or both action levels, EPA does not

believe it appropriate to reduce the

monitoring frequency for source water

lead and copper beyond the schedule in

today’s action. While the Agency is

sensitive to the implementation

complications arising from different

frequencies, it does not believe that

adequate public health protection

should be sacrificed merely for the sake

of consistency.

One commenter pointed out a

discrepancy in the proposed language at

§ 141.88(e) regarding whether systems

are required to monitor for both lead

and copper. The language in

§ 141.88(e)(1) has been revised to clarify

that systems subject to source water

monitoring requirements must sample

for both lead and copper.

Finally, one commenter stated that in

making these revisions, EPA was setting

source water treatment levels by default.

EPA does not intend to set specific

levels requiring source water treatment.

EPA’s intent is to specify the levels of

lead and copper in source water which

will determine whether a system can

reduce source water monitoring.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore

finalized the revision as proposed,

incorporating the clarification discussed

above. Sections 141.88(e)(1) and (2)

have been revised to allow water

systems that exceed the action level, but

for which the State has determined that

source water treatment is not needed, to

reduce the frequency of source water

monitoring if the system maintains

source water lead levels at or below

0.005 mg/L and source water copper

levels at or below 0.65 mg/L for three

consecutive monitoring periods, if using

an exclusively ground water source, or

three consecutive years, if using a

surface water or combined surface and

ground water source.

8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification

Requirements in § 141.89

a. Proposed revision and background.

EPA noted in the April 1996 Proposal

that the proposed changes to the

composite source water resampling

triggers for lead and copper at

§ 141.88(a)(1)(iii) necessitate revisions

to the laboratory certification

procedures pertaining to composite

source water samples at

§ 141.89(a)(1)(iii). EPA therefore

proposed to delete the requirement for

a laboratory to achieve the MDL for

copper. It is no longer necessary to

specify that laboratories be capable of

achieving the copper MDL in order to

accept composite source water samples.

With the copper resampling trigger set

at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be

sufficiently tested on its capabilities

under § 141.89(a)(1)(ii)(B) where it is

required to achieve a quantitative

acceptance limit of ±10 percent of the

actual amount of the performance

evaluation sample when the actual

amount is greater than or equal to 0.050

mg/L.

b. Comments and analysis. EPA did

not receive any comments objecting to

this revision.

c. Today’s action. The Agency has

revised § 141.89(a)(1)(iii) to delete the

requirement for laboratories to achieve

the copper MDL in order to accept

composite samples. Sections

141.89(a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) have been

eliminated since they no longer are

necessary.

9. Revisions to System Reporting

Requirements in § 141.90

EPA is promulgating a number of

changes to water system reporting

requirements at § 141.90. The following

chart summarizes these changes.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph Revision Preamble

discussion

141.90(a)(1), introductory

text.

Remove reference to § 141.88 and revise examples of ‘‘applicable monitoring periods’’ to include a 9-year monitoring period.C.9.a.

141.90(a)(1)(ii) .................... Remove requirement for certification of first-draw samples collected by the system ............... C.9.b.

Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation requests.C.5.k.

141.90(a)(1)(iii) ................... Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first-draw samples collected by residents

and reserve paragraph.

C.9.b.

141.90(a)(1)(iv) ................... Modify to address reporting requirement for those systems for which the State will be calculating the system’s 90th percentile lead and copper levels.C.9.c.

141.90(a)(1)(viii) ................. Add requirement for reporting WQP monitoring results collected under §§ 141.87(c)–(f) ........ C.2.b.

141.90(a)(2) ........................ Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.C.5.b.

Replace with a new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first-draw sampling

sites to identify non-first-draw sample times and locations.

C.5.c.

141.90(a)(3) ........................ Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient

number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.

C.5.b.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1987

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Paragraph Revision Preamble

discussion

Replace with a new requirement for systems monitoring at the tap less frequently than once

every 6 months to notify the State within 60 days if there are any changes in treatment or

addition of a new source water.

C.5.j. & C.5.l.

141.90(a)(4) ........................ Remove requirement to send letter to State demonstrating why 50% of sampling sites are

not served by lead service lines.

C.5.b.

Replace with new reporting requirement for small systems requesting a monitoring waiver ... C.5.l.

141.90(a)(5) ........................ Remove reporting requirements associated with requesting reduced monitoring .................... C.5.f.

Replace with new reporting requirement demonstrating representative locations for biweekly

entry point water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of corrosion control

treatment.

C.6.b.

141.90(e)(2) ........................ Revise all references to ‘‘§ 141.84(f)’’ to read ‘‘§ 141.84(e)’’ ..................................................... C.3.b.

141.90(e)(4) ........................ Remove reporting requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of entire

length of LSL.

C.3.b.

Add new requirement for systems collecting LSL samples after partial lead service line replacement to report results to the State.C.3.b.

141.90(f) ............................. Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks ......................................... C.4.c.

141.90(h) ............................ Add new requirement for reporting lead and copper concentrations where the State calculates a system’s 90th percentile levels.C.9.c.

Most of these changes are described in

more detail in other sections of the

preamble, as indicated in the table

above. The remaining changes to system

reporting requirements are described

below.

a. Timing of reporting of tap water

monitoring for lead and copper and

water quality parameter monitoring.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

The introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) of

the 1991 LCR requires a water system to

report monitoring data to the State for

all tap water samples within the first 10

days following the end of each

applicable monitoring period specified

in §§ 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. The

applicable monitoring periods listed in

the original rule were ‘‘every sixmonths’’, ‘‘annually’’, and ‘‘every 3

years.’’ Because the proposed revisions

included a provision that would allow

certain small water systems to conduct

tap water monitoring once every nine

years (see § 141.86(g)), EPA also

proposed a revision to the introductory

text of § 141.90(a)(1) to include ‘‘every

9 years’’ as one of the applicable

monitoring periods. In the August 1998

Notice, the Agency proposed to add

‘‘quarterly’’ to this list to reflect the

proposed requirement that water

systems subject to the WQP monitoring

requirements of §§ 141.87(d) and (e)

report these results quarterly. Because

EPA was also proposing to give States

explicit discretion to require more

frequent reporting of WQP results, the

Agency also proposed to add a qualifier

to the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1)

to make clear that the specific WQP

reporting requirements took precedence

over the general reporting requirements

wherever the two appeared to be in

conflict.

(ii) Comments and analysis. One

commenter pointed out that EPA had

apparently omitted the phrase, ‘‘below

for,’’ in the first sentence of the

proposed rewording in the April 1996

Proposal. EPA agrees that the phrase

was inadvertently omitted from the

April 1996 Proposal and has corrected

the error in today’s action. No

commenter took issue with the

proposed changes to the introductory

text of § 141.90(a)(1) in response to

either the April 1996 Proposal or the

August 1998 Notice.

(iii) Today’s action. The introductory

text of § 141.90(a)(1) has been revised to

reflect ‘‘every 9 years’’ as one of the

applicable reporting frequencies.

Today’s action also revises the

introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) to

include the qualifying phrase, ‘‘except

as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of

this section.’’ Since today’s action

retains the requirement for a six-month

monitoring period for WQPs after the

State designates OWQPs under

§ 141.82(f), instead of revising this to a

quarterly period, EPA has omitted

‘‘quarterly’’ from the list of applicable

monitoring periods referenced in the

introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1). The

Agency believes that the language of

§ 141.90(a)(1)(viii), added by today’s

language, makes clear that systems must

report these WQP monitoring results to

the State no less frequently than every

six months.

Today’s action also makes one

technical correction to the introductory

text of § 141.90(a)(1). This language, as

promulgated in 1991, referenced tap

water samples collected in accordance

with § 141.86, WQP samples collected

in accordance with § 141.87, and source

water samples collected in accordance

with § 141.88. Because the reporting

requirements for source water

monitoring are specified in § 141.90(b)

and not in § 141.90(a)(1), the reference

to § 141.88 has been deleted from the

introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1).

b. Elimination of certification

requirements pertaining to first-draw

samples.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

Section 141.90(a)(1)(ii) of the LCR, as

promulgated in 1991, required water

systems to certify that each sample

collected by the system pursuant to

§ 141.86(d) was one-liter in volume and,

to the best of the system’s knowledge,

had stood motionless in the service line

or in the interior plumbing of a

sampling site for at least six hours.

Section 141.90(a)(1)(iii) required water

systems to certify that each tap sample

collected by residents was taken after

the water system informed the residents

of the proper sampling procedures. EPA

included these requirements to help

ensure use of the proper sampling

protocol contained in § 141.86. Most

water systems have now completed at

least two rounds of monitoring for lead

and copper and have experience in

collecting first-draw samples. Because

the Agency believes that continuing to

require systems to provide these

certifications every monitoring period

imposes a burden that can no longer be

justified, EPA proposed eliminating

these two certification requirements in

the April 1996 Proposal.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Most

commenters supported the proposal to

eliminate the requirement for written

certification of first-draw sample

collection. However, concern was

expressed that improper sample

collection might occur due to: new

1988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

homeowners who are not aware of

collection requirements; staff turnover,

particularly at NTNCWSs; and

customers who forget proper sample

collection procedures over time.

EPA acknowledges that requiring

written certification provides an extra

level of assurance that samples have

been collected correctly. However, EPA

also believes that the reduced burden

resulting from the elimination of these

requirements outweighs the benefits of

maintaining the certification

requirements, especially since

§ 141.86(b)(2) still requires water

systems to instruct residents regarding

first-draw sample procedures. EPA also

believes it is prudent to provide

technical assistance, when necessary, to

new water system staff, water system

customers sampling for the first time,

and customers who have previously

sampled, to ensure proper sample

collection. EPA has therefore eliminated

these certification requirements.

One commenter favored elimination

of the certification requirement but

suggested that public water systems

should require a certification from the

homeowner. In addition, the commenter

also suggested adding a requirement

that a chain of custody be maintained

until the laboratory has finished

analyzing the sample. The LCR will

continue to require (at § 141.86(b)(2))

that water systems provide sampling

instructions to residents who will be

collecting first-draw samples. However,

because EPA can only regulate water

systems, the Rule cannot incorporate

language that would require

homeowners to provide a certification

that they sampled correctly. Water

systems are responsible for ensuring

that reported results accurately reflect

the samples collected. The absence of a

Federal requirement for chain of

custody does not preclude the State or

the system from establishing these

controls. EPA encourages States and

systems to establish the necessary

controls; however, the Agency has no

plans to add a chain of custody

requirement to the lead and copper

regulations.

(iii) Today’s action. The certification

requirements pertaining to first-draw

lead and copper tap water samples,

previously codified at §§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii)

and (iii), have been deleted. New

requirements have been added at

§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii) associated with

requesting sample invalidation (see

section C.5.k. of this preamble).

c. State calculation/reporting of 90th

percentile levels.

(i) Proposed revision and background.

Although no specific regulatory

language changes were proposed, the

preamble to the April 1996 Proposal

requested comment on a burden

reduction measure that would give

States the flexibility to eliminate the

requirement that systems calculate and

report 90th percentile lead and copper

values, provided that the State performs

the calculation. A number of water

systems, especially small water systems,

find it difficult to calculate these 90th

percentile values. Some States have

found that the 90th percentile lead and

copper values submitted by such

systems are incorrect. Consequently, a

number of these States routinely

recalculate the 90th percentile values

based on the individual tap sample data

that systems are required to submit.

Granting States the option to calculate

the 90th percentile values in lieu of the

water system would result in a burden

reduction for those water systems who

are finding it difficult and time

consuming to do the calculation on their

own and would not increase the burden

for those States who have already opted

to recalculate the systems’ 90th

percentile values.

(ii) Comments and analysis. Many

commenters supported this measure. A

few commenters, however, did not

support such a change. One commenter

suggested that rather than eliminating

the requirement for systems to calculate

and report 90th percentile values, the

Rule should stipulate that it is up to the

State to determine whether systems

should report the results of all tap

samples, the 90th percentile values, or

both. The commenter maintained that

this change would be appropriate in

their State since the certified

laboratories are already required to

calculate and report the 90th percentile

values based on the results of the lead

and copper tap samples that they have

just analyzed.

Because it is difficult to ensure that a

certified lab will report results to the

State within the reporting time frame

required of public water systems,

today’s action does not include language

that allows States the flexibility to rely

on information reported to the State by

certified laboratories in lieu of system

reporting of the lead and copper tap

water results and 90th percentile

calculations. EPA cannot impose

reporting requirements on certified labs

through the LCR and EPA does not have

authority to take enforcement action

against certified labs that do not report

data within the reporting time frame

required of public water systems.

A few commenters suggested that the

90th percentile reporting requirements

be eliminated for small systems only;

another commenter opposed the

proposed measure due to the belief that

requiring States to perform these

calculations would increase the data

manipulation load on already

overburdened State regulatory staff.

Some commenters suggested that

eliminating the requirement for systems

to calculate the 90th percentile lead and

copper values would result in systems

not having time to take appropriate

follow-up actions (such as collecting

WQP samples) within the required time

frame if the State reported the 90th

percentile values back to the system

later in the monitoring period, or after

it had ended. Finally, several

commenters opposed allowing the

States to calculate systems’ 90th

percentile levels because they felt that

water system owner/operators need to

take responsibility for what is occurring

in their systems.

EPA shares the concerns raised by

these commenters. Nevertheless, the

Agency believes that there may be

instances where it is least burdensome

overall for the State to perform the

calculations, as long as systems are

notified of the results sufficiently early

in the monitoring period to take any

required follow-up action. EPA

therefore has included provisions

providing States some flexibility to

eliminate the 90th percentile reporting

requirements for all systems, no

systems, or some subset (e.g., small

systems). Water systems for which the

State will calculate the 90th percentile

lead and copper levels must submit the

results of all lead and copper tap

samples to the State by a date

designated by the State. The State will

then calculate the system’s 90th

percentile lead and copper

concentrations and will provide the

results of the calculations, in writing, to

the system prior to the end of the

applicable monitoring period.

EPA agrees that if the State calculates

the 90th percentile lead and copper

levels, it is possible that a water system

would not have sufficient time to collect

water quality parameter samples during

the same monitoring period that an

action level is exceeded. To avoid this

situation, EPA strongly encourages

States to provide the results of the 90th

percentile calculations to each system

well in advance of the end of the

monitoring period. States will need to

advise systems when they must submit

lead and copper tap water sample

results to the State so that the State can

do these calculations in a timely

manner. While determining when the

systems must submit their lead and

copper tap results, the State should: (1)

Consider the length of time it will need

to review the lead and copper tap

results provided by all affected water

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1989

systems; and (2) consider the length of

time needed by water systems exceeding

the lead and/or copper action level(s) to

collect water quality parameter samples.

If lead and copper tap results are not

provided by the date required by the

State, it becomes the system’s

responsibility to calculate their 90th

percentile values.

The Agency agrees that all systems

should take responsibility for the

quality of water delivered to their

customers. However, it appears that

some systems still find it difficult to

calculate 90th percentile lead and

copper levels correctly. Today’s action

allows States that are concerned with

the accuracy of the systems’ calculations

to perform the calculations and then

provide the results to the system before

the end of the monitoring period so that

the system can take appropriate action.

EPA strongly encourages all water

systems to calculate their 90th

percentile lead and copper levels on

their own using the ‘‘instructions’’

found in § 141.80(c)(3) even if the State

has committed to performing these

calculations and providing the results of

the calculations to the water system.

Systems that determine that they have

exceeded an action level may proceed

with the appropriate follow-up

requirements, such as WQP monitoring

or lead public education. If, based on

the same lead and copper tap results

submitted by the system, the State

determines that the system’s 90th

percentile lead and copper levels

actually do not exceed either the lead or

copper action levels, the system may

discontinue with any follow-up actions

it has begun.

(iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore

revised the requirement at

§ 141.90(a)(1)(iv), requiring system

reporting of the 90th percentile lead and

copper level calculations, to omit the

requirement in those instances where

the State will be performing the

calculations in accordance with the

provisions specified in a new

§ 141.90(h). Section 141.90(h) contains

the following requirements.

• The State must have previously

notified the system that the State will

calculate the 90th percentile lead and

copper levels and have provided the

system with a date, earlier than the end

of the monitoring period, by which the

system must provide the results of all

lead and copper tap water samples

collected during the monitoring period.

• The system must provide the

following information to the State by the

date specified: The results of all lead

and copper tap water samples,

including the location of each site and

the criteria under which the site was

selected for the sampling pool, and an

identification of sampling sites utilized

during the current monitoring period

that were not sampled during previous

monitoring periods along with an

explanation why sampling sites have

changed.

• The State must provide the results

of the 90th percentile lead and copper

calculations, in writing, to the water

system before the end of the monitoring

period.

EPA is also revising § 142.14(d)(9) to

make clear that States must maintain

records pertaining to any Statecalculated 90th percentile levels along

with records of data submitted pursuant

to § 141.90.

10. Revisions to § 141.43

Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 141.43

contain a one-time requirement for

public water systems to identify and

notify persons that may be affected by

lead contamination of their drinking

water. This requirement is obsolete.

Notification pursuant to § 141.43 was to

have occurred no later than June 1988.

Moreover, the requirement for a water

system to conduct public education

pursuant to § 141.85 as long as the water

system exceeds the lead action level is

much more comprehensive and

accomplishes the same goal of

informing the public about the

possibility of lead contamination. EPA

has therefore deleted and reserved

§§ 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes

this revision is appropriate to avoid

confusion and redundancy.

EPA also is revising § 141.43 to

amend the definition of ‘‘lead free’’ to

reflect the provisions of Sections

1417(d) and (e) of the 1996 SDWA

Amendments. Section 1417(a)(1) of the

SDWA states that ‘‘no person may use

any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting

or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the

installation or repair of any public water

system or any plumbing in a residential

or nonresidential facility providing

water for human consumption that is

not lead free.’’ Under section 1417(d),

‘‘lead free’’ means that solders and flux

may not contain more than 0.2 percent

lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well

pumps may not contain more than 8.0

percent lead; and plumbing fittings and

fixtures must meet standards

established under section 1417(e) (42

U.S.C. 300g–6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the

SDWA states that ‘‘lead free’’ with

regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures

intended to dispense water for human

consumption means those fittings and

fixtures that are in compliance with a

standard established under that section.

