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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (LCRMR) rulemaking are public water The Agency believes that a delay of AGENCY systems (PWSs) that are classified as three years is not necessary, or either community water systems (CWSs) appropriate. The revisions in today’s 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142 or non-transient non-community water action are effective April 11, 2000. Until systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated today’s action takes effect, the existing [FRL±6515±6] categories and entities include: requirements of the NPDWRs for Lead RIN 2140±AC27 and Copper, and applicable State Category Examples of requirements, remain in effect and are National Primary Drinking Water regulated entities enforceable. Regulations for Lead and Copper As noted above, section 1412(b)(10) Industry ...... Privately-owned provides the Agency with flexibility to AGENCY: Environmental Protection CWSs and Agency. NTNCWSs. establish an effective date for a NPDWR earlier than 3 years after promulgation ACTION: Final rule. State, Tribal, and Publicly-owned CWSs local governments. and NTNCWSs. where ‘‘practicable’’. In addition, under SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility Agency (EPA) is making several minor This table is not intended to be to establish an effective date for revisions to the national primary exhaustive, but rather provides a guide recordkeeping, reporting, and drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for readers regarding entities regulated monitoring requirements any time not for lead and copper to improve by the LCRMR. This table lists the types shorter than 30 days after promulgation. implementation. The intended effect of of entities that EPA is now aware could EPA is promulgating the recordkeeping, this action is to eliminate unnecessary potentially be regulated by the LCRMR. reporting, and monitoring requirements requirements, streamline and reduce Other types of entities not listed in the under both sections 1445 and 1412 of reporting burden, and promote table could also be regulated. To the SDWA, and the remainder of the consistent national implementation. The determine whether your facility is rule under section 1412. EPA believes changes promulgated in today’s action regulated by the LCRMR, you should that a 90-day effective date is do not affect the lead or copper carefully examine the applicability appropriate under both of these maximum contaminant level goals, the criteria in §§ 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title provisions. For purposes of its effective action levels, or the basic regulatory 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations date under section 1412, EPA believes it requirements. In compliance with the (CFR). If you have questions regarding is practicable for systems to implement Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this the applicability of the LCRMR to a the revised rule requirements in today’s action also amends the table that lists particular entity, consult the person rule in 90 days. First, the revisions to the Office of Managment and Budget listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER the existing regulation are minor and (OMB) control numbers issued under INFORMATION CONTACT Section. generally do not require any installation of new or different treatment by PWSs. the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and Effective Date Copper. Second, this rule in many respects Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe DATES: This final rule is effective April streamlines existing requirements and Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 11, 2000. some of the benefits of the regulation Amendments of 1996 specifies that any will not be realized if implementation For judicial review purposes, this amendments to a NPDWR promulgated were to be delayed for three years. final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m., under SDWA section 1412 shall take Because the effective date is well in eastern time on January 26, 2000, as effect on the date that is 3 years after the advance of the deadline for State provided in 40 CFR 23.7. date on which the regulation is adoption of these revised regulations, ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record, promulgated ‘‘unless the Administrator EPA will take steps to enter into a including public comments on the determines that an earlier date is cooperative agreement with the States to proposed revisions and EPA’s practicable, except that the ensure that the primacy States (rather responses, applicable Federal Register Administrator, or a State (in the case of than EPA) continue to be the lead entity notices, other major supporting an individual system), may allow up to implementing these new requirements. documents, and a copy of the index to 2 additional years to comply with a Although EPA will enforce the new the public docket for this rulemaking, maximum contaminant level or regulations until States get primacy for are available for review at EPA’s Water treatment technique if the Administrator the revised regulations, States will share Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, or State (in the case of an individual information with EPA about water DC 20460. For access to the Docket system) determines that additional time system compliance with the new materials, call (202) 260–3027 between is necessary for capital improvements.’’ requirements. 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for Section 1445(a) of the SDWA, which an appointment and directions to room authorizes EPA to establish More Stringent State Provisions EB57. recordkeeping, reporting and For water systems in those States that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The monitoring requirements, does not have primary enforcement Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free specifically address when such responsibility for the 1991 Lead and (800) 426–4791, or Judy Lebowich; requirements shall become effective. Copper Rule (LCR), State program Standards and Risk Management The Agency’s authority to establish requirements that are more stringent Division; Office of Ground Water and effective dates for requirements under than revisions in today’s rule will Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M this provision, therefore, is governed by continue to govern until the primacy Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 State incorporates these revisions into telephone (202) 260–7595. U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an its approved Primacy program. As SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency publish a final rule in the discussed in the next section, States Federal Register not less than 30 days have two years, from the date of Regulated Entities before its effective date, although an promulgation, to revise their Primacy Entities potentially regulated by this earlier effective date can be established program to incorporate the revisions in Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions under certain circumstances. today’s rule, unless they qualify for an

