[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20038-20047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10713]



[[Page 20037]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 141 and 142



Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 20038]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL-6001-4]
RIN-2040-AC27


Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of data availability with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 12, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published proposed minor revisions to the National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulations (NPDWRS) for Lead and Copper (61 FR 16348). EPA is 
providing additional information that the Agency is considering for 
public review and comment. The Agency also is soliciting comment on 
several additional options that EPA is considering for adoption into 
the final regulatory revisions.

DATES: Written comments should be postmarked or delivered by hand by 
June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Lead and Copper Rule Comment 
Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please submit an original and three 
copies of your comments and enclosures (including references). If you 
wish to hand-deliver your comments, please call the Docket at (202) 
260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays, to obtain the room number for the Docket. Please see 
Supplementary Information under the heading ``Additional Information 
for Commenters'' for detailed filing instructions, including electronic 
submissions.
    The record for this rulemaking has been established under docket 
name National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. 
The record includes supporting documentation as well as printed, paper 
versions of electronic comments. The record is available for inspection 
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays 
at the Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access 
to the Docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an 
appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll 
free 1-800-426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday 
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
Eastern Time. For technical inquiries, contact Judy Lebowich, Standards 
and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water, EPA (MC-4607), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
(202) 260-7595. Please see Supplementary Information under the heading 
``Additional Data and Analyses'' for information on obtaining access to 
the references cited in this Notice at EPA Regional Office locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by the Lead and Copper Minor 
Revisions Rule are public water systems that are classified as either 
community water systems (CWSs) or non-transient non-community water 
systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             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 likely to be regulated by the Lead 
and Copper Minor Revisions Rule. This table lists the types of entities 
that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by the Lead and 
Copper Minor Revisions Rule. Transient non-community water systems 
(TNCWSs) may also be regulated by the Lead and Copper Rule in the 
future depending on EPA's assessment of the data referenced in this 
notice pertaining to the short-term health effects of lead in drinking 
water at TNCWSs and the public comments received in response to today's 
notice. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the Lead 
and Copper Minor Revisions Rule, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Secs. 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of the Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Additional Information for Commenters

    To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
respond to your comments, the Agency requests that commenters follow 
the following format: Type or print comments in ink, and cite, where 
possible, the paragraph(s) in this Notice to which each comment refers. 
Please use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed and limit your 
comments to the issues addressed in today's Notice.
    If you want EPA to acknowledge receipt of your comments, enclose a 
self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted. Comments also may be submitted electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb1a9f3d4bab1bdb5bbaa9ebbaebfb3bfb7b2f0bbaebff0b9b1a8">ow-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="462229252d2332062336272b272f2a6823362768212930">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic comments must be submitted as a 
WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect 6.1, or ASCII file avoiding the use of 
special characters and forms of encryption and must be transmitted by 
midnight June 22, 1998. Electronic comments must be identified by the 
docket name, number, or title of the Federal Register. Comments and 
data also will be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect 
6.1, or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice may be 
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

List of Abbreviations Used in This Document

    (b)(1) system--a small or medium-sized 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)

D/DBP--disinfectants and disinfection byproducts
LCR--Lead and Copper Rule
NPDWRs--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
OWQP--value or range for a water quality parameter that has been 
designated by the State as representing optimal corrosion control
SDWIS--Safe Drinking Water Information System
TNCWS--transient non-community water system
WQP--water quality parameter

Table of Contents

A. Additional Data and Analyses
    1. Exclusion of TNCWSs
    2. Timing of Monitoring for Systems Subject to Reduced Lead and 
Copper Tap Monitoring
B. Additional Regulatory Options EPA is Considering
    1. Requirement that Systems Operate Optimal Corrosion Control 
Treatment

[[Page 20039]]

    2. Monitoring for WQPs after the Installation of Corrosion 
Control Treatment
    3. Notification of Residents of Buildings Served by Partially-
Replaced Lead Service Lines
    4. State Reporting Requirements
    (a) Clarify the Manner of Reporting
    (b) Data to be Reported
C. Simultaneous Compliance Considerations: D/DBP Stage 1 Enhanced 
Coagulation Requirements and the LCR

A. Additional Data and Analyses

    On April 12, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published proposed minor revisions to the NPDWRs for Lead and Copper 
(61 FR 16348). EPA is making available for public review and comment 
additional data and analyses associated with two of the topics 
discussed in that proposal: (1) The continued exclusion of TNCWSs from 
coverage under the LCR; and (2) the requirement for water systems 
subject to reduced monitoring under the rule to collect tap water 
samples for lead and copper during the months of June through 
September.
    The new data and analyses are cited below. In addition to being 
available for review by anyone in the LCR Docket, EPA has a limited 
number of copies available to provide to requesters. A single set of 
materials pertaining to each of the above topics may be ordered free-
of-charge, while supplies last, by calling the Safe Drinking Water 
Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 and providing the following document 
information.

    <bullet> EPA Publication #EPA 815-B-97-003. December 1997. 
Information Pertaining to Lead in Drinking Water at Transient Non-
Community Water Systems. (This document contains all of the 
materials cited below under the heading of Exclusion of TNCWSs.)
    <bullet> EPA Publication #EPA 815-B-97-004. December 1997. The 
Effect of Temperature on Corrosion Control. (This document contains 
all of the materials cited below under the heading of Timing of 
Monitoring for Systems Subject to Reduced Lead and Copper Tap 
Monitoring.)

    These materials also are available for viewing at the following 
Regional locations.

    I. John F. Kennedy Federal Building, One Congress Street, 
Boston, MA 02203-001. Contact: Ellie Kwong, Phone: (617) 565-3604.
II. 260 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. Contact: Taj Khan, Phone: 
(212) 637-3826.
III. 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Contact: Ed 
Hotham, Phone: (215) 566-5778.
IV. AFC-Tower 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. 
Contact: Region 4 Library, Phone: (404) 562-8190.
V. 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507. Contact: 
Miguel Del Toral, Phone: (312) 886-5253.
VI. Fountain Place, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733. Contact: Dave Reazin, Phone: (214) 665-7501.
VII. 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101. Contact: Elizabeth 
Murtagh-Yaw, Phone: (913) 551-7440.
VIII. 999 18th Street Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466. Contact: 
Marty Swickard, Phone: (303) 312-7021.
IX. 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Contact: Roger 
Yates, Phone: (415) 744-1843.
X. 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Contact: Region 10 Library, 
Phone: (206) 553-1289.