Today’s action adds a paragraph (d)(3)

to § 141.43 to incorporate into the

definition of ‘‘lead free’’ the following:

‘‘When used with respect to plumbing

fittings and fixtures intended by the

manufacturer to dispense water for

human ingestion refers to fittings and

fixtures that are in compliance with

voluntary standards and testing

protocols for the leaching of lead in

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e).’’

As discussed previously (see section

C.5.l.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA has

recognized NSF International’s Standard

61, Section 9, as meeting the

requirements for a voluntary leadleaching standard under Section 1417(e)

(62 FR 44686, Aug. 22, 1997). If other

standards that meet the requirements of

SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are

established in the future, EPA will

publish appropriate notification in the

Federal Register.

D. Revisions to Requirements for States

As discussed earlier in this preamble,

primacy States must adopt and submit

to EPA for approval a primacy program

revision to incorporate the provisions of

today’s rule into their approved primacy

program. In addition to the revised

system requirements in Part 141, today’s

rule amends the State recordkeeping

requirements of § 142.14, the LCRspecific State reporting requirements in

§ 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy

requirements unique to specific

regulations in § 142.16. These revisions

are discussed below.

1. Records kept by States. As

discussed in C. of this preamble, today’s

action contains several conforming

changes to the State recordkeeping

requirements associated with the LCR.

These requirements are codified at

§ 142.14(d)(8). The following

summarizes these revisions.

• Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been

eliminated.

• Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi)

has been redesignated as

§§ 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii),

respectively.

• A new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any system-specific

requirements for (b)(1) and (b)(3)

systems that have corrosion control

treatment installed.

• The newly designated

§ 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been revised to

eliminate the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of

the paragraph.

• The newly designated

§ 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been revised to

correct the punctuation at the end of the

paragraph.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been

revised to change the reference to

‘‘Section 141.84(f) to read ‘‘Section

141.84(e).’’

1990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• Section 142.14(d)(8)(ix) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any determinations of

monitoring or other requirements for

systems monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap less frequently than every six

months that change treatment or add a

new source of water.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of system-specific decisions

regarding the content of written public

education materials and/or distribution

of these materials.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any system-specific

determinations regarding use of nonfirst-draw samples under § 141.86(b)(5).

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any system-specific or caseby-case designations of sampling

locations for systems subject to reduced

monitoring.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of system-specific

determinations pertaining to alternative

sample collection periods for systems

subject to reduced monitoring.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any determinations,

including waiver renewals and

revocations.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any determinations made

regarding representative entry point

monitoring locations at ground water

systems.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been

added to require States to maintain

records of any system-specific

determinations made regarding the

submission of information to

demonstrate compliance with partial

lead service line replacement

requirements.

• Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has

been added to require States to maintain

records of any system-specific decisions

regarding the resubmission of detailed

documentation demonstrating

completion of public education

requirements.

• Section § 142.14(d)(9) has been

revised to include any State-calculated

90th percentile values among records

States must maintain relative to data

submitted pursuant to § 141.90.

• Section § 142.14(d)(10) has been

revised to include records of State

activities, and the results thereof, to

determine compliance with the

requirements related to partial lead

service line replacement and to include

records of sample invalidation

determinations.

• Section § 142.14(d)(11) has been

revised to change the reference to

‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(viii)’’

to read ‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through

(d)(8)(xvii).’’

2. Reporting requirements for States.

a. Proposed revision and background.

Under the 1991 Rule, States were

required to report up to eleven LCR

implementation milestones for each

water system. These milestones were:

• Lead action level exceedance and

date of the exceedance;

• Copper action level exceedance and

date of the exceedance;

• Corrosion control study required;

• Corrosion control study completed

and date State received the results of the

study;

• State designation of CCT and date

of the determination;

• State designation of source water

treatment and date of the determination;

• CCT installed;

• Source water treatment installed;

• State designation of optimal water

quality control parameters and date of

the determination;

• State designation of maximum

permissible source water levels; and

• Lead service line replacement

required, accelerated replacement

schedule (if any), and annual

compliance with the replacement

schedule.

Through implementation guidance,

EPA had also requested that States

report 90th percentile lead and copper

values in conjunction with lead action

level exceedance and copper action

level exceedance milestones,

respectively, and requested States to

provide all 90th percentile lead levels

for large systems and for any mediumsize and small size system once they

had exceeded the lead action level

(EPA, 1992b).

In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA

requested comment on several revisions

to these milestones. These changes

included a requirement to report all

90th percentile lead values for large and

medium-size systems, elimination of the

two corrosion control study milestones,

the CCT installed milestone, and the

State designation of maximum

permissible source water levels

milestone. The proposed revisions also

would have added a date to the source

water treatment installed milestone and

streamlined the lead service line

replacement required milestone. In

addition, the Agency requested public

comment on whether it should require

the reporting of the optimal water

quality control parameter limits

designated by the State under

§ 141.82(f), require the reporting of the

maximum permissible source water

levels designated by the State under

§ 141.83(b)(4), and retain the

requirement for States to report any

accelerated lead service line

replacement schedule established

pursuant to § 141.84(f).

In light of the public comments

received and other, concurrent internal

Agency discussions, EPA requested

public comment in the April 1998

Notice on another regulatory option

pertaining to State reporting

requirements. Under the April 1998

option, EPA would require the

following:

• All lead 90th percentile values for

large and medium-size systems;

• 90th percentile values that exceed

the lead action level for small systems;

• 90th percentile copper values that

exceed the copper action level for all

systems;

• A new ‘‘deemed’’ milestone,

indicating the system has optimized

corrosion control and the basis for that

determination, and the date of the

determination;

• The streamlined lead service line

replacement required milestone

proposed in 1996; and

• A new ‘‘done’’ milestone, indicating

the system had optimized corrosion

control and completed any required

source water treatment steps and lead

service line replacement requirements,

and the date of the determination.

The ‘‘deemed’’ and ‘‘done’’ milestones

would be reported for all systems. The

lead service line replacement required

milestone would continue to be

reported only for those systems

triggered into the requirement.

b. Comments and analysis.

EPA received mixed comments in

response to the April 1996 Proposal.

While some commenters agreed with

the proposed revisions, others took

issue with some, or all, of the

milestones that EPA proposed to retain.

In particular, several commenters took

issue with the need to report many of

the interim milestones, arguing that it is

inconsistent with the concept of

performance partnerships for EPA to

track LCR implementation at the level

suggested by the milestones. Two

commenters objected to reporting all

90th percentile lead values for large and

medium-size systems. One of these

commenters thought the information

would be confusing to the public; the

other commenter raised concern about

the burden implications. A third

commenter recommended that EPA

require the reporting of all 90th

percentile values for all systems. None

of the commenters supported reporting

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1991

15Under the 1991 requirements, States only

report a milestone if it is appropriate to a water

system. Thus, for example, there is no requirement

to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/

medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized

after demonstrating for two consecutive six-month

monitoring periods that it does not exceed either

the lead or the copper action level.

16Systems may cease lead service line

replacement before they have replaced all the lead

service lines they own if the 90th percentile lead

levels from routine tap water monitoring do not

exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring

periods.

of the additional items (i.e., Statespecified optimal water quality control

parameters, State-specified maximum

permissible source water levels, and

accelerated lead service line

replacement schedules) on which EPA

requested comment. The reasons for

opposing such requirements were

similar to those expressed, in general,

about State reporting requirements—

lack of clear justification on the part of

EPA, burden implications, and

inconsistency with the concept of

performance partnerships.

In light of these comments, the

Agency thoroughly re-examined its need

for, and planned use of, system-specific

LCR implementation data. EPA

concluded that the Agency needs more

information for this Rule than is

generally true for other NPDWRs. The

Agency’s rationale is explained in the

April 1998 Notice and is based on the

fact that lead is a priority contaminant

as well as the nature of the rule that

provides States broad discretion in

specifying precisely what constitutes

compliance for each water system. The

Agency also concluded, however, that

the use of exception-based reporting 15

for this Rule has resulted in

unanticipated data anomalies that make

the use of the reported milestones

problematic. EPA therefore requested

public comment on a revised option that

would eliminate all but one of the

original treatment milestones and

replace the others with two newly

defined milestones that would need to

be reported for all systems.

Commenters were more supportive of

the April 1998 option than they were of

the 1996 option. Several commenters

continued to have concerns, however. A

few commenters believe EPA still has

not provided adequate justification for

this reporting. In particular, several

commenters opposed the requirement to

report the ‘‘done’’ milestone for every

system and suggested that it be required

only for those systems that continue to

exceed an action level after optimizing

CCT. One commenter questioned

whether a system would ever really be

done, since new requirements and/or

other changes at the system could

necessitate adjustments in CCT or

trigger a system [back] into lead service

line replacement requirements at some

time in the future.16 While the Agency

believes that most systems not triggered

into lead service line replacement

requirements should be ‘‘done’’ at the

time they are considered to have

optimized corrosion control, the

potential exists that this may not be

true, especially since there is no way to

discontinue source water treatment

requirements once a State has

determined that source water treatment

is required. The Agency has eliminated

all milestones that might otherwise

indicate that a water system has been

triggered into source water treatment.

EPA therefore believes it is important

for States to explicitly indicate that a

system is ‘‘done,’’ rather than for EPA to

infer this based on the ‘‘deemed’’

milestone and the available 90th

percentile level information. The

Agency believes the additional burden

of reporting this milestone will be

minimal in those cases when the

‘‘deemed’’ and the ‘‘done’’ milestones

occur at the same time. EPA

acknowledges that future events may

necessitate some ‘‘done’’ systems to

revisit specific LCR treatment technique

requirements. The Agency will address

how these situations are to be reported

in implementation guidance.

A few commenters objected to

reporting 90th percentile lead levels

other than those reflecting action level

exceedances. EPA would like to receive

all 90th percentile values and

encourages States to provide them. In

light of the reporting burden involved,

however, the Agency is not requiring

the reporting of either non-exceedance

lead values for small systems or nonexceedance copper values for any size

system. EPA plans to use the 90th

percentile lead values to show how

levels of lead at the tap have changed

over time for large and medium-size

systems and, by extrapolation, for small

systems. In terms of routine reporting,

this is the only measure that the Agency

has for showing the Rule’s effectiveness.

The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels

at the tap to as close to zero as possible.

Without any 90th percentile lead data

below the action level, EPA would have

no way to measure progress toward the

goal.

Several commenters who supported

the revisions to the reporting

requirements noted that States would

need a long lead time to implement the

changes. One commenter, for example,

mentioned that his State was in the

process of developing an automated

information system and that it would

not be possible to incorporate the

proposed revisions until some time after

the new system was online. Other

commenters questioned whether

requisite resources would be available

to make necessary changes to State

information systems. EPA recognizes

that a relatively long lead time is needed

to give States time to make changes to

automated data systems. EPA also needs

time to make the necessary revisions to

the Safe Drinking Water Information

System (SDWIS). Beginning May 15,

2000, States may report in accordance

with the new requirements; however,

States have until January 14, 2002 to

complete the transition to the new

reporting requirements. States will not

be required to report in accordance with

the revised requirements until January

14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and

January 14, 2002, States have the option

to report compliance with either the

1991 reporting requirements or the

revised requirements in today’s action.

Because of this compliance schedule,

EPA has separately codified the new

requirements at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The

requirements, codified in the 1991 Rule

at §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have

been redesignated as

§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),

respectively, and introductory text

added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the

period during which they are to be

reported.

Finally, the Agency received a few

comments in response to EPA’s request

for comment on the need for the rule

language to explicitly state that the

Administrator of EPA would specify the

format of reporting. No commenter

objected to this revision, however, two

commenters suggested that EPA adopt a

consistent format for reporting drinking

water data and adhere to it to minimize

State burden. EPA agrees that the

reporting format for the LCR should be

consistent with other drinking water

data reporting and will publish specific

formatting instructions as a part of

implementation guidance.

c. Today’s action. After considering

the public comments received, EPA has

revised § 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of

the regulatory option discussed in the

April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the

Agency has made the following

revisions.

• EPA has made two substantive

changes to the introductory text of

§ 142.15(c)(4). (1) EPA has changed the

schedule of reporting from ‘‘May 15,

August 15, November 15, and February

15 of each year’’ to ‘‘quarterly.’’

Although the Agency has no plans to

change the actual due dates at the

1992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

current time, this revision provides

flexibility to make such a change

through guidance, rather than requiring

another rulemaking, should it be

appropriate to alter the schedule in the

future. (2) The Rule now states that the

Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe

the format of reporting. As discussed

above, this will be done through

implementation guidance.

• Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii)

have been redesignated as

§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),

respectively. Introductory text has been

added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to indicate that

the requirements in that paragraph are

effective through May 14, 2000.

• A new paragraph had been added at

§ 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to indicate that States

have the option to report in accordance

with the requirements in either

§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)

during the time period of May 15, 2000

through January 14, 2002.

• A new set of reporting

requirements, described below, has been

added at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must

begin complying with these

requirements on January 14, 2002.

Under these revised reporting

requirements, States no longer are

required to submit the system name, as

well as the system identification

number. EPA deleted the requirement

for the system name as a part of LCR

reporting since this information already

is contained in EPA’s information

system through inventory data

submitted under § 142.15(b).

The other revised State reporting

requirements are as follows.

• The requirement to report lead and

copper action level exceedances

(§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of

the 1991 Rule) has been eliminated. In

its place, today’s action requires the

reporting of 90th percentile values and

the first and last date of the monitoring

period for which the 90th percentile

value was calculated as follows:

—All 90th percentile lead values,

regardless of whether the lead action

level is exceeded, for all large and

medium-size systems, pursuant to

§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(A);

—90th percentile lead values for each

small system for each monitoring

period in which the system exceeds

the lead action level, pursuant to

§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and

—90th percentile copper values for each

system for each monitoring period in

which the system exceeds the copper

action level, pursuant to

§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(C).

• The reporting of interim treatment

milestones (§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(B) through

(G), as redesignated, of the 1991 Rule)

has been eliminated. In their place,

today’s action requires the reporting of

the following three milestones.

—A ‘‘deemed’’ milestone to be reported

for each public water system for

which the State has designated

optimal water quality control

parameters under § 141.82(f), or

which the State has deemed to have

optimized corrosion control under

§ 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3), and the date

and basis of the determination. This

milestone is to be reported for all

systems, pursuant to

§ 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will

provide instructions on how to report

different scenarios (e.g., the system

adjusted existing treatment rather

than installing new CCT) in the

implementation guidance.

—Each public water system required to

begin replacing lead service lines as

specified in § 141.84 and the date the

system is to begin replacement,

pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E).

—A ‘‘done’’ milestone to be reported for

each public water system that has

completed all of the following

requirements, as appropriate:

Optimization of corrosion control; any

applicable source water treatment

requirements under § 141.83; and any

applicable lead service line

replacement requirements under

§ 141.84. States also are required to

report the date of the State’s

determination that these requirements

have been completed. This milestone

is to be reported for all systems,

pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F).

3. Special primacy considerations. As

discussed in C of this preamble, today’s

action contains several changes to the

language of § 142.16(d). These changes

are summarized below:

• EPA has added provisions at

§ 142.16(d)(1) for States to use an

alternative method of aggregating

multiple measurements taken during a

single day for a water quality parameter

at a sample location. States need not

submit anything under this paragraph if

they elect to use the formula for

aggregating these results specified in

§ 141.82(g).

• Section 142.16(d)(3) has been

revised to eliminate the requirement for

States to specify in their primacy

applications how they plan to verify

PWS demonstrations of limited control

over lead service lines.

• A new § 142.16(d)(4) has been

added to require States to specify in

their primacy applications how they

plan to determine periods when lead

levels are likely to be the highest for

community water systems subject to

reduced monitoring that collect tap

water lead and copper samples in

months other than June, July, August,

and/or September.

E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not

Adopted

In the preamble to the April 1996

Proposal, EPA requested public

comment on seven burden reduction

suggestions that the Agency had

received in the Summer of 1995 but

which EPA had not evaluated

thoroughly. EPA did not propose

specific provisions in the April 1996

Proposal, but indicated that the

comments might be considered for

further rulemaking after they had been

fully evaluated. The Agency invited

comments to provide suggestions as to

how these suggestions might be

implemented.

After considering the comments

received and other factors, EPA has

decided to adopt two of the

suggestions—flexibility for States to

eliminate system reporting/calculation

of 90th percentile levels and elimination

of the public service announcement task

under public education for small

systems. These revisions are included in

today’s action and discussed in sections

C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of this

preamble. The Agency has no plans to

implement the other five suggestions. A

summary of the comments received on

these suggestions and EPA’s rationale

for not adopting them follows.

1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality

Parameter Monitoring at Entry Points for

Systems Subject to Water Quality

Parameter Monitoring Requirements

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background. The regulations require all

large water systems (except (b)(3)

systems), and many small and mediumsize water systems that install OCCT to

collect one sample at each entry point

to the distribution system, at least every

two weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if

alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is

adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of

the dosage rate of the chemical used to

adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used,

and the alkalinity concentration or

concentration of orthophosphate or

silica (whichever is applicable). In the

April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for

comment on whether the frequency of

this monitoring should be reduced from

biweekly to monthly.

b. Comments and analysis. EPA

received a number of comments on this

issue. Over half the commenters favored

revising the rule to allow less frequent

monitoring, at least for ground water

systems not under the influence of

surface water. These commenters

expressed the opinion that monthly, or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1993

even quarterly, entry point WQP

monitoring should provide sufficient

information for systems and States to

ensure maintenance of optimal

corrosion control. Several commenters

noted that biweekly monitoring

represents a major burden for many

ground water systems, especially those

which tend to have relatively stable

water chemistry and many entry points.