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1951 extension. Table 1 identifies which the primacy State’s regulations before with their Primacy Agency before provisions in today’s rule, which are they can be implemented by water implementing any of these less stringent less stringent than the 1991 LCR and systems within the State’s jurisdiction. provisions. which, therefore, must be adopted into Water systems, therefore, should check

TABLE 1.ÐLCRMR PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION

CFR Section Revision

141.81 ...... Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i). 141.82 ...... Compliance determinations under § 141.82(g). 141.85 ...... All revisions to section. 141.86 ...... Following revisions: • Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(9)); • NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw sites under §§ 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5); • Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior to analysis under § 141.86(b)(2); • Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for reduced monitoring under §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii); • Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper tap monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(iv); • Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap under § 141.86(d)(4)(v); • Sample invalidation under § 141.86(f); and • Monitoring waivers under § 141.86(g). 141.87 ...... All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section. 141.88 ...... Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum permissible source water levels. 141.89 ...... All revisions to section. 141.90 ...... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4), 141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).

Primacy State Program Revisions On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its submission or the effective date of the State primacy regulations at 40 CFR new or revised State regulation, States with primary enforcement 142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In whichever is later, and ends when EPA responsibility (‘‘primacy’’) under 40 accordance with these regulations, makes a final determination. However, CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and States must adopt the LCRMR by this interim primacy authority is only submit to EPA for approval, a primacy January 14, 2002; however, under available to a State whose existing program revision to incorporate all new certain circumstances States may approved primacy program is current and revised EPA regulations into their receive an extension of up to two years. with respect to every existing NPDWR approved primacy program. As a These State primacy regulations also in effect when the new regulation is incorporate the new process identified condition of primacy, a State is required promulgated. As a result, States that in the 1996 SDWA amendments for to adopt, a State rule that is no less have primacy for every existing NPDWR granting primary enforcement authority stringent than EPA’s regulations. Table already in effect may obtain interim 2 identifies those provisions in today’s to States while their applications to modify their primacy programs are primacy for this rule, beginning on the action that States must adopt to retain date that the State submits its complete primacy. The requirements States must under review. The new process grants interim primary enforcement authority and final application for primacy for meet to receive primacy are listed in this rule to EPA, or the effective date of § 142.10 and requirements to revise an for a new or revised regulation during the period in which EPA is making a its revised regulations, whichever is approved primacy program are in determination with regard to primacy later. In addition, a State which wishes § 142.12. Special primacy requirements for that new or revised regulation. This to obtain interim primacy for future unique to specific regulations are in interim enforcement authority begins on NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this § 142.16. the date of the primacy application rule.