1. Exclusion of TNCWSs

    In the preamble to the April 12, 1996, proposal, EPA indicated that 
the Agency was in the process of collecting additional data relevant to 
the exclusion of TNCWSs from coverage under the LCR and that the Agency 
would make that data available for public review and comment prior to 
the promulgation of a final rule. EPA is providing the following 
additional information pertaining to the short-term health effects of 
lead and the likely occurrence of high levels of lead in drinking water 
at TNCWSs for public review and comment in fulfillment of that 
commitment. Based upon review of these documents, which are listed 
below, the Agency continues to support the position articulated in the 
proposed minor revisions (61 FR 16349 first column) that the exclusion 
of this category of public water systems from coverage under the LCR 
should be maintained. EPA solicits comment on whether the data cited 
below should alter this position.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992. 
Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Services, Atlanta, GA. TP-92/12. Pages 9, 
65, 66, 98, and 99.
Giridhar, J. and Isom, G.E. 1990. Interaction of Lead Acetate with 
Atrial Natriuretic Factor in Rats. Life Science, 46(8):569-576.
Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphyrias: Recent Advances. Clinical 
Chemistry, 32(7):1255-1263.
Karmakar, N., Saxena, R., and Anand, S. 1986. Histopathological 
Changes Induced in Rat Tissues by Oral Intake of Lead Acetate. 
Environmental Research, 41(1):23-28.
Khan, A.J., Patel, U., Rafeeq, M., Myerson, A., Kumar, K., and 
Evans, H.E. January 1983. Reversible Acute Renal Failure in Lead 
Poisoning. Journal of Pediatrics, 102(1):147-149.
Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E. Brautbar, N., Hu, N., McDonough, A., 
Eggena, P., Golub, M.S., Berger, M. Chang, C., Jamgotchian, N., and 
Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid Hypertensinogenic Effect of Lead: Studies in 
Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat. Toxicol In. Health, 8(1-2):89-102.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 20, 1996. Note from Jeff 
Cohen to Judy Lebowich and Connie Bosma entitled: Analysis of UNC-
Ashville Survey of Lead at Transient Systems.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 3, 1997. Effects from 
Short-Term Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological Criteria Division, 
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water.

    EPA solicits public comment on these data as well as any additional 
data relevant to the continued exclusion of transients from coverage 
under the rule that commenters may wish to submit.

2. Timing of Monitoring for Systems Subject to Reduced Lead and Copper 
Tap Monitoring.

    In the April 12, 1996, notice, EPA proposed a revision to 
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) that would allow seasonal NTNCWSs subject to 
reduced monitoring that do not operate between the months of June and 
September to collect lead and copper tap water samples during their 
warmest months of operation. Several commenters suggested that all 
water systems be allowed greater flexibility in the timing of 
collection of lead and copper tap water samples on the basis that the 
ambient outdoor temperature is not the only variable that may 
significantly affect tap water levels of lead and copper. The Agency 
agrees that it may be appropriate to provide such flexibility and is 
providing for public review and comment the following documents which 
present data and analyses pertaining to the effect of temperature on 
lead and copper leaching.

Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E., and Harward, C. June 
1992. Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in Hard Waters. Journal 
IWEM, 6(3):259-268.
Dodrill, D.M., and Edwards, M. July 1995. Corrosion Control on the 
Basis of Utility Experience. Journal AWWA, 74-85.
Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E. March 1996. Alkalinity, 
pH, and Copper Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal AWWA, 81-94.
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.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 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

[[Page 20040]]

Evaluation Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, 
National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 19, 1996. Memo from 
Michael R. Schock, Treatment and Technology Branch, Water Supply and 
Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory, to Jeffrey B. Kempic of the Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water, entitled: Seasonal Monitoring Revision. (Note: 
References 5, 6, and 7 cited in the memo are not provided for public 
review and comment. The Agency is not factoring the data contained 
in these studies into its decision making.)
Wagner, I. June 18-22, 1988. Effects of Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate 
and Metal Uptake. Proceedings of American Water Works Conference.

    In light of the data presented in the documents cited above, the 
Agency is considering allowing any water system subject to reduced 
monitoring to collect lead and copper tap water samples during the 
months of normal operation when lead levels are likely to be the 
highest, or as otherwise designated by the State, instead of 
prescribing the specific months during which reduced monitoring may 
occur. EPA recognizes that it will be difficult in many cases to 
predict beforehand whether a given water chemistry coupled with 
physical factors will cause the highest values at a particular time. 
There may be instances, however, where monitoring data from similar 
systems or prior monitoring or survey experience at a particular system 
is available that would suggest when the most appropriate monitoring 
time(s) will occur. In the absence of such data, the Agency believes it 
could still be appropriate to provide States and systems flexibility to 
decide when to schedule sample collection within the monitoring period.
    EPA recognizes that water systems already monitoring for lead and 
copper at the tap on an annual or triennial frequency may feel locked 
in to collecting samples during the months of June through September in 
order either to avoid collecting samples sooner than they otherwise 
would have to or to avoid a monitoring violation for not sampling on 
time. For example, assume a water system is monitoring triennially and 
last collected samples during the months of June through September 
1997. If it were determined that it would be more appropriate for the 
system to collect samples during the months of December through March, 
it might be assumed that the system would need to collect the next 
round of samples six months early (December 1999 through March 2000) in 
order to avoid incurring a monitoring violation for not collecting the 
next round of samples by September 2000.
    This assumption, however, is not necessarily accurate. If this 
option is promulgated, it is not the Agency's intent to force systems 
already on a reduced monitoring schedule to continue to collect samples 
during the summer months if some other sample collection time makes 
more sense. In such cases, EPA believes it may be appropriate to give 
States the discretion to determine the need for, and timing of, a 
transitional monitoring period. For example, in the situation described 
above, the State may determine that it would be better to extend the 
schedule to March 2001 for that one round of monitoring. Such a 
decision may be appropriate in those instances where the current 
monitoring period would end before system could collect samples in the 
new time frame and the State has determined, based on the system's 
consistently low tap water lead and copper levels, that extending the 
one monitoring period is unlikely to result in an increased risk to 
public health.
    EPA solicits public comment on these data, the appropriateness of 
revising the requirements for the collection of samples under reduced 
monitoring as discussed above, and whether there is a need for the rule 
to explicitly provide States the flexibility to establish a 
transitional monitoring period.