One commenter suggested that EPA

should give States the discretion to

determine monitoring frequency on a

case-by-case basis.

The remaining commenters urged the

Agency to retain the current

requirement for biweekly monitoring; a

few suggested that systems be required

to collect samples daily to ensure proper

operational control. Several of the

commenters who opposed reducing the

frequency of monitoring thought that it

would be appropriate to reduce the

frequency of reporting the monitoring

results to the State, however, and

suggested that the reporting frequency

be reduced to monthly or quarterly.

EPA disagrees with those commenters

who believe that monthly, or quarterly,

WQP monitoring at entry points will

provide sufficient information to ensure

the maintenance of optimal corrosion

control at most systems. The Agency

believes there are a number of variables,

such as pH and inhibitor concentration

that may affect levels of lead and copper

at the tap within a matter of days.

Frequent monitoring is required so that

appropriate measures can be taken to

adjust for these variables in a timely

manner. EPA therefore is retaining the

requirement for biweekly monitoring for

WQPs at entry points to the distribution

system and encourages water systems to

conduct even more frequent monitoring

for process control purposes. EPA has

revised the language at § 141.87(c)(2)

regarding the frequency of WQP

monitoring at the entry points to allow

States the flexibility to require more

frequent entry point monitoring. The

new language states that systems must

conduct entry point monitoring for

WQPs ‘‘no less frequently than every

two weeks (biweekly).’’

EPA is sensitive to the burden

biweekly entry point monitoring may

pose for some systems and is making a

change to help alleviate this burden. As

discussed in section C.6.b., EPA is

revising the LCR, as proposed, to allow

some ground water systems to collect

WQP samples at representative points

instead of requiring samples to be

collected at every entry point.

As discussed in section C.2.b., today’s

action also revises the definition of what

constitutes compliance with Statedesignated OWQPs. For entry point

WQP monitoring, the system will be

deemed to be in compliance with the

OWQPs so long as it has excursions

from the State-specified values/limits on

no more than 9 days in a six-month

period.

A few commenters raised related

issues. One commenter, for example,

suggested that the frequency of WQP

monitoring be reduced to quarterly both

at entry points and within the

distribution system. This commenter

also noted that it was important that

States be able to adjust monitoring

frequencies to address seasonal

variability. EPA does not believe that

further rule changes are required to

address these concerns. The Agency

notes that nothing in the regulations

precludes a water system from

collecting routine distribution system

WQP samples on a quarterly basis.

Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a

State from setting seasonal ranges, if

appropriate, to reflect seasonal

differences that might affect water

quality.

2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at

NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion Control

Treatment

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background. EPA requested comments

on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use

flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of

installing CCT to ease the burden of

installing and operating CCT at these

systems.

b. Comments and analysis. In general,

commenters supported the use of

flushing and/or bottled water, with

some commenters suggesting certain

restrictions. A few commenters

suggested allowing flushing and/or

bottled water for small CWSs as well.

Commenters expressed many reasons

for supporting the use of flushing and/

or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The

main reasons for favoring flushing and/

or bottled water were the cost of

installing CCT, the lack of trained

personnel to operate and maintain the

treatment system, and lack of facilities

to house treatment apparatus. Some

commenters believe that flushing and/or

bottled water is a more affordable,

practical solution, and may be more

protective of public health since it

eliminates the addition of chemicals

into the water supply by untrained

personnel. Commenters suggested that

automatic flushing devices are readily

available and inexpensive, and one

commenter suggested that public

education could be part of regular

mandatory safety meetings.

Other commenters favored the use of

flushing and/or bottled water for

operational reasons. One commenter

explained that almost all of the water

used at their facility is for industrial

processes, but is conveyed in the same

piping as water used for non-potable

purposes. Bottled water is used for

drinking, but the piped water is still

used for hand-washing and the flushing

of toilets. The commenter notes that it

is not ingested and should therefore

pose no health risk from lead or copper.

Another system commented that bottled

water is already provided to employees

for aesthetic purposes. The commenters

felt that in these cases, the entire

volumes of water would need to be

treated at considerable cost, with no

additional health protection, and the

systems would still be paying for bottled

water.

After considering all comments

received, EPA has concluded that, in

general, for the purposes of this

nationally-applicable rulemaking, the

use of flushing and/or bottled water for

NTNCWSs may not be as protective of

human health, may not provide any

significant relief to systems, and could

be a burden increase on States.

EPA believes that in order for a

flushing and/or bottled water program

to be effective, and as protective of

human health as the installation of CCT,

the following criteria would have to be

met, at a minimum. A water system

using bottled water would need to

ensure that the bottled water meets the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

lead and copper standards (either via a

State-approved monitoring program or

via certification from the bottled water

purveyor on an annual basis) and that

only the bottled water will be used for

human consumption at all times. A

system relying on flushing would need

to utilize an automatic flushing device

that flushes all faucets used for

consumptive purposes at a Stateapproved frequency identified through a

State-approved monitoring program.

The flushing and/or bottled water

program would need to include

additional monitoring and reporting,

well beyond what is presently included

in the LCR, and would also require more

State oversight. States would be

required to review and approve system

proposals, and review periodic

submittals by the system to determine

compliance with the flushing and/or

bottled water program. Systems would

have to prepare and submit proposals to

the States, perform plumbing

inspections and in most cases, install

automatic flushing devices or make

other plumbing modifications, which

could be costly. In addition, the State

would need to include provisions for

inspection of the automatic flushing

devices to ensure proper operation.

1994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Additional tap monitoring would need

to be conducted by the systems before

and after flushing, to determine how

quickly lead and/or copper levels rise

after flushing, and to determine an

appropriate flushing frequency. Systems

utilizing flushing could waste a

significant amount of water on a daily

basis which adds to cost and may be

counter to conservation measures

needed during periods when the water

supply is low. These additional

monitoring, reporting and program

activities could increase the cost and

burden on States and systems, which is

the opposite of what States and systems

desire and EPA intended.

EPA recognizes that there are some

systems that may already be providing

bottled water for aesthetic or other

reasons, and the only piped water in use

is utilized for washing hands and

flushing toilets. These systems feel that

the installation of CCT provides no

added health protection from lead and

copper. EPA also recognizes that there

are systems which have unique

circumstances which make compliance

with some requirements seem

unnecessary or very difficult. This is

especially the case for small systems. In

the SDWA Amendments of 1996, EPA

was directed to develop alternative

compliance technologies to help

systems comply with the drinking water

regulations. EPA has published a list of

compliance technologies for certain

system sizes that allows the use of

point-of-use devices for compliance

with the LCR (63 FR 42032, August 6,

1998). EPA feels that these changes will

offer systems a wider range of

compliance options, and should

eliminate the problems that systems

have expressed regarding the

installation of CCT. EPA also notes that

there are numerous burden reduction

features already incorporated in this

rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has

decided not to incorporate the use of

flushing and/or bottled water as an

option for NTNCWSs under the LCR.

3. Requirement for Water Systems to

Justify Corrosion Control Methods Not

Recommended

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background. The LCR requires the State

to designate OCCT for each system that

reaches the applicable step as outlined

in §§ 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this

designation, most large systems must

perform corrosion control studies, and

small and medium systems exceeding

the lead or copper action level must

perform corrosion control studies if the

State specifically requires them to do so.

The studies must fulfill the

requirements in § 141.82(c). The

reporting requirements imposed on

these water systems by § 141.90(c)(3) are

that the systems must report the

information required by § 141.82(c).

This means that a water system must

report on its evaluation of each of the

three treatment categories specified and

then make a recommendation to the

State regarding which treatment it

thinks will provide optimal corrosion

control for that system. In the April

1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment

on a burden reduction suggestion to

eliminate the requirement that the

system report on those treatment

technologies which it does not identify

as providing OCCT. The effect of such

a change would mean that a system

would only need to provide the

justification for its recommended

treatment to the State.

b. Comments and analysis. EPA

received comments on both sides of this

issue. States overwhelmingly opposed

the suggestion, pointing out that it

would greatly increase the burden on

them in designating OCCT and in

dealing with problems that might arise

later with some systems’ corrosion

control. EPA agrees and believes that

those supporting the suggestion

generally overlooked the requirement

that CCT be optimal treatment, not just

any treatment that might reduce

corrosion in the distribution system.

The State is responsible for

designating OCCT for the system. In

order to determine what is optimal for

a given water system, the State needs

the complete picture in the form of all

the information developed by the water

system in the course of its evaluation of

the three treatment categories. The

suggestion, if implemented, would not

relieve the water system of the effort to

evaluate the alternative treatments. It

would only have relieved the system of

the need to provide the results of that

evaluation to the State. The burden on

water systems to report the results of

their evaluations to the State is more

than offset by the States’ need to make

informed decisions regarding OCCT for

those systems. Having all the

information from a water system up

front allows the State to make the right

decision the first time (which is actually

a form of burden reduction) and ensures

better public health protection.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to

implement the suggestion.

4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to

Assess Corrosion Control Effectiveness

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background. In the April 1996 Proposal,

EPA requested comment on a burden

reduction suggestion to allow

alternatives to tap water testing for lead

and copper to assess the effectiveness of

corrosion control. The Agency noted

that it did not have data to develop

alternative sampling methods that

would provide information with as

much certainty as direct sampling at

taps. EPA invited the public to submit

suggestions, and especially technical

data, that could be used in developing

reliable monitoring methods that do not

involve household tap water sampling,

that could be used to measure and

predict actual and/or relative exposures

of the public to lead and copper, and

that could measure compliance with,

and the efficacy of, CCT requirements.

b. Comments and analysis. Many

States, water utilities, municipalities,

and water industry associations

provided comments on this issue in

1996; several of these reiterated their

comments on the need for an alternative

to tap lead/copper monitoring in

response to the April 1998 Notice. Most

commenters favor an alternative to

residential sampling. Commenters cited

major problems with the current

monitoring requirements such as lack of

control over sample collection,

accessibility problems, insufficient sites,

and disagreement with the

appropriateness of triggering CCT

requirements based on residential

monitoring. Although EPA agrees that

many of the problems cited are valid

issues for some systems, the Agency has

not been able to identify an acceptable

alternative to tap water monitoring.

While many commenters suggested

conceptual alternative approaches to

assess the effectiveness of corrosion

control in lieu of residential lead and

copper tap water monitoring, none

provided specific technical data that

would assist the Agency to develop

acceptable alternative(s) to residential

sampling. Some commenters, for

example, felt that when pipe rigs, pipe

loops, or corrosion test coupons were

used, many of these ‘‘surrogate’’ systems

could be set up and operated in

locations where there would be easy

and controllable access to utility

personnel. Other commenters suggested

that pipe loops placed in easilyaccessible and controllable public

buildings or other structures could be

directly substituted for the residential

sampling sites. None of these

commenters provided any new data or

proposals on exactly how the

alternatives would be employed, and

how the standards for performance of

such systems would be developed and

implemented to determine OCCT.

EPA’s basic rationale for tap

monitoring is simply that no surrogate

technique has been identified that can

allow extrapolation to tap results with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1995

either accuracy, precision, or both. The

Agency agrees that pipe loops, corrosion

coupons, electrochemical rate

measurements, and other kinds of test

systems may be useful for many utilities

to screen CCT strategies. In some studies

for individual water systems, tap water

concentrations were also predicted

reasonably well, especially for copper.

Establishing a regulatory standard based

on corrosion rate or loop testing,

however, would introduce additional

complexity to the regulations. The

concentrations or values obtained from

these surrogate systems cannot be

precisely and accurately related to the

lead and copper levels at the tap since

tap water levels also may be affected

significantly by building-specific

factors.

After carefully evaluating information

from many sources, EPA believes that

the published research data at this point

indicate that predicting tap water 90th

percentile levels using surrogate

systems (as described above) would be

inherently imprecise on a national basis,

and implementation of such an

approach would be an expensive and

impractical regulatory burden imposed

on States, who would have to oversee

the establishment and justification of

surrogate systems on virtually a utilityby-utility basis. Additionally, EPA

believes that the frequency and extent of

sampling and analyses required to use

the surrogate systems would not

substantively reduce monitoring burden

but would introduce greater uncertainty

about the extent to which systems were

reducing the lead and copper levels at

consumers’ taps.

Several commenters, including some

of the trade organizations and States,

suggested a different approach which

EPA considers to be more promising

because it should be easier to

implement and should still provide

sufficient public health protection.

Although expressed slightly differently

in each comment, the common theme is

that once the physical and chemical

nature of a distribution system is wellcharacterized through the current

monitoring requirements, reliance could

be placed on the continued maintenance

of the optimized CCT.

EPA believes that this might represent

a scientifically-valid and feasible

approach. However, to make this a

viable regulatory option, additional

research and several rule changes would

be needed. For example, such an

approach would require additional

WQP monitoring both at the treatment

plant and within the distribution

system. It might also be necessary to

make changes in the site targeting for

copper and in the analytical methods

used. In addition, EPA believes such an

approach could result in an overall

burden increase, especially for those

small and medium-size systems that

currently are not required to perform

this type of process control monitoring

and for the States who would need to

designate OWQPs and determine

compliance for these systems.

Such changes are outside the scope of

the current rulemaking. While EPA has

no immediate plans to pursue this

alternative, the Agency may choose to

evaluate it at some point in the future

if new data become available that

suggest that a reliable and cost-effective

approach could be developed and

implemented effectively through a

national regulation.

5. Reduced Frequency for State

Reporting of 90th Percentile and

Milestone Data

a. Burden reduction suggestion and

background. In addition to reporting

violations and follow-up enforcement

actions to EPA quarterly, States are

required to report exceedances of lead

and copper action levels and other LCR

implementation milestones quarterly.

Through guidance, the Agency also has

requested that 90th percentile values for

lead be reported for all large and

medium-size systems. In the April 1996

Proposal, EPA requested comment on a

burden reduction suggestion to reduce

the frequency of reporting 90th

percentile data (including action level

exceedances where appropriate) and

LCR implementation milestone data to

once or twice a year.

b. Comments and analysis. The

Agency received mixed comments on

this suggestion. While some

commenters supported it, a number of

States noted that it does not matter what

the frequency of reporting is—quarterly

or less frequent—as long as they could

continue to submit their data to EPA

quarterly. Finally, one State wanted to

retain the current requirement.

After considering the comments

received and the changes to the State

reporting requirements discussed in

section D.2. of this preamble, EPA has

decided to retain the requirement to

report 90th percentile and milestone

data quarterly. In the Drinking Water

Program, EPA reviews violations

quarterly to ensure that timely and

appropriate follow-up action is

occurring. The Agency considers a

water system’s most recently reported

90th percentile lead value in assessing

the severity of many LCR violations.

Moreover, as discussed in section D.2.,

EPA has eliminated the reporting

requirements for all but three

implementation milestones. As

explained in the April 1998 Notice, the

Agency needs to have available in the

national data base sufficient up-to-date

information to provide a degree of

oversight and to answer some basic

questions. The Agency therefore

believes it is appropriate for States to

report quarterly information for those

water systems that have achieved one or

more of the three milestones.

F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments

1. Request for comments and

background. The April 1998 Notice

referenced comments that had been

received on the Notice of Data

Availability pertaining to the proposed

rule for Disinfection/Disinfection ByProducts (DDBP) (62 FR 59388,

November 3, 1997). Commenters to the

DDBP Notice had suggested that

compliance with the proposed

enhanced coagulation requirements

could have an adverse effect on a water

system’s ability to maintain compliance

with State-designated optimal water

quality parameters under the LCR. In

light of these concerns, in the April

1998 Notice, EPA requested further

public comment on the following issues:

• How lowering pH and alkalinity

during enhanced coagulation may cause

LCR compliance problems, given that

both pH and alkalinity levels can be

adjusted to meet OWQPs prior to entry

to the distribution system.

• Whether decreasing the pH and

alkalinity during enhanced coagulation

and then increasing them prior to

distribution system entry may increase

exceedances of lead and copper action

levels.

• What issues should be addressed in

guidance that EPA is developing to

mitigate concerns about simultaneous

compliance with enhanced coagulation

and LCR requirements.

• Whether additional regulatory

provisions are necessary to address the

simultaneous compliance issues

pertaining to enhanced coagulation and

LCR requirements, or whether guidance

would be sufficient to mitigate potential

compliance problems.

2. Comments and analysis. Although

a few commenters indicated that they

did not anticipate simultaneous

compliance problems, several others

expressed concern about the ability of

water systems to simultaneously comply

with the enhanced coagulation

requirements of the DDBP rule and the

LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to

whether the issue of simultaneous

compliance could be addressed

adequately in guidance or whether

additional regulatory language was

needed.

1996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Several commenters recommended

that EPA establish a hierarchy of

regulatory concerns. EPA does not

believe that a hierarchy of regulatory

concerns needs to be developed to deal

with simultaneous compliance issues.

EPA believes that the LCR is flexible

enough that systems can comply with

other rules that have conflicting

treatment objectives without violating

the LCR.

EPA also received comments about

providing flexibility to deal with

regulatory conflicts related to different

treatment objectives. The structure of

the LCR provides flexibility to deal with

the issue of simultaneous compliance

with multiple rules. Section 141.2

defines optimal corrosion control

treatment, for purposes of complying

with the LCR, as ‘‘the corrosion control

treatment that minimizes the lead and

copper concentration at users’ taps

while insuring that the treatment does

not cause the water system to violate

any national primary drinking water

regulations.’’ Section 141.82(c)(5) states

that ‘‘The water system shall evaluate

the effect of the chemicals used for

corrosion control treatment on other

water quality treatment processes.’’

Section 141.82(d)(1) states that ‘‘When

designating optimal treatment the State

shall consider the effects that additional

corrosion control treatment will have on

water quality parameters and on other

water quality treatment processes.’’

Treatment changes to comply with

another rule can affect the performance

of corrosion control processes.