TABLE 2.ÐLCRM PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIMACY

CFR Section Revision

141.81 ...... All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i). 141.82 ...... All revisions to section except compliance determinations under § 141.82(g). 141.84 ...... All revisions to section. 141.86 ...... Following revisions: • Requirement to use representative sites under §§ 141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2, or 3 sites; • Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative and that States may specify sampling locations for reduced monitoring under § 141.86(c); and • Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or additional of a new source for sysems on reduced monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(vii). 141.88 ...... Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State allows compositing 141.90 ...... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Table of Contents (iii) Possible adverse health effects (E) Prior State approval associated with partial LSL replacement (iii) Today’s action List of Tables (iv) Resident notification of partial LSL i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions replacement copper tap water monitoring Used in This Document (v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling j. Requirements for systems subject to results to the State reduced monitoring that change A. Background (vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement treatment or source water 1. Reason for this rulemaking (vii) Other LSL comments (i) Proposed revision and background 2. Overview of public comments received c. Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis 3. Impacts on costs and benefits 4. Revisions to § 141.85 (iii) Today’s action B. Continued exclusion of transient non- a. Changes affecting content of written k. Sample invalidation community water systems materials (i) Proposed revision and background 1. Overview and summary of Agency (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis position (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action 2. Detailed discussion of rationale (iii) Today’s action l. Monitoring waivers for small systems a. Background b. Public education delivery requirements (i) Proposed revision and background b. Occurrence and exposure at transient (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people (ii) Comments and analysis systems (A) Proposed revision and background (A) Materials specification c. Health effects of lead (B) Comments and analysis (B) Monitoring issues d. Objections to the exclusion (C) Today’s action (C) Changes potentially affecting C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, requirements for (ii) Timing and method of distribution monitoring waivers public water systems (A) Proposed revision and background (D) Waiver renewals 1. Revisions to § 141.81 (B) Comments and analysis (E) Partial waivers a. Clarification of the requirement to install (C) Today’s action (F) Pre-existing waivers and maintain operation of optimal c. Schedule for reporting completion of (iii) Today’s action corrosion control public education tasks 6. Revisions to § 141.87 (i) Proposed revision and background (i) Proposed revision and background a. Monitoring for optimal water quality (ii) Comments and analysis (ii) Comments and analysis parameters (iii) Today’s action (iii) Today’s action b. Use of representative sites for entry b. Water systems deemed to be optimized 5. Revisions to § 141.86 point water quality parameter pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2) a. Systems with an insufficient number of monitoring at ground water systems (i) Proposed revision and background tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action c. Water systems deemed to have (iii) Today’s action c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for optimized corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3) b. Elimination of justification letters for use water quality parameters at the tap (i) Copper action level requirements of non-tier 1 sample sites and (i) Proposed revision and background (A) Proposed revision and background insufficient lead service line sample sites (ii) Comments and analysis (B) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (iii) Today’s action (C) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis d. Summary of water quality monitoring (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper (iii) Today’s action requirements at the tap c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to 7. Revisions to § 141.88 (A) Proposed revision and background provide first-draw samples a. Resampling triggers for composite source (B) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background water samples (C) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (iii) State discretion to impose additional (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis requirements d. Minimum holding time for acidified (iii) Today’s action (A) Proposed revision and background lead and copper samples prior to b. Reduced source water monitoring for (B) Comments and analysis analysis systems without State-designated (C) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background maximum permissible source water (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion (ii) Comments and analysis levels control (iii) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background (A) Proposed revision and background e. Selection of sample sites under reduced (ii) Comments and analysis (B) Comments and analysis monitoring (iii) Today’s action (C) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background 8. Revisions to laboratory certification (v) Difference between source water lead (ii) Comments and analysis requirements in § 141.89 concentrations and 90th percentile lead (iii) Today’s action f. State determination a. Proposed revision and background levels of eligibility for reduced monitoring b. Comments and analysis (A) Proposed revision and background (i) Proposed revision and background c. Today’s action (B) Comments and analysis (ii) Comments and analysis 9. Revisions to system reporting (C) Today’s action (iii) Today’s action requirements in § 141.90 2. Revisions to § 141.82 g. Timing of sample collection under a. Timing of reporting of tap water a. Clarification of requirement to operate reduced monitoring monitoring for lead and copper and and maintain optimal corrosion control (i) Proposed revision and background water quality parameter monitoring b. Excursions from State-designated (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background optimal water quality parameter ranges (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis or values h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead (iii) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background and copper at the tap b. Elimination of certification requirements (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background pertaining to first-draw samples (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background 3. Revisions to § 141.84 (A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold (ii) Comments and analysis a. Proposed revision and background (B) Usefulness of proposed provision (iii) Today’s action b. Comments and analysis (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for c. State calculation/reporting of 90th (i) Definition of ‘‘control’’ only one contaminant percentile levels (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable (D) Monitoring less frequently than (i) Proposed revision and background presumption triennially (ii) Comments and analysis