B. Additional Regulatory Options EPA is Considering

    The Agency is soliciting public comment on two additional 
regulatory options being considered in conjunction with requirements 
pertaining to the maintenance of optimal corrosion control treatment, a 
new regulatory option regarding notification of residents of buildings 
served by lead service lines where only a portion of the service line 
is to be replaced, and two additional regulatory options being 
considered in conjunction with State reporting requirements. These 
options are described below.

1. Requirement that Systems Operate Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment

    Section 141.80(d) requires all water systems to install and operate 
optimal corrosion control treatment. The method by which a system 
demonstrates compliance with this requirement depends on its size and 
the results of initial monitoring. The four basic pathways are 
summarized below.

    (1) A small or medium-size system may be deemed to have 
optimized corrosion control if it can demonstrate for two 
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods that it does not exceed 
either the lead or the copper action level pursuant to 
Sec. 141.81(b)(1). This demonstration can be made whether or not 
treatment is actually physically present. Such systems demonstrate 
ongoing compliance with the requirement to operate and maintain 
optimal corrosion control through annual or once-every-three-year 
(triennial) monitoring for lead and copper at the tap.
    (2) A system may demonstrate to the State's satisfaction, 
pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(2), that it has already completed 
activities equivalent to the rule's corrosion control treatment 
steps. The State must designate OWQPs for such a system which then 
demonstrates compliance through routine WQP monitoring.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note: EPA proposed on April 12, 1996, to clarify this 
requirement for routine WQP monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) A system may demonstrate to the State's satisfaction, 
pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(3), that very little corrosion is 
occurring in the distribution system.<SUP>2</SUP> In some cases, a 
system may be deemed to have optimized corrosion control even if no 
corrosion control treatment is physically present. In other cases, a 
system may be deemed to have optimized corrosion control if it had 
previously installed corrosion control treatment prior to conducting 
initial lead and copper tap monitoring. Currently, such systems are 
not required to do any routine monitoring; however, EPA proposed on 
April 12, 1996, to require these (b)(3) systems to monitor for lead 
and copper at the tap no less frequently than triennially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 141.81(b)(3) does not currently include any 
conditions pertaining to copper. EPA proposed on April 12, 1996, to 
also require systems to meet the copper action level to be eligible 
for the a (b)(3) exception of installing optimal corrosion control 
treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) A system may complete the corrosion control treatment steps 
specified in Sec. 141.81(d) for large systems or Sec. 141.81(e) for 
small and medium-size systems. As a part of this process, the system 
is required to install the optimal corrosion control treatment 
designated by the State <SUP>3</SUP> and to complete two rounds of 
follow-up monitoring. Unless the system meets the criteria of 
Sec. 141.81(b)(1) based on the results of the follow-up monitoring, 
the State then designates OWQPs; the system demonstrates it is 
maintaining optimal corrosion control through routine monitoring of 
these WQPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In many cases, ``installation of optimal corrosion control 
treatment'' will require the physical installation of a new 
treatment process. In other cases, ``installation'' may be achieved 
through adjustment to existing treatment process(es) already in 
place. In a few instances, the State may determine that optimal 
corrosion control already exists and that no further treatment 
changes are necessary.

    While EPA does not require the designation of OWQPs or routine WQP 
monitoring for (b)(1) systems or for (b)(3) systems, the Agency 
believes it is essential that the State requires these utilities to 
implement appropriate process control mechanisms to assure proper and 
consistent operation of any corrosion control treatment that is in 
place at the time the system is deemed to be optimized that is or 
subsequently

[[Page 20041]]

installed. These process control mechanisms may involve some WQP 
monitoring but, in some instances, may be in the form of daily logs or 
other information routinely provided to the State (or available to the 
State upon request). The Agency believes it is more appropriate to give 
States the flexibility to define the specific process control 
requirements than to prescribe these requirements in a national 
regulation, since most States routinely require certain treatment and 
operational control verifications as a condition of a system's 
operating permit.
    EPA is concerned, however, that a (b)(1) system or a (b)(3) system 
may misinterpret the absence of specific Federal process control 
requirements as meaning that it has a license to ``turn off,'' or 
depart from, optimal corrosion control treatment in the absence of 
required monitoring under the LCR. EPA therefore is considering wording 
changes to the introductory paragraph of Sec. 141.81(b) and to 
Sec. 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 WQPs.
    Currently, the introductory paragraph of Sec. 141.81(b) reads:

    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 
following criteria: * * *

    EPA is considering revising it to read as follows:

    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. All systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control 
under this paragraph shall continue to operate and maintain any 
optimal corrosion control treatment in place at the time the system 
is deemed to have optimized corrosion control and any requirements 
that the State determines appropriate to ensure such treatment is 
maintained.

    The first sentence of Sec. 141.82(g) currently reads:

    All systems shall maintain water quality parameter values at or 
above minimum values or within ranges designated by the State under 
paragraph (f) of this section in each sample collected under 
Sec. 141.87(d).

    It would be revised to read as follows:

    All systems optimizing corrosion control under this subpart 
shall continue to operate and maintain any such 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 each sample collected under Sec. 141.87(d).

    These wording revisions do not add any new requirements; rather 
they clarify EPA's original intent that systems deemed to have 
optimized corrosion control continue to maintain any treatment in place 
to ensure that lead and copper levels remain minimal. The Agency does 
not believe there will be any change in regulatory burden as a result 
of this clarification.
    EPA solicits public comment on this clarification.

2. Monitoring for WQPs After the Installation of Corrosion Control 
Treatment

    Water systems subject to routine WQP monitoring requirements must 
collect WQP samples at each entry point to the distribution system once 
every two weeks (biweekly). Although EPA did not request public comment 
on the issue of compliance with OWQPs, several commenters expressed 
concern that the current approach for determining water system 
compliance with OWQPs could trigger inappropriate violations and 
recommended that EPA change the approach. After reviewing these 
comments, EPA is considering a regulatory change to modify the 
definition of what constitutes a WQP violation.
    Under the current regulation, any system that has an excursion from 
the State-designated OWQP range is allowed to take a confirmation 
sample within three days. Section 141.82(g) defines an OWQP violation 
as follows:

    * * * If the water quality parameter value of any sample is 
below the minimum value or outside the range designated by the 
State, then the system is out of compliance with this paragraph. As 
specified in Sec. 141.87(d), the system may take a confirmation 
sample for any water quality parameter value no later than 3 days 
after the first sample. If a confirmation sample is taken, the 
result must be averaged with the first sampling result and the 
average must be used for any compliance determinations under this 
paragraph. States have discretion to delete results of obvious 
sampling errors from this calculation.