As discussed previously, today’s

action adds provisions to the LCR

requiring systems monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap annually or less

frequently to notify the State when

treatment changes occur. EPA added

this requirement because of concerns

that changes in treatment may impact

CCT. While the LCR does not require

that this notification occur before the

treatment change is implemented

(unless required by the State or other

Federal drinking water regulations), the

Agency encourages water systems to

consult with the State before

implementing a treatment change so as

to minimize the risk that the treatment

change will have unanticipated adverse

impacts on corrosion control. The State

can require additional monitoring or the

State can require the system to reevaluate its CCT given the potentially

different water quality considerations.

One option may be to readjust the water

quality to produce a finished water that

meets the existing OWQPs. For

example, pH and alkalinity can be

raised to counter the effect of enhanced

coagulation. Another option is that

different WQPs may need to be set to

define optimal corrosion control

depending upon the type of treatment

change. For example, a lower pH and

the addition of inhibitors may be the

solution to resolving the conflict

between pH and disinfection by-product

formation. Systems may change their

corrosion control approach from a high

pH passivation to an inhibitor

passivation process. A new set of

optimal corrosion control parameters

would need to be established by the

State under this scenario. The system

would then need to meet those OWQPs.

EPA received several comments that a

comprehensive corrosion/corrosion byproduct regulation should be developed

that addresses other substances that

come into contact with drinking water

that could have a corrosive and/or

dissolving effect. EPA agrees that

control of corrosion of various materials

not directly related to health effects can

be a concern of water suppliers. EPA

believes that the corrosion control

treatment considerations discussed

above provide sufficient flexibility for

water systems to address water quality

aesthetic considerations. EPA is also

very conscious of the regulatory burden

imposed by the current SDWA

regulations, and believes that

promulgating corrosion-related

regulations to require utilities to meet

aesthetic performance standards is not

warranted. EPA does not have exposure

or health effects data that show that the

other corrosion by-products merit a

NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe

that the scope of the corrosion control

regulations should be expanded beyond

lead, copper and asbestos. Asbestos was

included in the Phase II rulemaking (56

FR 3526, Jan. 30, 1991).

EPA also received comments related

to the cost of simultaneous compliance.

EPA recognizes that water chemistry

changes might result from either

optimization of corrosion control or

coagulation (or other treatment

processes). In order to meet all finished

water quality objectives, systems may

need to modify an existing process or

install additional process equipment.

EPA considers these to be necessary

changes and costs to achieve the best

overall treatment and risk reduction.

EPA does not consider the cost of

chemical feed equipment to be

significant, especially when compared

to other types of drinking water

treatment technology.

3. Today’s action. After considering

the comments received, EPA has

concluded that the LCR, as modified by

the revisions previously discussed in

today’s action, provides water systems

sufficient flexibility to address issues

arising from the need to simultaneously

comply with other drinking water

regulations. The Agency, therefore, does

not plan to further revise the LCR to

address these issues. The Agency has

developed guidance that addresses the

issue of simultaneous compliance with

enhanced coagulation and LCR

requirements (EPA, 1999c).

G. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

• Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

• Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

• Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the right and

obligations of the recipients thereof; or

• Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ and is therefore not

subject to OMB review.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis for any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

government jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions

for each type of small entity. It also

authorizes an agency to use alternative

definitions for each category of small

entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the

activities of the agency’’ after proposing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1997

the alternative definition(s) in the

Federal Register and taking comment. 5

U.S.C secs. 601 (3)–(5). In addition to

the above, to establish an alternative

small business definition, agencies must

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for

advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, EPA

considered small entities to be those

public water systems serving 10,000 or

fewer customers. Public water systems

include both publicly and privately

owned water systems. In accordance

with the RFA requirements, EPA

proposed using this alternative

definition for governmental

jurisdictions, small businesses and

small not-for-profit enterprises in the

Federal Register (63 FR 7620–7621,

February 13, 1998), requested public

comment, consulted with small

Business administration (SBA) on the

alternative definition as it relates to

small businesses, and finalized the

alternative definition in the final

Consumer Confidence Report regulation

(63 FR 44512, Aug 19, 1998). As stated

in that Final Rule, the alternative

definition would be applied to all future

drinking water regulations.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The Lead and Copper Rule affects each

water system in the the defined universe

of small entities (drinking water systems

serving 10,000 or fewer customers) in a

different way. For many small entities,

the rule will result in a reduced

economic impact. It will have a positive

effect on the revenues of all systems but

the very smallest systems—those

serving fewer then 500 customers. Even

for these systems, however, the

economic impact will not exceed one

percent of their revenues during the first

three years; beyond the first three years

these systems also will experience

burden and cost savings. In these

circumstances, EPA has concluded that

the Rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of

this rule on small entities are contained

in Chapter 5 of the Information

Collection Request (EPA, 1999a).

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities.

Today’s rule amends EPA’s 1991 Lead

and Copper Rule to reduce the burden

on PWSs, especially smaller systems.

These revisions make a number of

changes including the establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements for smaller systems that

take into account the resources available

to smaller water systems. In addition,

the final regulation clarifies and

simplifies the current compliance and

reporting requirements and eliminates

unnecessary or redundant requirements.

The Agency has incorporated provisions

into the rule that specifically benefit

many small entities. These include

monitoring waiver provisions where the

risk of high levels of lead or copper at

the tap are low and greater flexibility in

the delivery of required public

education materials. In addition, other

provisions, while not specifically

targeted for small entities, should

further reduce burden for many small

entities. These provisions include

accelerated reduced monitoring, sample

invalidation, elimination of sample site

justifications and sample collection

certifications, and flexibility for the

State to calculate 90th percentile levels

for the system.

3. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB

control number 2040–0210.

This rule changes recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for some water

systems and the States in the following

categories: lead and copper tap water

monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes

in treatment and addition of a new

source; and LSL replacement. This rule

also requires more frequent reporting of

the completion of public education

tasks for CWSs serving more than 3,300.

This information collection is necessary

to evaluate system-specific needs,

including determining compliance,

examining treatment effectiveness;

adjusting monitoring frequencies and

schedules to address possible public

health concerns; and determining

whether the public is receiving timely

notification of possible health risks

associated with high levels of lead at the

tap.

In addition, this rule includes

requirements for States to report to EPA

90th percentile lead and copper values

for specified water systems; all systems

that have optimized, or are deemed to

have optimized CCT, and the basis of

that optimization determination; all

systems that are triggered into LSL

replacement; and all systems that have

completed the applicable CCT, source

water treatment, and LSL replacement

requirements. This information will be

used to develop national trends and to

help evaluate whether changes in

national policy or regulations are

necessary to protect public health.

Reporting of all other LCR-related

milestones has been eliminated.

The information collection in this rule

is mandatory and is authorized under

the Safe Drinking Water Act. The

information collected is not confidential

and is considered public information.

Many of the additional recordkeeping

and reporting requirements in this rule

are offset by other provisions of the rule

that will reduce monitoring burden and

eliminate some system and State

reporting requirements.

EPA is required to estimate the

burden on water systems and States for

complying with the final rule. Burden

means the total time, effort, or financial

resources expended by persons to

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal

agency. This includes the time needed

to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and

systems for the purpose of collecting,

validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

For the first three years of

implementation of this rule, EPA

estimates that the annual burden on

systems for reporting and recordkeeping

will be 225,419 hours. This is based on

an estimate that there are 75,945

respondents per year who will each, on

average, need to provide 58,813

responses and that the average time per

response will be 3.8 hours. The total

annual cost burden for systems is

estimated to be $3,380,500. This

includes total annual labor costs of

$3,349,000 and non-labor costs of

$31,500 for the purchase of laboratory

supplies, pre-printed public education

materials, and postage. EPA also

estimates that the annual burden on

States for reporting and recordkeeping

will be 69,296 hours. The total annual

average cost for States is estimated to be

$2,655,900. This is based on an estimate

that each of 56 State respondents will,

on average, need to provide 77,523

responses and that the average response

will take 0.9 hours. This includes total

annual labor costs of $1,755,900 and

non-labor costs of $900,000 for

contractor support for the modification

of State data systems.

1998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This action also contains a number of

provisions intended to reduce burden

and costs associated with implementing

the 1991 requirements. These savings

offset much of the burden and cost

associated with today’s action. Table 5

shows the estimated average annual

burden and cost savings and the net

effect on burden and cost for the first

three years of implementation.

TABLE 5.—NET EFFECT OF LCRMR ON AVERAGE ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN AND COST

Number of

respondents

New/revised requirements Reductions Net impact of LCRMR

Burden

hours

Total cost

($M)

Burden

hours

Total cost

($M)

Burden

hours

Total cost

($M)

Systems ................................................... 75,945 225,419 3,380.5 ¥262,192 ¥6,204.4 ¥36,773 ¥2,823.9

States ....................................................... 56 69,296 2,655.9 ¥19,241 ¥487.5 50,055 2,168.4

After the first three years, systems and

States are expected to complete such

activities as training, reading the

regulations, and regulatory adoption.

EPA estimates that the average annual

burden and cost associated with today’s

action will decrease significantly at that

time.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR

Part 9 of currently approved ICR control

numbers issued by OMB for various

regulations to list the information

requirements contained in this final

rule.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating and advising small

governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector, in any one year. The

overall effect of this rule is estimated to

decrease overall expenditures to public

water systems (which include State,

local, and tribal governments as well as

the private sector) to comply with the

NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

This rule will establish requirements

that affect small water systems. EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because the regulation

requires minimal expenditure of

resources and applies to all owners/

operators of public water systems, and

not uniquely to those owners/operators

that are small entities. Thus, this rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 203 of UMRA.

5. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because the rule

is consistent with, and only makes

minor changes to, the requirements

under the current national primary

drinking water regulations for lead and

copper. The existing rule imposes

requirements on public water systems to

ensure that water delivered to users is

minimally corrosive, to treat source

water, remove lead service lines and

deliver public education where

necessary to ensure public health

protection. Today’s rule does not make

any significant changes to these

treatment requirements but, as

explained elsewhere in today’s notice,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1999

17See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed

discussion of the State reporting requirement

changes.

18The panel consisted of the Directors of the

Drinking Water program from Iowa, Michigan,

Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas.

19See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more

detailed discussion of EPA’s rationale for not

adopting an alternative to tap water monitoring.

makes minor adjustments to the rule’s

requirements to enhance the efficiency

and effectiveness of current

requirements. In general, these changes

should result in slight burden

reductions for public water systems

(some of which are owned and operated

by local governmental entities). States

may, if they choose, maintain primary

enforcement authority for this rule by

adopting the revisions that are more

stringent than the existing rule (see

Table 2 in the section, ‘‘Primacy State

Program Revisions,’’ in the beginning of

the preamble). EPA projects that States

choosing to maintain primacy for this

rule may incur a slight increase in

administrative costs due to the adoption

of these revisions, additional training,

and the modifications to the State

reporting requirements. However, the

actual burdens incurred will vary from

State to State and, EPA projects that the

increased burden will not be significant

(see discussion of State impacts in

section G.3. of this preamble). In

addition, these revisions provide States

increased flexibility to make systemspecific decisions in some instances

(e.g., sample invalidation [Section

C.5.k.], small system waivers [Section

C.5.l.], alternative timing of sample

collection under reduced monitoring

[Section C.5.g.] and representative

locations for entry point water quality

parameter monitoring at ground water

systems [Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly,

this rule will not have a substantial

direct effect on the States or on

intergovernmental relationships or

responsibilities. Thus, the requirements

of section 6 of the Executive Order do

not apply to this rule.

Although section 6 of Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA

consulted with State and local

governments to enable them to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of this rule. Prior to the

April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a

number of activities to gain meaningful

input from State and local governments.

These activities included: Distribution

of a strawman proposal in August 1993;

State involvement in the development

of the April 1996 Proposal; and

distribution of newsletter articles

highlighting upcoming Federal Register

notices to organizations representing

these governments. These activities are

discussed in greater detail in the

preamble to the April 1996 Proposal (61

FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12,

1996). In addition to continuing these

efforts, EPA has conducted the

following efforts to actively coordinate

with these groups.

In 1997, in response to the comments

received to the April 1996 proposed

changes in State reporting requirements,

EPA worked with States through the

Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water’s Data Sharing Committee (DSC)

to substantially revise these

requirements. Several States and the

Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators (ASDWA) participated

actively in this effort. The DSC

recommended the elimination of most

of the milestones required by the 1991

Rule, modifications to remaining

milestones including the reporting of

90th percentile data, and the addition of

two new milestones that the DSC

believes will provide more meaningful

data regarding the implementation

status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The

DSC’s recommendations have been

incorporated into today’s rule.17

In April 1998 and August 1998, prior

to publishing additional Notices for

comment, EPA again provided national,

local, and tribal organizations with brief

articles for inclusion in their newsletters

announcing upcoming plans to publish

the Notices and encouraging readers to

provide EPA comment on the additional

regulatory options described in those

notices. In addition, EPA coordinated

closely with several national

organizations and the States to provide

copies of the August 18, 1998 Notice

directly to those water systems most

likely to be affected by the regulatory

option discussed in that notice,

including all water systems serving

more than 50,000 people and any

smaller-size water system that is likely

to continue to exceed an action level

after the installation of CCT. EPA also

requested review by a panel of State

Drinking Water Program Directors of the

Agency’s estimated impacts on water

systems and States.

In February 1999, EPA requested a

panel of six State Directors 18 to review

the EPA’s revised estimate of Paperwork

Reduction Act-related burden and costs

associated with the LCR and the

LCRMR. EPA incorporated the

comments received from that review

(EPA, 1999d) in the final estimates

(EPA, 1999a).

In general, State and local

governments support the provisions of

today’s rule although many wanted EPA

to adopt more burden reduction than is

included in today’s action. Many of the

suggestions made by these commenters

have been incorporated into the final

rule. In particular, as described in

section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has

revised the way in which compliance

with OWQPs is determined and

substantially revised State reporting

requirements primarily as a result of

these comments. Another concern

raised by these commenters, the

continuing requirement to collect tap

water lead and copper samples, is not

revised by today’s rule because the goal

of the rule is to reduce the levels of lead

and copper at the tap to as close to the

MCLGs as possible and the Agency does

not know of any alternatives that will

predict tap water lead and copper levels

with accuracy, precision, or both.19

Although the burden reductions are not

as extensive as some State and local

governments would like, EPA believes

that today’s rule is necessary to effect as

many burden reductions as possible,

without jeopardizing the level of public

health protection, and to address a

number of implementation issues,

including lead service line replacement.

6. Consultation With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal Government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments, nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities. The

provisions of today’s rule apply to all

community and non-transient nonVerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2
2000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

community water systems. Tribal

governments may be the owners or

operators of such systems, however,

nothing in today’s provisions uniquely

affects them. The overall effect of

today’s rule should be to reduce water

system operational costs slightly,

depending on system-specific

circumstances, with no change in the

level of public health protection. EPA

therefore concludes that today’s rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

7. Risk to Children Analysis

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This Lead

and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final

rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because

it is not ‘‘economically significant’’ as

defined under E.O. 12866.

8. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. No.

104–113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standard bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the

LCRMR on the Technical, Financial,

and Managerial Capacity of Public

Water Systems

Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as

amended requires that, in promulgating

a NPDWR, the Administrator shall

include an analysis of the likely effect

of compliance with the regulation on

the technical, financial, and managerial

capacity of public water systems. The

following analysis has been performed

to fulfill this statutory obligation.

Overall water system capacity is

defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a) as the

ability to plan for, achieve, and

maintain compliance with applicable

drinking water standards. Capacity has

three components: technical,

managerial, and financial.

Technical capacity is the physical and

operational ability of a water system to

meet SDWA requirements. Technical

capacity refers to the physical

infrastructure of the water system,

including the adequacy of source water

and the adequacy of treatment, storage,

and distribution infrastructure. It also

refers to the ability of system personnel

to adequately operate and maintain the

system and to otherwise implement

requisite technical knowledge.

Managerial capacity is the ability of a

water system to conduct its affairs in a

manner enabling the system to achieve

and maintain compliance with SDWA

requirements. Managerial capacity refers

to the system’s institutional and

administrative capabilities.

Financial capacity is a water system’s

ability to acquire and manage sufficient

financial resources to allow the system

to achieve and maintain compliance

with SDWA requirements.

Key Points

There are 75,945 water systems

affected by this rule. Overall, these

systems are not expected to require

significantly increased technical,

financial, or managerial capacity as a

result of the LCRMR, as most of the

revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR

requirements. The few exceptions are

highlighted below.

• There are an estimated 171 systems

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control treatment after demonstrating

that little or no lead corrosion is

occurring in the distribution system. A

few of these systems may be triggered

into the LCR’s corrosion control

treatment requirements because they

exceed the copper action level. The 171

systems also will be required to conduct

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap, and in source water, at least once

every three years. Some of these systems

already are conducting such monitoring

but, for a few systems, this LCRMR

provision represents a new requirement.

The affected systems predominantly

serve more than 50,000 persons and are

not expected to require significantly

increased technical, financial, or

managerial capacity to comply with

these requirements. Certainly some

individual facilities may have

weaknesses in one or more of these

areas but overall these systems with

minimal corrosion in the distribution

system should have or be able to easily

obtain the capacity needed for these

actions.

• There are an estimated 762 systems,

592 of which serve 3,300 or fewer

persons, subject to the LCR’s lead

service line replacement requirements.

The LCRMR do not alter these basic

requirements, and so do not affect the

number of systems triggered into these

requirements or significantly affect the

amount of lead pipe to be replaced;

however, the LCRMR do require

additional consumer notification and

modify post-replacement sampling and

reporting requirements when the water

system replaces less than the entire

length of the lead service line. These

systems now will be required to provide

consumers served by the partiallyreplaced lead service line(s) 45-day

advance notification of the replacement,

guidance about possible short-term

increases of lead levels at the tap, and

steps consumers can take to minimize

exposure. These systems also must take

a post-replacement sample within three

days of completing the replacement and

provide the results to all affected

consumers within three business days of

receiving the results from the laboratory.

