20038 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 noncommunity 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 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 §§ 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 owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. 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 mediumsized 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 noncommunity 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 freeof-charge, while supplies last, by calling

the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1–

800–426–4791 and providing the

following document information.

• EPA Publication #EPA 815–B–97–003.

December 1997. Information Pertaining to

Lead in Drinking Water at Transient NonCommunity Water Systems. (This document

contains all of the materials cited below

under the heading of Exclusion of TNCWSs.)

• 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 § 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
20040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1Note: EPA proposed on April 12, 1996, to clarify

this requirement for routine WQP monitoring.

2Section 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.

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.

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 § 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

§ 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.1

(3) A system may demonstrate to the

State’s satisfaction, pursuant to

§ 141.81(b)(3), that very little corrosion is

occurring in the distribution system.2 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.

(4) A system may complete the corrosion

control treatment steps specified in

§ 141.81(d) for large systems or § 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 3 and to complete two

rounds of follow-up monitoring. Unless the

system meets the criteria of § 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.

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

§ 141.81(b) and to § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.87(f) requires that these

‘‘diagnostic’’ monitoring results also be

considered, § 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

§ 141.82.

Since § 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 §§ 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.
20042 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Under the new option EPA is

considering, the third and fourth

sentences in § 141.82(g) would be

revised to read as follows:

As specified in § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 141.84(d). While some provisions

within § 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, § 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 § 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 privatelyowned 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 § 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

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20043

4On April 12, 1996, EPA proposed to delete the

existing § 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.

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 § 141.90(e)(4).4

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 § 142.15

explicitly provide authority to the

Administrator of EPA to specify the

format of reporting for violation, followup 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 § 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 § 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 onetime 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
20044 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Requirement Current requirement 4/12/96 proposal New option Rationale

Frequency of reporting

for milestone & exceedance data.

Quarterly .................... Requested comment

on reducing the frequency to semi-annual or annual but

did not propose any

changes.

Retain quarterly reporting.90th percentile data used as part of determining significant non-compliers (SNC)

which needs to be done quarterly to ensure timely & appropriate follow-up action.

90th percentile lead

values.

Required for all lead

action level (AL)

exceedances; requested via guidance for all large/

medium systems <=

lead AL and for any

small system that

has exceeded the

lead AL at some

time in the past.

Require for all lead AL

exceedances and

for large/medium

systems <= lead AL.

Require as proposed;

make reporting of

values <= lead AL

for small systems a

data sharing goal.

Used in calculation of SNC for some violations; needed to support environmental indicators and to demonstrate effectiveness

of corrosion control treatment; data frequently requested by the public.

90th percentile copper

values.

Required for all copper AL

exceedances.

Retain current requirement.Retain current requirement make reporting of values <=

copper AL a data

sharing goal.

Needed to support environmental indicators

and to provide national view of occurrences of high copper levels at the tap.

Systems required to

conduct corrosion

control study

[CCSR].

Required .................... Eliminate .................... Eliminate .................... See Note 1.

Systems that have

completed corrosion

control study

[CCSC].

Required .................... Eliminate .................... Eliminate .................... See Note 2.

State designation of

optimal corrosion

control treatment

(OCCT) to be installed [OTDE].

Required .................... Retain ........................ Eliminate .................... See Note 1.

State designation of

source water treatment (SOWT) to be

installed [STDE].

Required .................... Retain ........................ Eliminate .................... See Note 1.

Systems that have installed OCCT [OTIN].Required .................... Eliminate .................... Redefine to indicate

that system is optimized and the basis

for considering it

optimized. Require

reporting for all systems.

Even though States are required to report a

violation if the system fails to install the

corrosion control treatment designated by

the State, this milestone provides fundamental 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 source water

treatment [SOWT].

Required .................... Retain ........................ Eliminate .................... See Note 2. If EPA 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 designated water quality

(WQP) ranges

[WQPS].

Required .................... Retain ........................ Eliminate .................... See Note 1.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20045

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.

6Consistent 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.

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LEAD

AND COPPER RULE—Continued

Requirement Current requirement 4/12/96 proposal New option Rationale

Systems for which

State has designated maximum

permissible source

water levels (MPLs)

[MPLS].

Required .................... Eliminate .................... Eliminate .................... See Note 1.

Systems required to

replace lead service

lines [LSLR].

Required. Must also

report any accelerated lead service

line replacement

schedule and annual compliance.

Revise to eliminate information about accelerated schedule

and annual compliance.

Revise to eliminate information about accelerated schedule

and annual compliance.

Basic milestone provides fundamental information about LCR implementation status.

Without this milestone, there is no other

way to 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 CCT,

SOWT, and LSLR

requirements.

None .......................... None .......................... Add Require reporting

for all systems.

Provides fundamental information on status

of LCR implementation.

WQP ranges designated by State as

representing optimal

corrosion control.

None .......................... Comments requested

but no requirement

proposed.

Do not require ............ Ranges by themselves not meaningful unless also have significant other systemspecific data.

MPLs designated by

State as meeting

source water treatment objectives.

None .......................... Comments requested

but no requirement

proposed.

Do not require ............ Levels by themselves not meaningful unless

also have significant 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 5 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.6 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.
20046 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 (≤ 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 Statespecified OWQPs. Large systems must

operate under OWQPs specified by the

State unless they are deemed to have

optimized corrosion control pursuant to

§ 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)2) and alkalinity

(by adding Na2CO3 or NaHCO3) 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 Stateprescribed 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

CaCO3 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 CaCO3, decreases. At the lower

pH used during enhanced coagulation,

it will generally be more difficult to

form calcium carbonate. However, postcoagulation 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, SO4

¥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