    Some systems, especially large surface water systems, conduct WQP 
monitoring more frequently than required by the LCR in order to 
maintain effective process control. Because Sec. 141.87(f) requires 
that these ``diagnostic'' monitoring results also be considered, 
Sec. 141.87(f) can complicate OWQP compliance determinations. Section 
141.87(f) reads as follows:

    Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring 
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section 
shall be considered by the system and the State in making any 
determinations (i.e., determining concentrations of water quality 
parameters) under this section or Sec. 141.82.

    Since Sec. 141.82 describes OWQP compliance, any ``diagnostic'' 
monitoring results also must be factored into the compliance 
determination.
    The current regulatory language requires that even a minor 
excursion from the State-designated OWQPs be identified as a violation, 
even when it may not reflect a problem in the operation of treatment or 
be of any public health concern. Rather than assigning a violation to a 
situation which may not be a public health concern, EPA is considering 
modifying the confirmation sample approach in the existing rule by 
eliminating the language in Secs. 141.82(g) and 141.87(d) on 
confirmation samples and replacing it with a provision allowing a 
repeat sample that would need to be taken within three days. Instead of 
basing compliance on the average of the original and confirmation 
samples, compliance would be determined based solely on the results of 
the repeat sample, if one is collected, or on the results of the first 
sample if a repeat sample is not collected. This would preclude an 
attempt by a system to overcompensate with a treatment correction (that 
might adversely impact other treatment processes) just to ensure that 
the average of the two samples would be within an acceptable range.
    The revised regulatory provisions EPA is considering also provide 
better process control than the current regulation. EPA is concerned 
that the averaging approach in the current rule could allow systems 
that are not adequately controlling some WQPs to remain in compliance. 
The following example illustrates the concern. A State sets a WQP pH 
range of 7.3-7.8 for a system that uses a caustic feed pump at the 
wellhead or at the end of a water plant feeding into the system. If the 
pump is not well controlled, it is possible that the pH can be 6.9 one 
day and 8.4 three days later when the confirmation sample is taken. 
Under the procedure in the current rule, the average (7.65) is within 
the range, but adequate process control is not being maintained. 
Variability in pH values can commonly occur with lime feed treatment at 
many small and some medium-sized treatment plants. The goal of OWQP 
monitoring is to ensure good process control. The current approach, 
however, has the potential to reward poor process control, as seen in 
this example.

[[Page 20042]]

    Under the new option EPA is considering, the third and fourth 
sentences in Sec. 141.82(g) would be revised to read as follows:

    As specified in Sec. 141.87(d), the system may take a repeat 
sample for any water quality parameter value no later than 3 days 
after the first sample. If a repeat sample is taken, compliance 
determination under this paragraph will be based solely on the 
results of the repeat sample; if a repeat sample is not taken, 
compliance determination under this paragraph will be based on the 
results of the first sample.

    The third and fourth sentences in Sec. 141.87(d) would be revised 
to read as follows:

    The system may take a repeat sample for any water quality 
parameter value no later than 3 days after the first sample. If a 
repeat sample is taken, any compliance determination under 
Sec. 141.82(g) must be based solely on the results of the repeat 
sample; if a repeat sample is not taken, the result of the first 
sample must be used for an compliance determination under 
Sec. 141.82(g).

    This approach parallels the repeat sampling approach in the Total 
Coliform Rule and is one of the reasons for changing the terminology 
from ``confirmation samples'' to ``repeat samples.'' Another reason for 
changing the terminology is to avoid confusion with confirmation 
samples under the NPDWRs for organic and inorganic chemicals where 
averaging of results is still required.
    EPA does not believe that it is necessary to change Sec. 141.87(f) 
as a part of this option. That is, systems and States would continue to 
be required to factor the results of any monitoring conducted in 
addition to the minimum requirements of Sec. 141.87 into the compliance 
determination.
    There is no increase in burden to implement this option since both 
the current rule and this option allow a second sample to be taken. 
This option would only change how the results from the second sample 
are used to determine compliance.
    EPA solicits public comment on this new approach.

3. Notification of Residents of Buildings Served by Partially-Replaced 
Lead Service Lines

    In the April 12, 1996, notice, EPA proposed changes to the rule's 
lead service line replacement requirements at Sec. 141.84(d). While 
some provisions within Sec. 141.84(d) pertaining to partial lead 
service line replacement were proposed to be changed, no revision was 
proposed to the notification requirements associated with partial lead 
service line replacement. As proposed, Sec. 141.84(d) contains the 
following requirements:

    * * * In cases where the system does not replace the entire lead 
service line, the system shall notify the user served by the line 
that the system will replace the portion of the service line [that 
is under the system's control] and shall offer to replace the 
building owner's portion of the line, but is not required to bear 
the cost of replacing the building owner's portion of the line. For 
buildings where only a portion of the lead service line is replaced, 
the water system shall inform the resident(s) that the system will 
collect a first flush tap water sample after partial replacement of 
the service line is completed if the resident(s) so desire. In cases 
where the resident(s) accept the offer, the system shall collect the 
sample and report the results to the resident(s) within 14 days 
following partial lead service line replacement.