These requirements strengthen the

notification and post-partial

replacement monitoring and reporting

requirements of the 1991 LCR. The

notification requirements may require

an enhancement of technical,

managerial, and financial capacity. EPA

anticipates, however, that the post

partial-replacement monitoring will

require less capacity than the 1991 LCR

because systems may now limit this

monitoring to one sample per line

(compared to one sample per household

served by the line) to comply with these

requirements. The net effect should

result in an overall decrease of

technical, managerial, and financial

capacity required to comply with these

requirements.

• All 75,945 water systems

potentially are affected by new LCRMR

provisions requiring any water system

subject to reduced monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap to notify the State

no later than 60 days after any change

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2001

in treatment or the addition of a new

source. The State, in response, may

require the system to conduct some

additional monitoring and/or to take

other appropriate action to ensure that

optimal corrosion control is maintained.

Many States already impose comparable

requirements as a condition of the

operating permit and, thus, this

provision will not represent a new

requirement for many systems.

Consequently, systems generally are not

expected to require significantly

increased technical, managerial, or

financial capacity to deal with this

requirement. Certainly some individual

facilities may have weaknesses in one or

more of these areas but overall, water

systems should have or be able to easily

obtain the capacity needed for these

activities.

• There are an estimated 6,116

systems, 5,552 of which serve 50,000 or

fewer persons, required to monitor for

water quality parameters after the

installation of corrosion control

treatment under the 1991 LCR. The

LCRMR do not affect the monitoring

requirement but makes changes in the

way the results are to be evaluated to

determine compliance with Statedesignated optimal water quality

parameters. For some systems this

revised approach for determining

compliance is expected to require

additional analysis to assess

compliance, but to result in fewer

systems incurring violations due to

temporary short-term fluctuations in

water quality. Some of these systems

may need to enhance their technical,

managerial, and financial capacity to

comply with these requirements;

however, most of the affected systems

should have or easily be able to obtain

the needed capacity because fewer

resources will be required to address

violations that likely would have

occurred under the 1991 regulations.

These violations, in turn, would have

triggered activities including public

notification and loss of eligibility for

reduced monitoring that would have

required technical, managerial, and

financial capacity to address.

• There are 4,649 CWSs and

NTNCWSs that are estimated to

continue to be required to conduct

public education programs after the

installation of treatment. 387 of these

systems are CWSs that serve more than

3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these

387 systems will need to report

completion of public education tasks to

the State twice a year, instead of once

per year as required by the 1991 LCR.

The required supporting documentation

for this second submission is minimal,

since it need only include a list of the

broadcast stations to which the system

provided bi-annual public service

announcements. Moreover, States have

the discretion to waive submission of

the supporting documentation in some

cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no

longer required to provide public

service announcements and will

continue to report completion of public

education tasks on an annual basis.

Therefore, water systems are not

expected to require increased technical,

financial, or managerial capacity to

comply with this increased reporting

requirement.

Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify

1991 LCR requirements. These

clarifications include:

• The requirement to properly

operate and maintain optimal corrosion

control;

• The requirement that water systems

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control under § 141.81(b)(2) conduct

routine water quality parameter

monitoring;

• The requirements pertaining to the

number and location of tap water lead

and copper sampling sites;

• The requirements specifying the

conditions under which a system must

resume monitoring at the tap every six

months; and

• The resampling triggers for

composite source water samples.

Certainly, there may be some

individual facilities that need to

enhance technical, financial, and

managerial capacity to comply with

these pre-existing requirements;

however, most systems are expected to

have or be able to easily obtain the

capacity necessary for these activities.

All 75,945 systems may benefit from

one or more of the LCRMR provisions

intended to reduce regulatory burden.

There are an estimated 4,554 systems

that are eligible to reduce the frequency

of tap water monitoring to once every

three years without first conducting

several rounds of annual monitoring. An

estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300

or fewer persons may be eligible for

waivers that will reduce the frequency

of monitoring for lead and/or copper at

the tap to once every nine years. An

estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water

systems subject to routine water quality

parameter monitoring will be able to

reduce the number of samples by using

representative locations instead of

sampling at every entry point. Some

systems also will be able to reduce the

frequency of source water monitoring.

An estimated 6,116 systems subject to

routine water quality monitoring

requirements will be able to reduce

paperwork seeking approval for reduced

monitoring. All systems will be able to

reduce the amount of supporting

documentation that must accompany

tap water monitoring results and an

estimated 34,046 systems will be able to

eliminate 90th percentile calculations.

The 4,256 systems required to conduct

public education will be able to take

advantage of the LCRMR provisions

allowing greater flexibility in the

delivery of materials to homeowners

and others in the community.

Generally, it is expected that the

reductions in regulatory burden will

offset any enhanced technical, financial,

and managerial capacity requirements

resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly,

some individual facilities may have

weaknesses in one or more of these

areas with respect to the basic LCR

requirements, but overall, it is expected

that the LCRMR will not exacerbate any

weaknesses that already may exist.

10. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a major rule as defined

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be

effective on April 11, 2000.

H. References

American Water Works Association, et al. v.

EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.C. Cir. (1994).

[AWWA v. EPA]

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997.

Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for

Public Comment. Prepared by Research

Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of

Health & Human Services, Public Health

Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27, 104, 132–

133, 166 [ATSDR, 1997]

Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November

1981. Factors Influencing Plumbosolvency

in Scotland. Originally presented as: A

potpourri on plumbosolvency. At a

Scientific Section Symposium on

Plumbosolvency. [Britton and Richards,

1981]

Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E.,

and Harward, G. June 1992.

Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in

Hard Waters. J IWEM, 6:259–268. [Colling,

et al., 1992]

2002 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M.,

Zielhuis, R.L. 1976. Biochemical Response

of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic

Lead for 49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup.

Environ. Health, 38:129–139. [Cools, et al.,

1976]

Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995.

Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility

Experience. Journal AWWA, 74–85.

[Dodrill and Edwards, 1995]

Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E.

March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper

Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal

AWWA, 81–94. [Edwards, et al., 1996]

Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring

for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule.

(Wed., Jul. 8, 1987), 25690–25717. [52 FR

25690]

Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic

Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated

Contaminants; National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations Implementation;

National Secondary Drinking Water

Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed., Jan. 30,

1991), 3526–3614. [56 FR 3526]

Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 110. Drinking

Water Regulations—Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri., Jun. 7,

1991), 26460–26564. [56 FR 26460]

Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking

Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant

Level Goals and National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;

Final Rule; Correction. (Mon., Jul. 15,

1991), 32113. [56 FR 32113]

Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking

Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant

Level Goals and National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;

Final Rule; Correcting Amendments.

(Mon., Jun. 29, 1992), 28785–28789. [57 FR

28785]

Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations;

Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic

Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri., Jul. 17, 1992),

31776–31849. [57 FR 31776]

Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking

Water; Maximum Contaminant Level Goals

and National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final

Rule; Technical Corrections. (Thu., Jun. 30,

1994), 33860–33864. [59 FR 33860]

Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232. Analytical

Methods for Regulated Drinking Water

Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon., Dec. 5,

1994), 62456–62471. [59 FR 62456]

Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National

Primary and Secondary Drinking Water

Regulations; Analytical Methods for

Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants;

Final Rule. (Thu., Jun. 29, 1995), 34084–

34086. [60 FR 34084]

Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Fri.,

Apr. 12, 1996), 16348–16371. [60 FR

16348]

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking

Water Monitoring Requirements for Certain

Chemical Contaminants—Chemical

Monitoring Reform (CMR) and Permanent

Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3,

1997), 36100–36136. [62 FR 36100]

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163.

Interpretation of New Drinking Water

Requirements Relating to Lead Free

Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures; Notice.

(Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684–44685. [62 FR

44684]

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations:

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;

Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule.

(Mon., Nov. 3, 1997), 59388–58484. [62 FR

59388]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations:

Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule.

(Fri., Feb. 13, 1998), 7605–7633. [63 FR

7605]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Wed.,

Apr. 22, 1998), 20038–20047. [63 FR

20038]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions

to State Primary Requirements to

Implement Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments; Final Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28,

1998), 23361–23368. [63 FR 23361]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 151.

Announcement of Small System

Compliance Technology Lists for Existing

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations and Findings Concerning

Variance Technologies. (Thur., Aug. 6,

1998), 42032–42048. [63 FR 42032]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals and National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for

Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Tue.,

Aug. 18, 1998), 44214–44218. [63 FR

44214]

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;

Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), 69388–

69476. [62 FR 69388]

Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998),

69477–69521. [63 FR 69521]

Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe,

T.L. 1992. Evaluation of Lead Corrosion

Control Measures for a Multi-source Water

Utility. American Water Works

Association, 1992 Water Quality

Technology Conference Proceedings. Part I:

777–797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992]

Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphrias: Recent

Advances. Clinical Chemistry, 32(7)a;

1255–1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986]

Kuch, A. and Wagner, I. 1983. A mass

transfer model to describe lead

concentrations in drinking water. Water

Research, 17(10): 1301. [Kuch and Wagner,

1983]

Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between

Quantities of Lead Ingested and Health

Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics,

59(3): 448–456. [Mahaffey, 1977]

Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector,

A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A Case-Oriented

Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis.

[Montgomery, et al., 1990]

Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu,

N., McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golut,

M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian,

N., and Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid

Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies

in Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health,

8(1–2): 89–102. [Nakhoul, et al., 1992]

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982.

Drinking Water and Health. Washington,

DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4,

pp. 179–183. [NAS, 1982]

Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing

Household Water Lead: A British National

Survey. Arch. of Env. Health, 35(1): 45–51.

[Pocock, 1980]

Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996.

Copper Corrosion and Iron Removal Plants.

Conference Paper. Section of Drinking

Water Protection, Minnesota Department of

Health. [Rezania and Anderl, 1996]

Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term

observation of biochemical effects of lead

in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin.

Biochem., 17: 225–233. [Schlegel and

Kufner, 1979]

Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead

Intoxication in Infancy. Pediatrics, 89: 87–

90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992]

Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of

male and female volunteers to inorganic

lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83–97.

[Struik, 1974]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Undated. An Evaluation of the Secondary

Effects of Enhanced Coagulation, With

Emphasis on Corrosion Control.

Conference Paper prepared by D.A. Lytle,

M.R. Schock, and R.J. Miltner, Treatment

and Technology Evaluation Branch, Water

Supply and Water Resources Division,

National Risk Management Research

Laboratory. [EPA, undated]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb.

23, 1988. Memorandum to Arthur Perler,

Science and Technology Branch from Jon

Longtin, Water Supply Technology Branch,

regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS

Results. [EPA, 1988]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April

1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of

Proposed National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared

by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA,

1991a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April

1991. Summary: Peach Orchard

Monitoring; Lead Service Line

Replacement Study. Prepared by Barbara

Wysock, Office of Drinking Water

Technical Support Division. [EPA, 1991b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.

1991. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance

Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared

by Black & Veatch, ECOS, Inc., and

Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92–112101).

[EPA, 1991c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan.

10, 1992. Memo from Jeff Cohen, Chief

Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water, to Regional Drinking

Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems

Regulated Under the National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and

Copper. [EPA 1992a]

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2003

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May

1992. Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions

and Federal Reporting for Milestones,

Violations and SNCs. (ERIC G405, NTIS

PB–93–156–131). [EPA, 1992b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.

1992. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance

Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control

Treatment. Prepared by Black & Veatch and

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB–93–

101583). [EPA, 1992c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May

1994. Methods for Determination of Metals

in Environmental Samples—Supplement 1.

(NTIS PB–94–184942). [EPA, 1994]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr.

4, 1995. Memo from Robert J. Blanco,

Director, Drinking Water Implementation

Division, to O. Thomas Love, Chief, Water

Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic

Systems—Compliance with the Lead and

Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct.

1995. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis

of Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile

Lead Levels. (EPA 812–X–95–001; NTIS PB

96–129077). [EPA, 1995b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.

1995. A Survey Study of Lead in Drinking

Water Supplied by Transient Water

Systems. Prepared by R.P. Maas, S.C.

Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown,

Environmental Quality Institute, The

University of North Carolina at Ashville.

Technical Report #95–019. [EPA, 1995c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar.

20, 1996. Memo from Jeff Cohen to Connie

[Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Lead Rule

for Transient Systems. [EPA, 1996a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.

19. 1996. Memorandum to Jeffrey B.

Kempic, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water from Michael R. Shock,

Treatment and Technology Branch, Water

Supply and Water Resources Division,

National Risk Management Research

Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision.

(Note: References 5, 6, and 7 cited in the

memorandum are not publically available

data and the data contained in these

studies have not been factored into EPA’s

decision making.) [EPA, 1996b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

March 1997. Manual for the Certification of

Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking

Water—Criteria and Procedures Quality

Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815–B–

97–001. [EPA 1997a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

August 1997. Alternative Monitoring

Guidelines. [EPA–816–R–97–011]. [EPA,

1997b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.

26, 1997. The Data Sharing Committee’s

Recommendations for the Lead and Copper

Rule. Draft Report. Prepared for the Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water by

the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA,

1997c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July

1998. Guidance on Implementing the

Capacity Development Provisions of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of

1996. EPA 816–R–98–006. [EPA 1998a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.

22, 1998. Health Effects from Short-Term

Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological

Criteria Division, Office of Science and

Technology, Office of Water. [EPA, 1998b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.

28, 1998. Memo to the Record from Jeffrey

B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service

Line Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June

1999. Information Collection Request for

the National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared

by the Cadmus Group, Inc. [EPA, 1999a]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June

19, 1999. Memo from Anne Jaffe Murray,

the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith

Lebowich. Review of Data for Large

Community Water Systems (CWSs) that

Continue to Exceed the Action Level After

Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

August 1999. Microbial Disinfection

Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance

Manual. EPA 815–R–99–015. [EPA, 1999c]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug.

2, 1999. Memo to the Record by Judith

Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review

of Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor

Revisions Burden and Costs under the

Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

September 30, 1999. Response to Comment

Document for The Lead and Copper Rule

Minor Revisions. [EPA, 1999e]

Wagner, I. Jun. 18–22, 1988. Effects of

Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal

Uptake. Proceedings of American Water

Works Conference. [Wagner, 1988]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Indians—lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Administrative practice and

procedure, Chemicals, Indians—lands,

Radiation protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply.

Dated: December 20, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 40 chapter 1, parts 141

and 142 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended under

the indicated heading by revising entry

‘‘141.80–141.91,’’ by removing entries

‘‘142.10–142.15,’’ and by adding new

entries in numerical order to read as

follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control

No.

*****

National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations.

*****

141.80–141.91 .......................... 2040–0210

*****

National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations Implementation.

*****

142.10–142.14 .......................... 2040–0090

142.14(d)(8)–(11) ...................... 2040–0210

142.15 ....................................... 2040–0090

142.15(c)(4) .............................. 2040–0210

*****

142.16(d) .................................. 2040–0210

*****

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 141

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

4. Section 141.43 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2),

removing the undesignatted paragraph

immediately following paragraph

(a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving

(b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 141.43 Prohibition on use of lead pipes,

solder, and flux.

* * * * *

(d) Definition of lead free. For

purposes of this section, the term lead

free:

(1) When used with respect to solders

and flux refers to solders and flux

containing not more than 0.2 percent

lead;

2004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) When used with respect to pipes

and pipe fittings refers to pipes and pipe

fittings containing not more than 8.0

percent lead; and

(3) When used with respect to

plumbing fittings and fixtures intended

by the manufacturer to dispense water

for human ingestion refers to fittings

and fixtures that are in compliance with

standards established in accordance

with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e).

5. Section 141.81 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) introductory text,

paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control

treatment steps to small, medium-size and

large water systems.

* * * * *

(b) A system is deemed to have

optimized corrosion control and is not

required to complete the applicable

corrosion control treatment steps

identified in this section if the system

satisfies one of the criteria specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section. Any such system deemed to

have optimized corrosion control under

this paragraph, and which has treatment

in place, shall continue to operate and

maintain optimal corrosion control

treatment and meet any requirements

that the State determines appropriate to

ensure optimal corrosion control

treatment is maintained.

(1) * * *

(2) Any water system may be deemed

by the State to have optimized corrosion

control treatment if the system

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

State that it has conducted activities

equivalent to the corrosion control steps

applicable to such system under this

section. If the State makes this

determination, it shall provide the

system with written notice explaining

the basis for its decision and shall

specify the water quality control

parameters representing optimal

corrosion control in accordance with

§ 141.82(f). Water systems deemed to

have optimized corrosion control under

this paragraph shall operate in

compliance with the State-designated

optimal water quality control

parameters in accordance with

§ 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead

and copper tap and water quality

parameter sampling in accordance with

§ 141.86(d)(3) and § 141.87(d),

respectively. A system shall provide the

State with the following information in

order to support a determination under

this paragraph:

* * * * *

(3) Any water system is deemed to

have optimized corrosion control if it

submits results of tap water monitoring

conducted in accordance with § 141.86

and source water monitoring conducted

in accordance with § 141.88 that

demonstrates for two consecutive 6-

month monitoring periods that the

difference between the 90th percentile

tap water lead level computed under

§ 141.80(c)(3), and the highest source

water lead concentration is less than the

Practical Quantitation Level for lead

specified in § 141.89(a)(1)(ii).

(i) Those systems whose highest

source water lead level is below the

Method Detection Limit may also be

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control under this paragraph if the 90th

percentile tap water lead level is less

than or equal to the Practical

Quantitation Level for lead for two

consecutive 6-month monitoring

periods.

(ii) Any water system deemed to have

optimized corrosion control in

accordance with this paragraph shall

continue monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap no less frequently than once

every three calendar years using the

reduced number of sites specified in

§ 141.86(c) and collecting the samples at

times and locations specified in

§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that

has not conducted a round of

monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d) since

September 30, 1997, shall complete a

round of monitoring pursuant to this

paragraph no later than September 30,

2000.

(iii) Any water system deemed to have

optimized corrosion control pursuant to

this paragraph shall notify the State in

writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any

change in treatment or the addition of

a new source. The State may require any

such system to conduct additional

monitoring or to take other action the

State deems appropriate to ensure that

such systems maintain minimal levels

of corrosion in the distribution system.

(iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is

not deemed to have optimized corrosion

control under this paragraph, and shall

implement corrosion control treatment

pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this

section unless it meets the copper action

level.

(v) Any system triggered into

corrosion control because it is no longer

deemed to have optimized corrosion

control under this paragraph shall

implement corrosion control treatment

in accordance with the deadlines in

paragraph (e) of this section. Any such

large system shall adhere to the

schedule specified in that paragraph for

medium-size systems, with the time

periods for completing each step being

triggered by the date the system is no

longer deemed to have optimized

corrosion control under this paragraph.

* * * * *

6. Section 141.82 is amended by

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 141.82 Description of corrosion control

treatment requirements.

* * * * *

(g) Continued operation and

monitoring. All systems optimizing

corrosion control shall continue to

operate and maintain optimal corrosion

control treatment, including

maintaining water quality parameters at

or above minimum values or within

ranges designated by the State under

paragraph (f) of this section, in

accordance with this paragraph for all

samples collected under § 141.87(d)

through (f). Compliance with the

requirements of this paragraph shall be

determined every six months, as

specified under § 141.87(d). A water

system is out of compliance with the

requirements of this paragraph for a sixmonth period if it has excursions for

any State-specified parameter on more

than nine days during the period. An

excursion occurs whenever the daily

value for one or more of the water

quality parameters measured at a

sampling location is below the

minimum value or outside the range

designated by the State. Daily values are

calculated as follows. States have

discretion to delete results of obvious

sampling errors from this calculation.

(1) On days when more than one

measurement for the water quality

parameter is collected at the sampling

location, the daily value shall be the

average of all results collected during

the day regardless of whether they are

collected through continuous

monitoring, grab sampling, or a

combination of both. If EPA has

approved an alternative formula under

§ 142.16 of this chapter in the State’s

application for a program revision

submitted pursuant to § 142.12 of this

chapter, the State’s formula shall be

used to aggregate multiple

measurements taken at a sampling point

for the water quality parameter in lieu

of the formula in this paragraph.

(2) On days when only one

measurement for the water quality

parameter is collected at the sampling

location, the daily value shall be the

result of that measurement.

(3) On days when no measurement is

collected for the water quality parameter

at the sampling location, the daily value

shall be the daily value calculated on

the most recent day on which the water

quality parameter was measured at the

sample site.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2005

7. Section 141.84 is amended by

removing paragraph (e), redesignating

paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through

(g), and by revising paragraphs (b) and

(d) to read as follows:

§ 141.84 Lead service line replacement

requirements.

* * * * *

(b) A water system shall replace

annually at least 7 percent of the initial

number of lead service lines in its

distribution system. The initial number

of lead service lines is the number of

lead lines in place at the time the

replacement program begins. The

system shall identify the initial number

of lead service lines in its distribution

system, including an identification of

the portion(s) owned by the system,

based on a materials evaluation,

including the evaluation required under

§ 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities

(e.g., contracts, local ordinances)

regarding the portion owned by the

system. The first year of lead service

line replacement shall begin on the date

the action level was exceeded in tap

sampling referenced in paragraph (a) of

this section.

* * * * *

(d) A water system shall replace that

portion of the lead service line that it

owns. In cases where the system does

not own the entire lead service line, the

system shall notify the owner of the

line, or the owner’s authorized agent,

that the system will replace the portion

of the service line that it owns and shall

offer to replace the owner’s portion of

the line. A system is not required to bear

the cost of replacing the privatelyowned portion of the line, nor is it

required to replace the privately-owned

portion where the owner chooses not to

pay the cost of replacing the privatelyowned portion of the line, or where

replacing the privately-owned portion

would be precluded by State, local or

common law. A water system that does

not replace the entire length of the

service line also shall complete the

following tasks.

(1) At least 45 days prior to

commencing with the partial

replacement of a lead service line, the

water system shall provide notice to the

resident(s) of all buildings served by the

line explaining that they may

experience a temporary increase of lead

levels in their drinking water, along

with guidance on measures consumers

can take to minimize their exposure to

lead. The State may allow the water

system to provide notice under the

previous sentence less than 45 days

prior to commencing partial lead service

line replacement where such

replacement is in conjunction with

emergency repairs. In addition, the

water system shall inform the

resident(s) served by the line that the

system will, at the system’s expense,

collect a sample from each partiallyreplaced lead service line that is

representative of the water in the service

line for analysis of lead content, as

prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3), within

72 hours after the completion of the

partial replacement of the service line.

The system shall collect the sample and

report the results of the analysis to the

owner and the resident(s) served by the

line within three business days of

receiving the results. Mailed notices

post-marked within three business days

of receiving the results shall be

considered ‘‘on time.’’

(2) The water system shall provide the

information required by paragraph (d)(1)

of this section to the residents of

individual dwellings by mail or by other

methods approved by the State. In

instances where multi-family dwellings

are served by the line, the water system

shall have the option to post the

information at a conspicuous location.

* * * * *

8. Section 141.85 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) through

(a)(4)(v) as follows:

Old paragraph New paragraph

(a) Introductory text ... (a)(1).

(a)(1) Introductory

text.

(a)(1)(i).

(a)(2) ......................... (a)(1)(ii).

(a)(3) ......................... (a)(1)(iii).

(a)(3)(i) ...................... (a)(1)(iii)(A).

(a)(3)(ii) ..................... (a)(1)(iii)(B).

(a)(3)(iii) ..................... (a)(1)(iii)(C).

(a)(4) ......................... (a)(1)(iv).

(a)(4)(i) ...................... (a)(1)(iv)(A).

(a)(4)(ii) ..................... (a)(1)(iv)(B).

(a)(4)(ii)(A) ................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(1).

(a)(4)(ii)(B) ................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(2).

(a)(4)(ii)(C) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(B)(3).

(a)(4)(ii)(D) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(B)(4).

(a)(4)(ii)(E) ................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5).

(a)(4)(ii)(F) ................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(6).

(a)(4)(iii) ..................... (a)(1)(iv)(C).

(a)(4)(iii)(A) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(1).

(a)(4)(iii)(B) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2).

(a)(4)(iv) .................... (a)(1)(iv)(D).

(a)(4)(iv)(A) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(D)(1).

(a)(4)(iv)(B) ................ (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2).

(a)(4)(iv)(C) ............... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3).

(a)(4)(v) ..................... (a)(1)(iv)(E).

8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended

by adding paragraphs (a) introductory

text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising

all references to ‘‘each lead service line

that we control’’ in redesignated

paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read ‘‘the portion

of each lead service line that we own’’

and by revising newly designated

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5), and by

revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory

text and (c)(2)(i) through (iii), (c)(4)

introductory text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read

as follows:

§ 141.85 Public education and

supplemental monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(a) Content of written public

education materials. (1) Community

water systems. A community water

system shall include the following text

in all of the printed materials it

distributes through its lead public

education program. Systems may delete

information pertaining to lead service

lines, upon approval by the State, if no

lead service lines exist anywhere in the

water system service area. Public

education language at paragraphs

(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) of this

section may be modified regarding

building permit record availability and

consumer access to these records, if

approved by the State. Systems may also

continue to utilize pre-printed materials

that meet the public education language

requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective

November 6, 1991, and contained in the

40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised

as of July 1, 1991. Any additional

information presented by a system shall

be consistent with the information

below and be in plain English that can

be understood by lay people.

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

(B) * * *

(5) Determine whether or not the

service line that connects your home or

apartment to the water main is made of

lead. The best way to determine if your

service line is made of lead is by either

hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the

line or by contacting the plumbing

contractor who installed the line. You

can identify the plumbing contractor by

checking the city’s record of building

permits which should be maintained in

the files of the [insert name of

department that issues building

permits]. A licensed plumber can at the

same time check to see if your home’s

plumbing contains lead solder, lead

pipes, or pipe fittings that contain lead.

The public water system that delivers

water to your home should also

maintain records of the materials

located in the distribution system. If the

service line that connects your dwelling

to the water main contributes more than

15 ppb to drinking water, after our

comprehensive treatment program is in

place, we are required to replace the

portion of the line we own. If the line

is only partially owned by the [insert

the name of the city, county, or water

system that owns the line], we are

required to provide the owner of the

privately-owned portion of the line with

2006 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

information on how to replace the

privately-owned portion of the service

line, and offer to replace that portion of

the line at the owner’s expense. If we

replace only the portion of the line that

we own, we also are required to notify

you in advance and provide you with

information on the steps you can take to

minimize exposure to any temporary

increase in lead levels that may result

from the partial replacement, to take a

follow-up sample at our expense from

the line within 72 hours after the partial

replacement, and to mail or otherwise

provide you with the results of that

sample within three business days of

receiving the results. Acceptable

replacement alternatives include

copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes.

* * * * *

(2) Non-transient non-community

water systems. A non-transient noncommunity water system shall either

include the text specified in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section or shall include the

following text in all of the printed

materials it distributes through its lead

public education program. Water

systems may delete information

pertaining to lead service lines upon

approval by the State if no lead service

lines exist anywhere in the water system

service area. Any additional information

presented by a system shall be

consistent with the information below

and be in plain English that can be

understood by lay people.

(i) Introduction. The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and [insert name of water supplier] are

concerned about lead in your drinking

water. Some drinking water samples

taken from this facility have lead levels

above the EPA action level of 15 parts

per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of

lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under

Federal law we are required to have a

program in place to minimize lead in

your drinking water by [insert date

when corrosion control will be

completed for your system]. This

program includes corrosion control

treatment, source water treatment, and

public education. We are also required

to replace the portion of each lead

service line that we own if the line

contributes lead concentrations of more

than 15 ppb after we have completed

the comprehensive treatment program.

If you have any questions about how we

are carrying out the requirements of the

lead regulation please give us a call at

[insert water system’s phone number].

This brochure explains the simple steps

you can take to protect yourself by

reducing your exposure to lead in

drinking water.

(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is

found throughout the environment in

lead-based paint, air, soil, household

dust, food, certain types of pottery

porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead

can pose a significant risk to your health

if too much of it enters your body. Lead

builds up in the body over many years

and can cause damage to the brain, red

blood cells and kidneys. The greatest

risk is to young children and pregnant

women. Amounts of lead that won’t

hurt adults can slow down normal

mental and physical development of

growing bodies. In addition, a child at

play often comes into contact with

sources of lead contamination—like dirt

and dust—that rarely affect an adult. It

is important to wash children’s hands

and toys often, and to try to make sure

they only put food in their mouths.

(iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead

in drinking water, although rarely the

sole cause of lead poisoning, can

significantly increase a person’s total

lead exposure, particularly the exposure

of infants who drink baby formulas and

concentrated juices that are mixed with

water. The EPA estimates that drinking

water can make up 20 percent or more

of a person’s total exposure to lead.

(B) Lead is unusual among drinking

water contaminants in that it seldom

occurs naturally in water supplies like

rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking

water primarily as a result of the

corrosion, or wearing away, of materials

containing lead in the water distribution

system and household plumbing. These

materials include lead-based solder

used to join copper pipe, brass and

chrome-plated brass faucets, and in

some cases, pipes made of lead that

connect houses and buildings to water

mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress

banned the use of lead solder containing

greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted

the lead content of faucets, pipes and

other plumbing materials to 8.0%.

(C) When water stands in lead pipes

or plumbing systems containing lead for

several hours or more, the lead may

dissolve into your drinking water. This

means the first water drawn from the

tap in the morning, or later in the

afternoon if the water has not been used

all day, can contain fairly high levels of

lead.

(iv) Steps you can take to reduce

exposure to lead in drinking water. (A)

Let the water run from the tap before

using it for drinking or cooking any time

the water in a faucet has gone unused

for more than six hours. The longer

water resides in plumbing the more lead

it may contain. Flushing the tap means

running the cold water faucet for about

15–30 seconds. Although toilet flushing

or showering flushes water through a

portion of the plumbing system, you

still need to flush the water in each

faucet before using it for drinking or

cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple

and inexpensive measure you can take

to protect your health. It usually uses

less than one gallon of water.

(B) Do not cook with, or drink water

from the hot water tap. Hot water can

dissolve more lead more quickly than

cold water. If you need hot water, draw

water from the cold tap and then heat

it.

(C) The steps described above will

reduce the lead concentrations in your

drinking water. However, if you are still

concerned, you may wish to use bottled

water for drinking and cooking.

(D) You can consult a variety of

sources for additional information. Your

family doctor or pediatrician can

perform a blood test for lead and

provide you with information about the

health effects of lead. State and local

government agencies that can be

contacted include:

(1) [insert the name or title of facility

official if appropriate] at [insert phone

number] can provide you with

information about your facility’s water

supply; and

(2) [insert the name or title of the

State Department of Public Health] at

[insert phone number] or the [insert the

name of the city or county health

department] at [insert phone number]

can provide you with information about

the health effects of lead.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) A community water system that

exceeds the lead action level on the

basis of tap water samples collected in

accordance with § 141.86, and that is

not already repeating public education

tasks pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7),

or (c)(8), of this section, shall, within 60

days:

(i) Insert notices in each customer’s

water utility bill containing the

information in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, along with the following alert

on the water bill itself in large print:

‘‘SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY

HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN

THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN

POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR

HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE

ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION.’’ A community water

system having a billing cycle that does

not include a billing within 60 days of

exceeding the action level, or that

cannot insert information in the water

utility bill without making major

changes to its billing system, may use a

separate mailing to deliver the

information in paragraph (a)(1) of this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2007

section as long as the information is

delivered to each customer within 60

days of exceeding the action level. Such

water systems shall also include the

‘‘alert’’ language specified in this

paragraph.

(ii) Submit the information in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the

editorial departments of the major daily

and weekly newspapers circulated

throughout the community.

(iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or

brochures that contain the public

education materials in paragraphs

(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section to

facilities and organizations, including

the following:

* * * * *

(4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the

lead action level (unless it already is

repeating public education tasks

pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this

section), a non-transient noncommunity water system shall deliver

the public education materials specified

by paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the

public education materials specified by

paragraph (a)(2) of this section as

follows:

(i) * * *

(ii) Distribute informational

pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in

drinking water to each person served by

the non-transient non-community water

system. The State may allow the system

to utilize electronic transmission in lieu

of or combined with printed materials

as long as it achieves at least the same

coverage.

* * * * *

(7) A community water system may

apply to the State, in writing, (unless

the State has waived the requirement for

prior State approval) to use the text

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section in lieu of the text in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section and to perform the

tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and

(c)(5) of this section in lieu of the tasks

in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this

section if:

(i) The system is a facility, such as a

prison or a hospital, where the

population served is not capable of or is

prevented from making improvements

to plumbing or installing point of use

treatment devices; and

(ii) The system provides water as part

of the cost of services provided and does

not separately charge for water

consumption.

(8)(i) A community water system

serving 3,300 or fewer people may omit

the task contained in paragraph

(c)(2)(iv) of this section. As long as it

distributes notices containing the

information contained in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section to every household

served by the system, such systems may

further limit their public education

programs as follows:

(A) Systems serving 500 or fewer

people may forego the task contained in

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such

a system may limit the distribution of

the public education materials required

under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section

to facilities and organizations served by

the system that are most likely to be

visited regularly by pregnant women

and children, unless it is notified by the

State in writing that it must make a

broader distribution.

(B) If approved by the State in writing,

a system serving 501 to 3,300 people

may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)

of this section and/or limit the

distribution of the public education

materials required under paragraph

(c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and

organizations served by the system that

are most likely to be visited regularly by

pregnant women and children.

(ii) A community water system

serving 3,300 or fewer people that

delivers public education in accordance

with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section

shall repeat the required public

education tasks at least once during

each calendar year in which the system

exceeds the lead action level.

* * * * *

9. Section 141.86 is amended by

removing paragraph (a)(8), by

redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as

paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by

redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as

paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising it, by

adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v),

(d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising

paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c),

and (d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read

as follows:

§ 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead

and copper in tap water.

(a) * * *

(5) Any community water system with

insufficient tier 1 and tier 2 sampling

sites shall complete its sampling pool

with ‘‘tier 3 sampling sites’’, consisting

of single family structures that contain

copper pipes with lead solder installed

before 1983. A community water system

with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier

3 sampling sites shall complete its

sampling pool with representative sites

throughout the distribution system. For

the purpose of this paragraph, a

representative site is a site in which the

plumbing materials used at that site

would be commonly found at other sites

served by the water system.

* * * * *

(7) A non-transient non-community

water system with insufficient tier 1

sites that meet the targeting criteria in

paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall

complete its sampling pool with

sampling sites that contain copper pipes

with lead solder installed before 1983.

If additional sites are needed to

complete the sampling pool, the nontransient non-community water system

shall use representative sites throughout

the distribution system. For the purpose

of this paragraph, a representative site is

a site in which the plumbing materials

used at that site would be commonly

found at other sites served by the water

system.

(8) Any water system whose

distribution system contains lead

service lines shall draw 50 percent of

the samples it collects during each

monitoring period from sites that

contain lead pipes, or copper pipes with

lead solder, and 50 percent of the

samples from sites served by a lead

service line. A water system that cannot

identify a sufficient number of sampling

sites served by a lead service line shall

collect first-draw samples from all of the

sites identified as being served by such

lines.

(b) Sample collection methods. (1) All

tap samples for lead and copper

collected in accordance with this

subpart, with the exception of lead

service line samples collected under

§ 141.84(c) and samples collected under

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be

first-draw samples.