    Upon further consideration, EPA believes that this language is 
somewhat ambiguous as to who is to be notified in those instances where 
the property owner and the resident are not the same (e.g., apartment 
buildings). The Agency also believes the requirement to take a follow-
up sample upon resident request could place an undue burden on the 
water system in those instances where a line serves a large multifamily 
residence because the system could be required to take numerous follow-
up samples. EPA does not believe that a large number of samples is 
required to determine the immediate effect of the partial replacement. 
Finally, EPA is concerned that the time frame specified for the sample 
collection and reporting of the results may not provide an adequate 
level of public health protection.
    In order to address these concerns, EPA is considering the 
following revision to Sec. 141.84(d).
    (1) Replacing the word ``user'' in the first sentence of the 
requirement cited above with the word ``owner'' to clarify that the 
offer to replace the privately-owned portion of the line should be made 
to the property owner.
    (2) Adding a requirement that the water system provide a notice to 
the resident(s) of the building(s) served by the line at least 45 days 
before commencing with partial lead service line replacement. The 
purpose of such notice would be to inform the actual consumer(s) of the 
tap water affected by the lead service line that they may experience a 
temporary increase of lead levels in their drinking water due to 
material disturbances in the construction process and to provide them 
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 lead service line replacement, and to plan 
and implement appropriate measures to avoid exposure to lead.
    (3) Replacing the requirement for a resident-requested follow-up 
sample within 14 days of completing the partial replacement with the 
following requirement:

    * * * The water system shall inform the resident(s) that the 
system will collect one tap water sample representative of the water 
in the service line for analysis of lead content as prescribed under 
Sec. 141.86(b)(3) within 24 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 days of receiving 
the results.

    The Agency feels 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. In addition, unnecessary expenses and 
further concerns will be alleviated in those instances where the 
analytical results indicate no increase in lead levels resulting from 
the partial replacement.
    (4) Adding the following provision to provide for some flexibility 
in the method of delivery of the required notification(s):

    The water system shall provide the required information to the 
residents of individual dwellings by mail or by other methods 
approved by the State. In instances where multifamily dwellings are 
served by the line, the water supplier shall have the option to post 
the information at a conspicuous location.

    In order to facilitate State determination of compliance with the 
requirement to collect a follow-up sample after partial replacement of 
a lead service line, EPA believes it is appropriate that the results 
from the follow-up sample also be reported to the State, in addition to 
being maintained in the system's files as required by Sec. 141.91. The 
Agency does not believe that it is essential that the results be 
provided to the State within three days of receiving the results, 
however. Instead, EPA is considering an option that would require the 
water system to provide the results to the State within the first ten 
days of the month following the month in which the system receives the 
results. In this way, the reporting of the results to the State can be 
combined with other regularly submitted data to

[[Page 20043]]

the State so that any increased burden associated with this additional 
system reporting requirement is kept to a minimum. If the Agency 
decides to add this reporting requirement, it will be codified as a new 
Sec. 141.90(e)(4).<SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On April 12, 1996, EPA proposed to delete the existing 
Sec. 141.90(e)(4) since it would no longer be relevant if the rule 
is revised to remove the rebutable presumption that the water system 
controls the entire length of the service line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests public comment on the above provisions pertaining to 
notification associated with partial lead service line replacement, 
including comments on potential burden implications.

4. State Reporting Requirements

    EPA is considering and requests public comment on the following two 
revisions affecting State reporting of data to EPA.
(a) Clarify the Manner of Reporting
    Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 142.15 explicitly provide authority 
to the Administrator of EPA to specify the format of reporting for 
violation, follow-up actions, and inventory data. Section 142.15(c)(4), 
which defines 90th percentile and milestone reporting for the LCR, is 
silent concerning the format of that reporting. As a result, some 
States have questioned whether EPA has the authority to require that 
the LCR 90th percentile and milestone data be reported in a prescribed 
format. EPA requests public comment on whether the Agency should 
clarify in the introductory text of Sec. 142.15(c)(4), that ``States 
shall report to EPA by * * *, in a format prescribed by the 
Administrator, the following information * * *.''
(b) Data to be Reported
    In light of the comments received on State reporting requirements 
and careful internal deliberations, EPA is considering restructuring 
the State reporting requirements for the LCR. EPA has been guided by 
several principles during these deliberations and has sought to achieve 
a balance between the information required to oversee rule 
implementation and the need to reduce the reporting burden to the 
maximum extent possible without jeopardizing public health or 
protection of the environment. EPA is considering an option that would 
reduce the number of milestones that States would be required to report 
to the Agency. This option would in no way change the information the 
States are required to keep in State files or data systems--only the 
information which would be reported on a regular basis to EPA. A more 
complete explanation of EPA's rationale and guiding principles follows.
    First, implementation of the LCR is, and will remain, a high 
priority for the EPA due to the significant health effects of lead, 
especially on children. The State reporting requirements reflect this 
priority in that they go beyond requirements for other drinking water 
regulations (that is, beyond reporting violation and follow-up actions 
to the Agency). In addition, as noted above, the State record keeping 
requirements would not be changed by this revision. EPA expects States 
to maintain the required information in their files. EPA intends to 
periodically audit these files as part of its review of State 
performance. EPA may ask States in the future to provide the Agency 
additional detailed information on implementation of the LCR, for 
example, a one-time report on systems for which the State has 
designated OWQPs or maximum permissible source water levels. EPA 
believes that this approach will be less burdensome overall to the 
States, yet will provide the Agency the information it needs to oversee 
implementation of this priority rule.
    Second, EPA has sought to simplify the reporting requirements. The 
LCR is one of the most complex drinking water regulations. The rule's 
implementation period may be as long as 25 years from the time the 
Agency promulgated the rule for systems which are triggered into lead 
service line replacement requirements. Compliance with many key 
treatment technique requirements is based on the system meeting 
prescribed milestones, with several years potentially elapsing between 
milestones. Moreover, States have significant discretion in the 
determination of system-specific requirements such as what constitutes 
optimal corrosion control. Finally, a system may be in compliance with 
the rule's requirements, yet still have high levels of lead or copper 
at the tap.
    As a result of these complexities, EPA imposed State reporting 
requirements that were intended to provide information on compliance 
with all of the interim milestones in order to oversee rule 
implementation, to respond to inquiries from the public and others, and 
to target compliance assistance and enforcement efforts. EPA believes 
these activities still must be accomplished for this priority rule, 
however, the Agency is seeking to simplify the State reporting 
requirements, while retaining sufficient information in the national 
data base to provide a degree of oversight and to answer some basic 
questions. Some have suggested that EPA eliminate all milestone 
reporting. EPA disagrees with the appropriateness of doing so. Due 
primarily to the structure and requirements of the rule, EPA believes 
strongly that the Agency continues to need more information about the 
status of LCR implementation than can be derived simply from violation 
and follow-up action data.
    Therefore, EPA is considering an option that would eliminate the 
requirement for States to report completion of several of the interim 
milestones but would provide better information than the currently 
required milestone reporting for a few key activities. Under this new 
option, States would be required to report the following key elements.