(2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead

and copper shall be one liter in volume

and have stood motionless in the

plumbing system of each sampling site

for at least six hours. First-draw samples

from residential housing shall be

collected from the cold water kitchen

tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw

samples from a nonresidential building

shall be one liter in volume and shall be

collected at an interior tap from which

water is typically drawn for

consumption. Non-first-draw samples

collected in lieu of first-draw samples

pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this

section shall be one liter in volume and

shall be collected at an interior tap from

which water is typically drawn for

consumption. First-draw samples may

be collected by the system or the system

may allow residents to collect first-draw

samples after instructing the residents of

the sampling procedures specified in

this paragraph. To avoid problems of

residents handling nitric acid,

acidification of first-draw samples may

be done up to 14 days after the sample

is collected. After acidification to

resolubilize the metals, the sample must

stand in the original container for the

time specified in the approved EPA

method before the sample can be

analyzed. If a system allows residents to

2008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

perform sampling, the system may not

challenge, based on alleged errors in

sample collection, the accuracy of

sampling results.

* * * * *

(5) A non-transient non-community

water system, or a community water

system that meets the criteria of

§§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that does not

have enough taps that can supply firstdraw samples, as defined in § 141.2,

may apply to the State in writing to

substitute non-first-draw samples. Such

systems must collect as many first-draw

samples from appropriate taps as

possible and identify sampling times

and locations that would likely result in

the longest standing time for the

remaining sites. The State has the

discretion to waive the requirement for

prior State approval of non-first-draw

sample sites selected by the system,

either through State regulation or

written notification to the system.

(c) Number of samples. Water systems

shall collect at least one sample during

each monitoring period specified in

paragraph (d) of this section from the

number of sites listed in the first

column (‘‘standard monitoring’’) of the

table in this paragraph. A system

conducting reduced monitoring under

paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall

collect at least one sample from the

number of sites specified in the second

column (‘‘reduced monitoring’’) of the

table in this paragraph during each

monitoring period specified in

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Such

reduced monitoring sites shall be

representative of the sites required for

standard monitoring. States may specify

sampling locations when a system is

conducting reduced monitoring. The

table is as follows:

System size (number of

people served)

Number

of sites

(standard

monitoring)

Number

of sites

(reduced

monitoring)

>100,000 ....................... 100 50

10,001 to 100,000 ........ 60 30

3,301 to 10,000 ............ 40 20

501 to 3,300 ................. 20 10

101 to 500 .................... 10 5

≤100 .............................. 5 5

(d) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) Any water system that maintains

the range of values for the water quality

control parameters reflecting optimal

corrosion control treatment specified by

the State under § 141.82(f) during each

of two consecutive six-month

monitoring periods may reduce the

frequency of monitoring to once per

year and reduce the number of lead and

copper samples in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section if it receives

written approval from the State. The

State shall review monitoring,

treatment, and other relevant

information submitted by the water

system in accordance with § 141.90, and

shall notify the system in writing when

it determines the system is eligible to

commence reduced monitoring

pursuant to this paragraph. The State

shall review, and where appropriate,

revise its determination when the

system submits new monitoring or

treatment data, or when other data

relevant to the number and frequency of

tap sampling becomes available.

(iii) A small or medium-size water

system that meets the lead and copper

action levels during three consecutive

years of monitoring may reduce the

frequency of monitoring for lead and

copper from annually to once every

three years. Any water system that

maintains the range of values for the

water quality control parameters

reflecting optimal corrosion control

treatment specified by the State under

§ 141.82(f) during three consecutive

years of monitoring may reduce the

frequency of monitoring from annually

to once every three years if it receives

written approval from the State. The

State shall review monitoring,

treatment, and other relevant

information submitted by the water

system in accordance with § 141.90, and

shall notify the system in writing when

it determines the system is eligible to

reduce the frequency of monitoring to

once every three years. The State shall

review, and where appropriate, revise

its determination when the system

submits new monitoring or treatment

data, or when other data relevant to the

number and frequency of tap sampling

becomes available.

(iv) A water system that reduces the

number and frequency of sampling shall

collect these samples from

representative sites included in the pool

of targeted sampling sites identified in

paragraph (a) of this section. Systems

sampling annually or less frequently

shall conduct the lead and copper tap

sampling during the months of June,

July, August, or September unless the

State has approved a different sampling

period in accordance with paragraph

(d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section.

(A) The State, at its discretion, may

approve a different period for

conducting the lead and copper tap

sampling for systems collecting a

reduced number of samples. Such a

period shall be no longer than four

consecutive months and must represent

a time of normal operation where the

highest levels of lead are most likely to

occur. For a non-transient noncommunity water system that does not

operate during the months of June

through September, and for which the

period of normal operation where the

highest levels of lead are most likely to

occur is not known, the State shall

designate a period that represents a time

of normal operation for the system.

(B) Systems monitoring annually, that

have been collecting samples during the

months of June through September and

that receive State approval to alter their

sample collection period under

paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section,

must collect their next round of samples

during a time period that ends no later

than 21 months after the previous round

of sampling. Systems monitoring

triennially that have been collecting

samples during the months of June

through September, and receive State

approval to alter the sampling collection

period as per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of

this section, must collect their next

round of samples during a time period

that ends no later than 45 months after

the previous round of sampling.

Subsequent rounds of sampling must be

collected annually or triennially, as

required by this section. Small systems

with waivers, granted pursuant to

paragraph (g) of this section, that have

been collecting samples during the

months of June through September and

receive State approval to alter their

sample collection period under

paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section

must collect their next round of samples

before the end of the 9-year period.

(v) Any water system that

demonstrates for two consecutive 6-

month monitoring periods that the tap

water lead level computed under

§ 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to

0.005 mg/L and the tap water copper

level computed under § 141.80(c)(3) is

less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may

reduce the number of samples in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this

section and reduce the frequency of

sampling to once every three calendar

years.

(vi)(A) A small or medium-size water

system subject to reduced monitoring

that exceeds the lead or copper action

level shall resume sampling in

accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this

section and collect the number of

samples specified for standard

monitoring under paragraph (c) of this

section. Such a system shall also

conduct water quality parameter

monitoring in accordance with

§ 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate)

during the monitoring period in which

it exceeded the action level. Any such

system may resume annual monitoring

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2009

for lead and copper at the tap at the

reduced number of sites specified in

paragraph (c) of this section after it has

completed two subsequent consecutive

six-month rounds of monitoring that

meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of

this section and/or may resume triennial

monitoring for lead and copper at the

reduced number of sites after it

demonstrates through subsequent

rounds of monitoring that it meets the

criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or

(d)(4)(v) of this section.

(B) Any water system subject to the

reduced monitoring frequency that fails

to operate at or above the minimum

value or within the range of values for

the water quality parameters specified

by the State under § 141.82(f) for more

than nine days in any six-month period

specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct

tap water sampling for lead and copper

at the frequency specified in paragraph

(d)(3) of this section, collect the number

of samples specified for standard

monitoring under paragraph (c) of this

section, and shall resume monitoring for

water quality parameters within the

distribution system in accordance with

§ 141.87(d). Such a system may resume

reduced monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap and for water quality

parameters within the distribution

system under the following conditions:

(1) The system may resume annual

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap at the reduced number of sites

specified in paragraph (c) of this section

after it has completed two subsequent

six-month rounds of monitoring that

meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii)

of this section and the system has

received written approval from the State

that it is appropriate to resume reduced

monitoring on an annual frequency.

(2) The system may resume triennial

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap at the reduced number of sites after

it demonstrates through subsequent

rounds of monitoring that it meets the

criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or

(d)(4)(v) of this section and the system

has received written approval from the

State that it is appropriate to resume

triennial monitoring.

(3) The system may reduce the

number of water quality parameter tap

water samples required in accordance

with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency

with which it collects such samples in

accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a

system may not resume triennial

monitoring for water quality parameters

at the tap until it demonstrates, in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for

triennial monitoring.

(vii) Any water system subject to a

reduced monitoring frequency under

paragraph (d)(4) of this section that

either adds a new source of water or

changes any water treatment shall

inform the State in writing in

accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The

State may require the system to resume

sampling in accordance with paragraph

(d)(3) of this section and collect the

number of samples specified for

standard monitoring under paragraph

(c) of this section or take other

appropriate steps such as increased

water quality parameter monitoring or

re-evaluation of its corrosion control

treatment given the potentially different

water quality considerations.

* * * * *

(f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap

water samples. A sample invalidated

under this paragraph does not count

toward determining lead or copper 90th

percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(3) or

toward meeting the minimum

monitoring requirements of paragraph

(c) of this section.

(1) The State may invalidate a lead or

copper tap water sample at least if one

of the following conditions is met.

(i) The laboratory establishes that

improper sample analysis caused

erroneous results.

(ii) The State determines that the

sample was taken from a site that did

not meet the site selection criteria of

this section.

(iii) The sample container was

damaged in transit.

(iv) There is substantial reason to

believe that the sample was subject to

tampering.

(2) The system must report the results

of all samples to the State and all

supporting documentation for samples

the system believes should be

invalidated.

(3) To invalidate a sample under

paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the

decision and the rationale for the

decision must be documented in

writing. States may not invalidate a

sample solely on the grounds that a

follow-up sample result is higher or

lower than that of the original sample.

(4) The water system must collect

replacement samples for any samples

invalidated under this section if, after

the invalidation of one or more samples,

the system has too few samples to meet

the minimum requirements of paragraph

(c) of this section. Any such

replacement samples must be taken as

soon as possible, but no later than 20

days after the date the State invalidates

the sample or by the end of the

applicable monitoring period,

whichever occurs later. Replacement

samples taken after the end of the

applicable monitoring period shall not

also be used to meet the monitoring

requirements of a subsequent

monitoring period. The replacement

samples shall be taken at the same

locations as the invalidated samples or,

if that is not possible, at locations other

than those already used for sampling

during the monitoring period.

(g) Monitoring waivers for small

systems. Any small system that meets

the criteria of this paragraph may apply

to the State to reduce the frequency of

monitoring for lead and copper under

this section to once every nine years

(i.e., a ‘‘full waiver’’) if it meets all of the

materials criteria specified in paragraph

(g)(1) of this section and all of the

monitoring criteria specified in

paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If State

regulations permit, any small system

that meets the criteria in paragraphs

(g)(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’’).

(1) Materials criteria. The system

must demonstrate that its distribution

system and service lines and all

drinking water supply plumbing,

including plumbing conveying drinking

water within all residences and

buildings connected to the system, are

free of lead-containing materials and/or

copper-containing materials, as those

terms are defined in this paragraph, as

follows:

(i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver,

or a waiver of the tap water monitoring

requirements for lead (i.e., a ‘‘lead

waiver’’), the water system must provide

certification and supporting

documentation to the State that the

system is free of all lead-containing

materials, as follows:

(A) It contains no plastic pipes which

contain lead plasticizers, or plastic

service lines which contain lead

plasticizers; and

(B) It is free of lead service lines, lead

pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and

leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and

fixtures, unless such fittings and

fixtures meet the specifications of any

standard established pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section

1417(e)).

(ii) Copper. To qualify for a full

waiver, or a waiver of the tap water

monitoring requirements for copper

(i.e., a ‘‘copper waiver’’), the water

system must provide certification and

supporting documentation to the State

that the system contains no copper

pipes or copper service lines.

(2) Monitoring criteria for waiver

issuance. The system must have

2010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

completed at least one 6-month round of

standard tap water monitoring for lead

and copper at sites approved by the

State and from the number of sites

required by paragraph (c) of this section

and demonstrate that the 90th percentile

levels for any and all rounds of

monitoring conducted since the system

became free of all lead-containing and/

or copper-containing materials, as

appropriate, meet the following criteria.

(i) Lead levels. To qualify for a full

waiver, or a lead waiver, the system

must demonstrate that the 90th

percentile lead level does not exceed

0.005 mg/L.

(ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full

waiver, or a copper waiver, the system

must demonstrate that the 90th

percentile copper level does not exceed

0.65 mg/L.

(3) State approval of waiver

application. The State shall notify the

system of its waiver determination, in

writing, setting forth the basis of its

decision and any condition of the

waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the

State may require the system to perform

specific activities (e.g., limited

monitoring, periodic outreach to

customers to remind them to avoid

installation of materials that might void

the waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or

copper concentration of concern in tap

water. The small system must continue

monitoring for lead and copper at the

tap as required by paragraphs (d)(1)

through (d)(4) of this section, as

appropriate, until it receives written

notification from the State that the

waiver has been approved.

(4) Monitoring frequency for systems

with waivers. (i) A system with a full

waiver must conduct tap water

monitoring for lead and copper in

accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of

this section at the reduced number of

sampling sites identified in paragraph

(c) of this section at least once every

nine years and provide the materials

certification specified in paragraph

(g)(1) of this section for both lead and

copper to the State along with the

monitoring results.

(ii) A system with a partial waiver

must conduct tap water monitoring for

the waived contaminant in accordance

with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section

at the reduced number of sampling sites

specified in paragraph (c) of this section

at least once every nine years and

provide the materials certification

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this

section pertaining to the waived

contaminant along with the monitoring

results. Such a system also must

continue to monitor for the non-waived

contaminant in accordance with

requirements of paragraph (d)(1)

through (d)(4) of this section, as

appropriate.

(iii) If a system with a full or partial

waiver adds a new source of water or

changes any water treatment, the system

must notify the State in writing in

accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The

State has the authority to require the

system to add or modify waiver

conditions (e.g., require recertification

that the system is free of lead-containing

and/or copper-containing materials,

require additional round(s) of

monitoring), if it deems such

modifications are necessary to address

treatment or source water changes at the

system.

(iv) If a system with a full or partial

waiver becomes aware that it is no

longer free of lead-containing or coppercontaining materials, as appropriate,

(e.g., as a result of new construction or

repairs), the system shall notify the

State in writing no later than 60 days

after becoming aware of such a change.

(5) Continued eligibility. If the system

continues to satisfy the requirements of

paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the

waiver will be renewed automatically,

unless any of the conditions listed in

paragraph (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of

this section occurs. A system whose

waiver has been revoked may re-apply

for a waiver at such time as it again

meets the appropriate materials and

monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(1)

and (g)(2) of this section.

(i) A system with a full waiver or a

lead waiver no longer satisfies the

materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of

this section or has a 90th percentile lead

level greater than 0.005 mg/L.

(ii) A system with a full waiver or a

copper waiver no longer satisfies the

materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(ii)

of this section or has a 90th percentile

copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L.

(iii) The State notifies the system, in

writing, that the waiver has been

revoked, setting forth the basis of its

decision.

(6) Requirements following waiver

revocation. A system whose full or

partial waiver has been revoked by the

State is subject to the corrosion control

treatment and lead and copper tap water

monitoring requirements, as follows:

(i) If the system exceeds the lead and/

or copper action level, the system must

implement corrosion control treatment

in accordance with the deadlines

specified in § 141.81(e), and any other

applicable requirements of this subpart.

(ii) If the system meets both the lead

and the copper action level, the system

must monitor for lead and copper at the

tap no less frequently than once every

three years using the reduced number of

sample sites specified in paragraph (c)

of this section.

(7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system

waivers approved by the State in writing

prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in

effect under the following conditions:

(i) If the system has demonstrated that

it is both free of lead-containing and

copper-containing materials, as required

by paragraph (g)(1) of this section and

that its 90th percentile lead levels and

90th percentile copper levels meet the

criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this

section, the waiver remains in effect so

long as the system continues to meet the

waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph

(g)(5) of this section. The first round of

tap water monitoring conducted

pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this

section shall be completed no later than

nine years after the last time the system

has monitored for lead and copper at the

tap.

(ii) If the system has met the materials

criteria of paragraph (g)(1) of this

section but has not met the monitoring

criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this

section, the system shall conduct a

round of monitoring for lead and copper

at the tap demonstrating that it meets

the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this

section no later than September 30,

2000. Thereafter, the waiver shall

remain in effect as long as the system

meets the continued eligibility criteria

of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The

first round of tap water monitoring

conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)

of this section shall be completed no

later than nine years after the round of

monitoring conducted pursuant to

paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

* * * * *

10. Section 141.87 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as

(e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and

(e)(2)(ii), and by revising the first

sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by

revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory

text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end

of § 141.87 following paragraph (f), to

read as follows:

§ 141.87 Monitoring requirements for

water quality parameters.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(3) of this section, systems shall

collect two samples for each applicable

water quality parameter at each entry

point to the distribution system during

each monitoring period specified in

paragraph (b) of this section. * * *

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Except as provided in paragraph

(c)(3) of this section, at each entry point

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2011

to the distribution system, at least one

sample no less frequently than every

two weeks (biweekly) for: * * *

(3) Any ground water system can limit

entry point sampling described in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those

entry points that are representative of

water quality and treatment conditions

throughout the system. If water from

untreated ground water sources mixes

with water from treated ground water

sources, the system must monitor for

water quality parameters both at

representative entry points receiving

treatment and representative entry

points receiving no treatment. Prior to

the start of any monitoring under this

paragraph, the system shall provide to

the State written information identifying

the selected entry points and

documentation, including information

on seasonal variability, sufficient to

demonstrate that the sites are

representative of water quality and

treatment conditions throughout the

system.

(d) Monitoring after State specifies

water quality parameter values for

optimal corrosion control. After the

State specifies the values for applicable

water quality control parameters

reflecting optimal corrosion control

treatment under § 141.82(f), all large

systems shall measure the applicable

water quality parameters in accordance

with paragraph (c) of this section and

determine compliance with the

requirements of § 141.82(g) every six

months with the first six-month period

to begin on the date the State specifies

the optimal values under § 141.82(f).

Any small or medium-size system shall

conduct such monitoring during each

six-month period specified in this

paragraph in which the system exceeds

the lead or copper action level. For any

such small and medium-size system that

is subject to a reduced monitoring

frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at

the time of the action level exceedance,

the end of the applicable six-month

period under this paragraph shall

coincide with the end of the applicable

monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4).

Compliance with State-designated

optimal water quality parameter values

shall be determined as specified under

§ 141.82(g).