    (1) The 90th percentile lead values for all PWSs that exceed the 
lead action level, the 90th percentile lead values (even where the 
lead action level is not exceeded) for all large and medium-size 
systems, and the 90th percentile copper values for all PWSs that 
exceed the copper action level. Note that it is a data sharing 
``goal'' for States to provide the 90th percentile lead values below 
the action level for small systems as well. EPA is not planning to 
require reporting of these values at this time due to the burden of 
reporting that data for the very large number of small systems.
    (2) A ``deemed'' milestone indicating that the system has 
optimized corrosion control along with an indication of the basis 
upon which that determination was made (e.g., the system is deemed 
to be optimized pursuant to Sec. 141,81 (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), 
the system is optimized as a result of installing corrosion control 
treatment, or the system is optimized on the basis of adjusting 
existing treatment).
    (3) Systems required to replace lead service lines.
    (4) A ``done'' milestone that indicates that the system has 
completed all applicable corrosion control, source water treatment 
and lead service line replacement requirements. Note that for many 
systems it may be possible to report this milestone at the same time 
as the ``deemed'' milestone.

    This information, along with the quarterly violation and follow-up 
information, will provide EPA data on the status of rule implementation 
and will allow targeting of compliance and enforcement activities based 
on the violations which are reported. As noted above, additional 
information may be obtained through audits of State files or, if the 
need arises, through special one-time reports.
    Given the deletion of many of the milestone reporting requirements, 
it will be critical that States report this more limited set of 
information completely and in a timely manner. EPA will be following up 
with States to ensure that this is occurring.
    Table 1 compares the current State reporting requirements, the 
revisions

[[Page 20044]]

proposed on April 12, 1996, and the new option EPA is considering. The 
table also provides a brief explanation of the Agency's rationale for 
the new option.

 Table 1.--Comparison of Options Under Consideration for State Reporting Requirements Under the Lead and Copper 
                                                      Rule                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current                                                                   
          Requirement               requirement      4/12/96 proposal      New option            Rationale      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of reporting for       Quarterly........  Requested comment  Retain quarterly   90th percentile data  
 milestone & exceedance data.                        on reducing the    reporting.         used as part of      
                                                     frequency to                          determining          
                                                     semi-annual or                        significant non-     
                                                     annual but did                        compliers (SNC) which
                                                     not propose any                       needs to be done     
                                                     changes.                              quarterly to ensure  
                                                                                           timely & appropriate 
                                                                                           follow-up action.    
90th percentile lead values....  Required for all   Require for all    Require as         Used in calculation of
                                  lead action        lead AL            proposed; make     SNC for some         
                                  level (AL)         exceedances and    reporting of       violations; needed to
                                  exceedances;       for large/medium   values <= lead     support environmental
                                  requested via      systems <= lead    AL for small       indicators and to    
                                  guidance for all   AL.                systems a data     demonstrate          
                                  large/medium                          sharing goal.      effectiveness of     
                                  systems <= lead                                          corrosion control    
                                  AL and for any                                           treatment; data      
                                  small system                                             frequently requested 
                                  that has                                                 by the public.       
                                  exceeded the                                                                  
                                  lead AL at some                                                               
                                  time in the past.                                                             
90th percentile copper values..  Required for all   Retain current     Retain current     Needed to support     
                                  copper AL          requirement.       requirement make   environmental        
                                  exceedances.                          reporting of       indicators and to    
                                                                        values <= copper   provide national view
                                                                        AL a data          of occurrences of    
                                                                        sharing goal.      high copper levels at
                                                                                           the tap.             
Systems required to conduct      Required.........  Eliminate........  Eliminate........  See Note 1.           
 corrosion control study [CCSR].                                                                                
Systems that have completed      Required.........  Eliminate........  Eliminate........  See Note 2.           
 corrosion control study [CCSC].                                                                                
State designation of optimal     Required.........  Retain...........  Eliminate........  See Note 1.           
 corrosion control treatment                                                                                    
 (OCCT) to be installed [OTDE].                                                                                 
State designation of source      Required.........  Retain...........  Eliminate........  See Note 1.           
 water treatment (SOWT) to be                                                                                   
 installed [STDE].                                                                                              
Systems that have installed      Required.........  Eliminate........  Redefine to        Even though States are
 OCCT [OTIN].                                                           indicate that      required to report a 
                                                                        system is          violation if the     
                                                                        optimized and      system fails to      
                                                                        the basis for      install the corrosion
                                                                        considering it     control treatment    
                                                                        optimized.         designated by the    
                                                                        Require            State, this milestone
                                                                        reporting for      provides fundamental 
                                                                        all systems.       information on status
                                                                                           of LCR               
                                                                                           implementation. In   
                                                                                           addition to          
                                                                                           indicating that      
                                                                                           system has installed 
                                                                                           corrosion control    
                                                                                           treatment, where     
                                                                                           required, it provides
                                                                                           data on the basis by 
                                                                                           which other systems  
                                                                                           are considered to be 
                                                                                           optimized. This      
                                                                                           information is not   
                                                                                           readily available    
                                                                                           through other        
                                                                                           mechanisms.          
Systems that have installed      Required.........  Retain...........  Eliminate........  See Note 2. If EPA    
 source water treatment [SOWT].                                                            needs to know how    
                                                                                           many systems         
                                                                                           installed source     
                                                                                           water treatment      
                                                                                           specifically to meet 
                                                                                           LCR requirements,    
                                                                                           this information     
                                                                                           could be requested   
                                                                                           through a one-time   
                                                                                           report.              
Systems for which State has      Required.........  Retain...........  Eliminate........  See Note 1.           
 designated water quality (WQP)                                                                                 
 ranges [WQPS].                                                                                                 

[[Page 20045]]