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) A water system may reduce the

frequency with which it collects tap

samples for applicable water quality

parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1)

of this section to every three years if it

demonstrates during two consecutive

monitoring periods that its tap water

lead level at the 90th percentile is less

than or equal to the PQL for lead

specified in § 141.89 (a)(1)(ii), that its

tap water copper level at the 90th

percentile is less than or equal to 0.65

mg/L for copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and

that it also has maintained the range of

values for the water quality parameters

reflecting optimal corrosion control

treatment specified by the State under

§ 141.82(f).

* * * * *

(4) Any water system subject to the

reduced monitoring frequency that fails

to operate at or above the minimum

value or within the range of values for

the water quality parameters specified

by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than

nine days in any six-month period

specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume

distribution system tap water sampling

in accordance with the number and

frequency requirements in paragraph (d)

of this section. Such a system may

resume annual monitoring for water

quality parameters at the tap at the

reduced number of sites specified in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it

has completed two subsequent

consecutive six-month rounds of

monitoring that meet the criteria of that

paragraph and/or may resume triennial

monitoring for water quality parameters

at the tap at the reduced number of sites

after it demonstrates through

subsequent rounds of monitoring that it

meets the criteria of either paragraph

(e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

* * * * *

SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial monitoring .................................. pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium, conductivity, temperature.

Taps and at entry point(s) to distribution system.Every 6 months.

After installation of corrosion control .. pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ................................................. Every 6 months.

pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as

part of corrosion control), inhibitor

dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than

every two weeks.

After State specifies parameter values

for optimal corrosion control.

pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ................................................. Every 6 months.

pH, alkalinity dosage rate and concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as

part of corrosion control), inhibitor

dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than

every two weeks.

Reduced monitoring ............................ pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or

silica 3, calcium 4.

Taps ................................................. Every 6 months, annually 7

or every 3 years 8; reduced number of sites.

pH, alkalinity dosage rate and concentration (if alkalinity adjusted as

part of corrosion control), inhibitor

dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5.

Entry point(s) to distribution system 6.No less frequently than

every two weeks.

1Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.

2Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the

lead or copper action level. 3Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an

inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.

2012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.

7Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six months to annually if they have

maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if

they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual

monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile

lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality parameters designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

11. Section 141.88 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (e)(1), and

(e)(2) to read as follows:

§ 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead

and copper in source water.

(a) * * *

(1) A water system that fails to meet

the lead or copper action level on the

basis of tap samples collected in

accordance with § 141.86 shall collect

lead and copper source water samples

in accordance with the following

requirements regarding sample location,

number of samples, and collection

methods:

(i) Groundwater systems shall take a

minimum of one sample at every entry

point to the distribution system which

is representative of each well after

treatment (hereafter called a sampling

point). The system shall take one

sample at the same sampling point

unless conditions make another

sampling point more representative of

each source or treatment plant.

(ii) Surface water systems shall take a

minimum of one sample at every entry

point to the distribution system after

any application of treatment or in the

distribution system at a point which is

representative of each source after

treatment (hereafter called a sampling

point). The system shall take each

sample at the same sampling point

unless conditions make another

sampling point more representative of

each source or treatment plant.

Note to paragraph (a)(1)(ii): For the

purposes of this paragraph, surface water

systems include systems with a combination

of surface and ground sources.

(iii) If a system draws water from

more than one source and the sources

are combined before distribution, the

system must sample at an entry point to

the distribution system during periods

of normal operating conditions (i.e.,

when water is representative of all

sources being used).

(iv) The State may reduce the total

number of samples which must be

analyzed by allowing the use of

compositing. Compositing of samples

must be done by certified laboratory

personnel. Composite samples from a

maximum of five samples are allowed,

provided that if the lead concentration

in the composite sample is greater than

or equal to 0.001 mg/L or the copper

concentration is greater than or equal to

0.160 mg/L, then either:

(A) A follow-up sample shall be taken

and analyzed within 14 days at each

sampling point included in the

composite; or

(B) If duplicates of or sufficient

quantities from the original samples

from each sampling point used in the

composite are available, the system may

use these instead of resampling.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) A water system using only ground

water may reduce the monitoring

frequency for lead and copper in source

water to once during each nine-year

compliance cycle (as that term is

defined in § 141.2) if the system meets

one of the following criteria:

(i) The system demonstrates that

finished drinking water entering the

distribution system has been maintained

below the maximum permissible lead

and copper concentrations specified by

the State in § 141.83(b)(4) during at least

three consecutive compliance periods

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or

(ii) The State has determined that

source water treatment is not needed

and the system demonstrates that,

during at least three consecutive

compliance periods in which sampling

was conducted under paragraph (d)(1)

of this section, the concentration of lead

in source water was less than or equal

to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of

copper in source water was less than or

equal to 0.65 mg/L.

(2) A water system using surface

water (or a combination of surface water

and ground water) may reduce the

monitoring frequency in paragraph

(d)(1) of this section to once during each

nine-year compliance cycle (as that term

is defined in § 141.2) if the system meets

one of the following criteria:

(i) The system demonstrates that

finished drinking water entering the

distribution system has been maintained

below the maximum permissible lead

and copper concentrations specified by

the State in § 141.83(b)(4) for at least

three consecutive years; or

(ii) The State has determined that

source water treatment is not needed

and the system demonstrates that,

during at least three consecutive years,

the concentration of lead in source

water was less than or equal to 0.005

mg/L and the concentration of copper in

source water was less than or equal to

0.65 mg/L.

* * * * *

12. Section 141.89 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as

follows:

§ 141.89 Analytical methods.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Achieve the method detection

limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L according

to the procedures in appendix B of part

136 of this title. This need only be

accomplished if the laboratory will be

processing source water composite

samples under § 141.88(a)(1)(iii).

* * * * *

13. Section 141.90 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(a)(1)(iii), by revising all references to

‘‘§ 141.84(f)’’ in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and

(ii) to read ‘‘§ 141.84(e)’’, by revising

paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text,

(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2) through (a)(5),

(e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from

(a)(1)(vii) and adding a semicolon, and

by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (h)

to read as follows:

§ 141.90 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(1)(viii) of this section, a water system

shall report the information specified

below for all tap water samples

specified in § 141.86 and for all water

quality parameter samples specified in

§ 141.87 within the first 10 days

following the end of each applicable

monitoring period specified in § 141.86

and § 141.87 (i.e., every six months,

annually, every 3 years, or every 9

years):

* * * * *

(ii) Documentation for each tap water

lead or copper sample for which the

water system requests invalidation

pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2);

(iii) [Reserved];

(iv) The 90th percentile lead and

copper concentrations measured from

among all lead and copper tap water

samples collected during each

monitoring period (calculated in

accordance with § 141.80(c)(3)), unless

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2013

the State calculates the system’s 90th

percentile lead and copper levels under

paragraph (h) of this section;

* * * * *

(viii) A water system shall report the

results of all water quality parameter

samples collected under § 141.87(c)

through (f) during each six-month

monitoring period specified in

§ 141.87(d) within the first 10 days

following the end of the monitoring

period unless the State has specified a

more frequent reporting requirement.

* * * * *

(2) For a non-transient noncommunity water system, or a

community water system meeting the

criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that

does not have enough taps that can

provide first-draw samples, the system

must either:

(i) Provide written documentation to

the State identifying standing times and

locations for enough non-first-draw

samples to make up its sampling pool

under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the

first applicable monitoring period under

§ 141.86(d) that commences after April

11, 2000, unless the State has waived

prior State approval of non-first-draw

sample sites selected by the system

pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or

(ii) If the State has waived prior

approval of non-first-draw sample sites

selected by the system, identify, in

writing, each site that did not meet the

six-hour minimum standing time and

the length of standing time for that

particular substitute sample collected

pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and include

this information with the lead and

copper tap sample results required to be

submitted pursuant to paragraph

(a)(1)(i) of this section.

(3) No later than 60 days after the

addition of a new source or any change

in water treatment, unless the State

requires earlier notification, a water

system deemed to have optimized

corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a

water system subject to reduced

monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4),

or a water system subject to a

monitoring waiver pursuant to

§ 141.86(g), shall send written

documentation to the State describing

the change. In those instances where

prior State approval of the treatment

change or new source is not required,

water systems are encouraged to provide

the notification to the State beforehand

to minimize the risk the treatment

change or new source will adversely

affect optimal corrosion control.

(4) Any small system applying for a

monitoring waiver under § 141.86(g), or

subject to a waiver granted pursuant to

§ 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the

following information to the State in

writing by the specified deadline:

(i) By the start of the first applicable

monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any

small water system applying for a

monitoring waiver shall provide the

documentation required to demonstrate

that it meets the waiver criteria of

§§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2).

(ii) No later than nine years after the

monitoring previously conducted

pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or

§ 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small system

desiring to maintain its monitoring

waiver shall provide the information

required by §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii).

(iii) No later than 60 days after it

becomes aware that it is no longer free

of lead-containing and/or coppercontaining material, as appropriate,

each small system with a monitoring

waiver shall provide written notification

to the State, setting forth the

circumstances resulting in the leadcontaining and/or copper-containing

materials being introduced into the

system and what corrective action, if

any, the system plans to remove these

materials.

(iv) By October 10, 2000, any small

system with a waiver granted prior to

April 11, 2000 and that has not

previously met the requirements of

§ 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the

information required by that paragraph.

(5) Each ground water system that

limits water quality parameter

monitoring to a subset of entry points

under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by

the commencement of such monitoring,

written correspondence to the State that

identifies the selected entry points and

includes information sufficient to

demonstrate that the sites are

representative of water quality and

treatment conditions throughout the

system.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(4) Any system which collects lead

service line samples following partial

lead service line replacement required

by § 141.84 shall report the results to the

State within the first ten days of the

month following the month in which

the system receives the laboratory

results, or as specified by the State.

States, at their discretion may eliminate

this requirement to report these

monitoring results. Systems shall also

report any additional information as

specified by the State, and in a time and

manner prescribed by the State, to verify

that all partial lead service line

replacement activities have taken place.

(f) Public education program

reporting requirements. (1) Any water

system that is subject to the public

education requirements in § 141.85

shall, within ten days after the end of

each period in which the system is

required to perform public education

tasks in accordance with § 141.85(c),

send written documentation to the State

that contains:

(i) A demonstration that the system

has delivered the public education

materials that meet the content

requirements in § 141.85(a) and (b) and

the delivery requirements in § 141.85(c);

and

(ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio

stations, television stations, and

facilities and organizations to which the

system delivered public education

materials during the period in which the

system was required to perform public

education tasks.

(2) Unless required by the State, a

system that previously has submitted

the information required by paragraph

(f)(1)(ii) of this section need not

resubmit the information required by

paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, as

long as there have been no changes in

the distribution list and the system

certifies that the public education

materials were distributed to the same

list submitted previously.

* * * * *

(h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead

and copper concentrations where the

State calculates a system’s 90th

percentile concentrations. A water

system is not required to report the 90th

percentile lead and copper

concentrations measured from among

all lead and copper tap water samples

collected during each monitoring

period, as required by paragraph

(a)(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 has specified a date before

the end of the applicable monitoring

period by which the system must

provide the results of lead and copper

tap water samples;

(2) The system has provided the

following information to the State by the

date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this

section:

(i) The results of all tap samples for

lead and copper including the location

of each site and the criteria under

§ 141.86(a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and/or (7)

under which the site was selected for

the system’s sampling pool, pursuant to

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section; and

(ii) An identification of sampling sites

utilized during the current monitoring

period that were not sampled during

2014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

previous monitoring periods, and an

explanation why sampling sites have

changed; and

(3) The State has provided the results

of the 90th percentile lead and copper

calculations, in writing, to the water

system before the end of the monitoring

period.

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

14. The authority citation for part 142

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

15. Section 142.14 is amended by

removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by

redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i)

through (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii) through

(d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new

paragraphs (d)(8)(i), and (d)(8)(ix)

through (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising

newly designated paragraphs (d)(8)(vi)

and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs

(d)(8)(viii), (d)(9), (d)(10), and (d)(11) to

read as follows:

§ 142.14 Records kept by States.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(8) * * *

(i) Section 141.81(b)—for any water

system deemed to be optimized under

§ 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter,

any conditions imposed by the State on

specific water systems to ensure the

continued operation and maintenance of

corrosion control treatment in place;

* * * * *

(vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)—

determinations of source water

treatment;

(vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)—

designations of maximum permissible

concentrations of lead and copper in

source water;

(viii) Section 141.84(e)—

determinations establishing shorter lead

service line service line replacement

schedules under § 141.84;

(ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii),

141.86(d)(4)(vii), and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)—

determinations of additional monitoring

requirements and/or other actions

required to maintain optimal corrosion

control by systems monitoring for lead

and copper at the tap less frequently

than once every six months that change

treatment or add a new source of water;

(x) Section 141.85—system-specific

decisions regarding the content of

written public education materials and/

or the distribution of these materials;

(xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—systemspecific determinations regarding use of

non-first-draw samples at non-transient

non-community water systems, and

community water systems meeting the

criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of

this chapter, that operate 24 hours a

day;

(xii) Section 141.86(c)—systemspecific designations of sampling

locations for systems subject to reduced

monitoring;

(xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)—

system-specific determinations

pertaining to alternative sample

collection periods for systems subject to

reduced monitoring;

(xiv) Section 141.86(g)—

determinations of small system

monitoring waivers, waiver

recertifications, and waiver revocations;

(xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)—

determinations regarding representative

entry point locations at ground water

systems;

(xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)—systemspecific determinations regarding the

submission of information to

demonstrate compliance with partial

lead service line replacement

requirements; and

(xvii) Section 141.90(f)—systemspecific decisions regarding the

resubmission of detailed documentation

demonstrating completion of public

education requirements.

(9) Records of reports and any other

information submitted by PWSs under

§ 141.90 of this chapter, including

records of any 90th percentile values

calculated by the State under

§ 141.90(h) of this chapter.

(10) Records of State activities, and

the results thereof, to:

(i) Verify compliance with State

determinations issued under

§§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of

this chapter, 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter,

and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter;

(ii) Verify compliance with the

requirements related to partial lead

service line replacement under

§ 141.84(d) of this chapter and

compliance with lead service line

replacement schedules under

§ 141.84(e) of this chapter; and

(iii) Invalidate tap water lead and

copper samples under § 141.86(f) of this

chapter.

(11) Records of each system’s

currently applicable or most recently

designated monitoring requirements. If,

for the records identified in paragraphs

(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this

section, no change is made to State

determinations during a 12-year

retention period, the State shall retain

the record until a new decision,

determination, or designation has been

issued.

* * * * *

16. Section 142.15 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i)

through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through

(c)(4)(i)(G) respectively, by adding

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text,

(c)(4)(ii), and (c)(4)(iii), and by revising

paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to

read as follows:

§ 142.15 Reports by States.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) States shall report quarterly, in a

format and on a schedule prescribed by

the Administrator, the following

information related to each system’s

compliance with the treatment

techniques for lead and copper under 40

CFR part 141, subpart I during the

preceding calendar quarter. Specifically,

States shall report as follows:

(i) For any reports provided prior to

May 15, 2000, States shall report the

name and PWS identification number:

* * * * *

(ii) For any reports provided after May

14, 2000 and before January 14, 2002,

States may report in accordance with

either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of

this section.

(iii) For all reports submitted on or

after January 14, 2002, States shall

report the PWS identification number of

each public water system identified in

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of

this section.

(A) For each large and medium-size

public water system, all 90th percentile

lead levels calculated during each

monitoring period specified in § 141.86

of this chapter, and the first and last day

of the monitoring period for which the

90th percentile lead level was

calculated;

(B) For each small public water

system, the 90th percentile lead level

calculated during each monitoring

period in which the system exceeds the

lead action level, and the first and last

day of each monitoring period in which

an exceedance occurred;

(C) For each public water system

(regardless of size), the 90th percentile

copper level calculated during each

monitoring period in which the system

exceeds the copper action level, and the

first and last day of each monitoring

period in which an exceedance

occurred;

(D) For each public water system for

which the State has designated optimal

water quality parameters under

§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the

State has deemed to have optimized

corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(1) or

(b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the

determination and the paragraph(s)

under which the State made its

determination;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2015

(E) For each public water system

required to begin replacing lead service

lines as specified in § 141.84 of this

chapter and the date each system must

begin replacement; and

(F) For each public water system that

has implemented optimal corrosion

control, completed applicable source

water treatment requirements pursuant

to § 141.83 of this chapter and/or

completed lead service line replacement

requirements pursuant to § 141.84 of

this chapter, and the date of the State’s

determination that these requirements

have been met. The date reported shall

be the latest of the following events:

(1) The date the State designates

optimal water quality parameters under

§ 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the

system to have optimized corrosion

control pursuant to § 141.81(b)(1) or

(b)(3) of this chapter;

(2) For systems triggered into source

water treatment, the date the State

designates maximum permissible source

water levels under § 141.83(b)(4) of this

chapter or determines pursuant to

§ 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source

water treatment is not required; or

(3) For systems triggered into lead

service line replacement, the date the

system completes lead service line

replacement or becomes eligible to cease

lead service line replacement pursuant

to § 141.84(f) of this chapter.

* * * * *

17. Section 142.16 is amended by

adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by

revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) Section 141.82—State designation

of optimal corrosion control.

(i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and

141.82(h)—Designating optimal

corrosion control treatment methods,

optimal water quality parameters, and

modifications thereto.

(ii) Section 141.82(g)—Designating an

alternative approach for aggregating

multiple measurements collected during

the same day for a water quality

parameter at a sampling location, if the

State elects to adopt a formula other

than the one specified in § 141.82(g)(1)

of this chapter.

* * * * *

(3) Section 141.90(e)—Verifying

compliance with lead service line

replacement schedules and completion

of all partial lead service line

replacement activities.

(4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)—

Designating an alternative period for

sample collection for community water

systems subject to reduced monitoring.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–3 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P