                                                                                                                
Systems for which State has      Required.........  Eliminate........  Eliminate........  See Note 1.           
 designated maximum permissible                                                                                 
 source water levels (MPLs)                                                                                     
 [MPLS].                                                                                                        
Systems required to replace      Required. Must     Revise to          Revise to          Basic milestone       
 lead service lines [LSLR].       also report any    eliminate          eliminate          provides fundamental 
                                  accelerated lead   information        information        information about LCR
                                  service line       about              about              implementation       
                                  replacement        accelerated        accelerated        status. Without this 
                                  schedule and       schedule and       schedule and       milestone, there is  
                                  annual             annual             annual             no other way to      
                                  compliance.        compliance.        compliance.        readily determine    
                                                                                           which systems are    
                                                                                           required to do lead  
                                                                                           service line         
                                                                                           replacement.         
                                                                                          If system fails to    
                                                                                           meet an accelerated  
                                                                                           replacement schedule,
                                                                                           the State is required
                                                                                           to report a          
                                                                                           violation. If EPA    
                                                                                           needs to know that a 
                                                                                           system in violation  
                                                                                           of the lead service  
                                                                                           line replacement     
                                                                                           requirement is on an 
                                                                                           accelerated schedule,
                                                                                           this information can 
                                                                                           be provided by the   
                                                                                           State on a case-     
                                                                                           specific basis. Data 
                                                                                           about annual         
                                                                                           compliance also      
                                                                                           redundant reporting  
                                                                                           since violation      
                                                                                           reporting required   
                                                                                           for systems failing  
                                                                                           to meet this         
                                                                                           milestone.           
Systems that have completed all  None.............  None.............  Add Require        Provides fundamental  
 CCT, SOWT, and LSLR                                                    reporting for      information on status
 requirements.                                                          all systems.       of LCR               
                                                                                           implementation.      
WQP ranges designated by State   None.............  Comments           Do not require...  Ranges by themselves  
 as representing optimal                             requested but no                      not meaningful unless
 corrosion control.                                  requirement                           also have significant
                                                     proposed.                             other system-specific
                                                                                           data.                
MPLs designated by State as      None.............  Comments           Do not require...  Levels by themselves  
 meeting source water treatment                      requested but no                      not meaningful unless
 objectives.                                         requirement                           also have significant
                                                     proposed.                             other system-specific
                                                                                           data.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                          
1. State determination/decision. EPA need for this milestone is to ensure that States are making timely         
  decisions; this need can be met through other mechanisms such as program evaluations and periodic data        
  verifications, etc. As defined, there is no way to accurately interpret what the absence of a milestone means.
  (It could mean any one of the following: (a) the State did not make a determination/decision whether or not to
  require the activity; (b) the State made a determination/decision that the system is not required to perform  
  the activity; or (c) the State made a determination/decision that the system is required to perform the       
  activity but the State did not report this determination/decision to EPA.) Redefining the milestone and       
  requiring it to be reported to EPA for every system that exceeds an AL adds unnecessary burden.               
2. Redundant reporting since States are required to report a violation if the system fails to meet the          
  milestone.                                                                                                    

    Under this new option, the reporting of the ``deemed'' and ``done'' 
milestones would be required for every system, including those that 
have achieved the milestone prior to the effective date of the revised 
State reporting requirements. EPA also recognizes that States may need 
time to adapt their internal data management systems to facilitate 
reporting under this new option. For these reasons, EPA plans to allow 
States at least 18 months from the date of promulgation of the LCR 
Minor Revisions Rule to submit data in accordance with the revised 
State reporting requirements. At the end of this transition period, 
however, EPA would expect all States to have submitted the ``deemed'' 
and ``done'' milestones for all systems which have completed the 
milestone(s).
    Figure 1 shows the estimated change in national annual burden hours 
for the years 1999 through 2009 <SUP>5</SUP> if this new option is 
implemented. The estimated additional burden in 1999 and 2000 is due 
primarily to the requirement to report the ``deemed'' and ``done'' 
milestones for all systems.<SUP>6</SUP> EPA estimates that States will 
need to report the ``deemed'' milestone for all systems and the 
``done'' milestone for all systems except those triggered into lead 
service line replacement by the end of the 18-month transition period. 
The slight increases estimated for the years 2001, 2004, and 2007 are 
due to the reporting of all 90th percentile lead values for large and 
medium-size systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 1998 through 2009 represents the remaining time in the 
original 18-year planning window for which burden/costs were 
estimated when the LCR was promulgated in 1991.
    \6\ Consistent with Agency policy, burden estimates are derived 
using a static inventory. Therefore, the estimates do not include 
any burden for new systems that might come into existence after the 
promulgation of the rule. The Agency also has used simplifying 
assumptions that all systems are in compliance with the rule's 
deadlines and that action level exceedances occurred during the 
first round of initial monitoring.


[[Page 20046]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP98.001



    EPA believes this new State reporting requirement option will 
significantly improve the Agency's ability to assess program progress 
toward the Rule's goals and, at the same time, minimize the necessity 
of requesting additional clarifying information from the States on a 
large number of systems on an ad hoc, quick turnaround, basis. EPA 
plans to use these data to demonstrate progress toward reducing the 
levels of lead and copper at the tap in several ways. In addition to 
computing compliance statistics, the Agency plans to utilize 90th 
percentile data for large and medium-size systems to characterize 
overall national changes in the levels of lead at the tap since these 
systems serve approximately 90% of the population that receives their 
drinking water from public water systems. Under the existing 
regulation, States are not required to report 90th percentile lead 
levels unless the system exceeds 0.015 mg/L. The Agency therefore 
cannot assess changes in 90th percentile levels below this level. The 
remaining milestones to be reported under this new option also will 
provide EPA a much better capability to reflect a system's actual 
implementation status.
    Some of the milestones that EPA would eliminate from the State 
reporting requirements under the new option pertain to State decision-
making. Under current reporting requirements, States report to EPA only 
when they determine that a system must complete certain actions, for 
example, install new treatment. The absence of a milestone does not 
necessarily imply that a State has failed to make a timely and 
appropriate determination, however, since there is no way to reflect 
the fact that the State determined that no treatment is needed. Rather 
than impose the significant burden of reporting each State decision for 
every system, the Agency plans to use other tools such as performance 
agreements, periodic program audits, and data verifications to ensure 
that States are meeting their primacy requirements satisfactorily. The 
explicit reporting of State-determination milestones to EPA would not 
eliminate the need for these tools, since they are needed if EPA and 
the public are to have confidence in the integrity of the data in the 
national data base. EPA believes that the benefits described above 
justify the added reporting burden.
    EPA solicits comments on this new option, including the adequacy of 
the information that would be required to be reported on a routine 
basis. EPA requests that commenters who believe the information to be 
reported under this option is not adequate specify the additional 
information EPA should seek to obtain, how often, and in what manner 
(e.g., quarterly reports to the national data base, special one-time 
reports, etc.) EPA also solicits comments on the possibility of 
requiring a separate report or reports, by a date or dates certain, on 
certain milestones, for example, those systems for which the State has 
designated OWQPs or maximum permissible source water levels. EPA is 
especially looking for comments on the usefulness of such information 
as well as the burden of providing the information to EPA. Finally, for 
the ``Done'' milestone, EPA requests comment on whether the Agency 
should require reporting for all systems or only for those systems that 
continue to exceed an action level after optimizing corrosion control.
    While the preceding discussion describes EPA's current thinking 
concerning State reporting requirements, the Agency will carefully 
review all comments on this notice as well as prior comments on the 
proposed rulemaking in formulating the requirements contained in the 
final rulemaking.

C. Simultaneous Compliance Considerations: D/DBP Stage 1 Enhanced 
Coagulation Requirements and the LCR

    On November 3, 1997, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability 
pertaining to the proposed rule for NPDWRs for Disinfectants and 
Disinfection Byproducts (62 FR 59388). In response to that Notice, the 
Agency received comments that express concern regarding utilities' 
ability to comply with the Stage 1 D/DBP enhanced coagulation 
requirements and LCR requirements simultaneously. Commenters stated 
that enhanced coagulation will lower the pH and alkalinity of the water 
during treatment. They indicated concern that the lower pH and 
alkalinity levels may place utilities in noncompliance with the LCR by 
causing violations of OWQPs and/or an exceedence of the lead or copper 
action levels. EPA is not aware of data that suggests that low pH and 
alkalinity levels cannot be adjusted upward

[[Page 20047]]

following enhanced coagulation to meet LCR compliance requirements. 
However, as discussed below, the Agency solicits further comment and 
data on this issue.
    The LCR separates public water systems into three categories: large 
( > 50,000), medium-size (<ls-thn-eq> 50,000 but > 3,300) and small (< 
3,300). Small and medium-size systems that do not exceed the lead and 
copper action levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods 
are deemed to have optimized corrosion control. These systems do not 
have to operate under OWQPs. Optimal water quality control parameters 
consist of pH, alkalinity, calcium concentration, and phosphate and 
silicate corrosion inhibitors. They are designated by the State. Small 
and medium-size systems that continue to exceed an action level after 
installation of corrosion control treatment must operate under State-
specified OWQPs. Large systems must operate under OWQPs specified by 
the State unless they are deemed to have optimized corrosion control 
pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(3).
    Maintenance of each OWQP mentioned above (except for calcium 
concentration) is directly related to meeting specified pH and 
alkalinity levels at the entry point to the distribution system and in 
tap samples to establish LCR compliance. In treatment trains that EPA 
is aware of, utilities have the technological capability to raise the 
pH (by adding caustic--NaOH, Ca(OH)<INF>2</INF>) and alkalinity (by 
adding Na<INF>2</INF>CO3 or NaHCO<INF>3</INF>) of the water following 
enhanced coagulation and before it enters the distribution system. 
Although certain utilities may need to add chemical feed points to 
provide chemical adjustment, pH and alkalinity can be maintained at the 
values used prior to the implementation of enhanced coagulation. 
Systems that operate with pH and alkalinity OWQPs should be able to 
meet the State-prescribed values by providing pH and alkalinity 
adjustment prior to entry to the distribution system. Systems that 
operate without pH and alkalinity OWQPs can raise the pH and alkalinity 
to the levels they were at before enhanced coagulation by providing 
chemical adjustment prior to distribution system entry.
    The goal of calcium carbonate stabilization is to precipitate a 
layer of CaCO<INF>3</INF> scale on the pipe wall to protect it from 
corrosion. As the pH of a water decreases, the concentration of 
bicarbonate increases and the concentration of carbonate, which 
combines with calcium to form the desired CaCO<INF>3</INF>, decreases. 
At the lower pH used during enhanced coagulation, it will generally be 
more difficult to form calcium carbonate. However, post-coagulation pH 
adjustment will increase the pH and hence the concentration of 
carbonate available to form calcium carbonate scale. Systems that must 
meet a specific calcium concentration to remain in compliance with 
OWQPs should not experience an increase in LCR violations due to the 
practice of enhanced coagulation provided the pH is adjusted prior to 
distribution system entry and the calcium level in the water prior to 
and after implementation of enhanced coagulation remains the same.
    EPA recognizes that the inorganic composition of the water may 
change slightly due to enhanced coagulation. For example, small amounts 
of anions and compounds that can affect corrosion rates (Cl, 
SO<INF>4</INF>-2) may be removed or added to the water. The effect of 
these constituents is difficult to predict, but EPA believes they 
should be minimal for the great majority of systems due to the 
generally modest changes in the water's inorganic composition and 
because alkalinity and pH levels have a greater influence on corrosion 
rates. Increases in sulfate concentration due to increased alum 
addition during enhanced coagulation can actually lower the corrosion 
rates of lead pipe. EPA requests comment on whether changes in the 
inorganic matrix can be quantified to allow States to easily assess 
potential impacts to corrosion control.
    EPA requests comment on how lowering the 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. EPA also requests comment on whether 
decreasing the pH and alkalinity during enhanced coagulation, and then 
increasing it prior to distribution system entry, may increase 
exceedences of lead and copper action levels.
    EPA is currently developing a simultaneous compliance guidance 
document working with stakeholders. The document will provide guidance 
to States and systems on maintaining compliance with other regulatory 
requirements (including the LCR) during and after the implementation of 
the Stage 1 D/DBP rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
Rule. EPA requests comment on what issues should be addressed in the 
guidance to mitigate concerns about simultaneous compliance with 
enhanced coagulation and LCR requirements. Further, the Agency requests 
comment on whether the proposed enhanced coagulation requirements and 
the existing LCR provisions that allow adjustment of corrosion control 
plans are flexible enough to address simultaneous compliance issues. Is 
additional regulatory language necessary to address this issue, or is 
guidance sufficient to mitigate potential compliance problems?

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: April 16, 1998.
Dana D. Minerva,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-10713 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>