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1953

(iii) Today’s action Glossary of Abbreviations and CCT: Corrosion control treatment. 10. Revisions to § 141.43 Definitions Used in This Document CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. D. Revisions to requirements for States The following definitions are CWS: Community Water System. 1. Records kept by States DDBP: National Primary Drinking presented to assist the reader in 2. Reporting requirements for States Water Regulations—Disinfectants and understanding acronyms and other a. Proposed revision and background Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63 b. Comments and analysis short-hand phrases used in the FR 69389, Dec. 16, 1998). c. Today’s action preamble. DSC: Data Sharing Committee. 3. Special primacy considerations (b)(1) System: A small or medium-size EPA: Environmental Protection E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted water system that is deemed to have Agency. 1. Reduced frequency of water quality optimized corrosion control pursuant to Excursion: A ‘‘daily value’’ parameter monitoring at entry points for 40 CFR 141.81(b)(1). systems subject to water quality (calculated pursuant to § 141.82(g)) for a (b)(2) System: A water system that is parameter monitoring requirements water quality parameter at a sampling deemed to have optimized corrosion a. Burden reduction suggestion and location that is below the minimum control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2). background value or outside the range of values (b)(3) System: A water system that is b. Comments and analysis designated by the State under § 141.82(f) deemed to have optimized corrosion 2. Use of flushing/bottled water at as representing optimal corrosion NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion control control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(3). control for the water system. treatment µg/D: Micrograms per day. FDA: Food and Drug Administration. a. Burden reduction suggestion and µg/L: Micrograms per liter. FR: Federal Register. background 1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant IESWTR: National Primary Drinking b. Comments and analysis Level Goals and National Primary Water Regulations—Interim Enhanced 3. Requirement for water systems to justify Drinking Water Regulations for Lead corrosion control methods not Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63 and Copper as promulgated on June 7, recommended FR 69477, Dec. 16, 1998). a. Burden reduction suggestion and 1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently Large System: For purposes of the background modified by technical amendments Lead and Copper Rule only, a water b. Comments and analysis published on July 15, 1991 (56 FR system serving more than 50,000 4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to 32113), June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28786) and people. assess corrosion control effectiveness June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860). LCR: Lead and Copper Rule. a. Burden reduction suggestion and 90th Percentile Value: The LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor background concentration of lead or copper in tap b. Comments and analysis Revisions. water exceeded by 10 percent of the LSL: Lead service line. 5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of sites sampled during a monitoring 90th percentile and milestone data MCLG: Maximum contaminant level a. Burden reduction suggestion and period. goal. background Action Level: The 90th percentile MDL: Method Detection Limit. b. Comments and analysis value for lead or copper in water that Medium-Size System: For purposes of F. Simultaneous compliance comments determines, in some cases, whether a the Lead and Copper Rule only, a water 1. Request for comments and background water system must install corrosion system serving from 3,301 to 50,000 2. Comments and analysis control treatment, monitor source water, people. 3. Today’s action replace lead service lines, and mg/L: Milligrams per liter. G. Administrative requirements undertake a public education program. NAS: National Academy of Sciences. 1. Executive Order 12866 April 1996 Proposal: Maximum NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Contaminant Level Goals and National 3. Paperwork Reduction Act Water Regulations. Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act NRDC: National Resources Defense 5. Executive Orders on Federalism Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (61 FR Council. 6. Consultation with Indian tribal 16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public NSF: National Sanitation Foundation. governments comments on proposed minor revisions NTNCWS: Non-transient non- 7. Risk to children analysis to the 1991 Rule. community water system. 8. National Technology Transfer and April 1998 Notice: Maximum OCCT: Optimal corrosion control Advancement Act Contaminant Level Goals and National treatment. 9. Likely effect of compliance with the Primary Drinking Water Regulations for OMB: Office of Management and LCRMR on the technical, financial, and Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR Budget. managerial capacity of public water 20038, April 22, 1998) containing systems OWQP: Optimal water quality 10. Submission to Congress and the additional data and regulatory options parameter. General Accounting Office relating to the April 1996 Proposal and PE: Performance evaluation. H. References requesting public comment on these pH: Negative logarithm of the new data and options. effective hydrogen-ion concentration. List of Tables August 1998 Notice: Maximum Phase I Rule: National Primary Table 1—LCRMR provisions requiring State Contaminant Level Goals and National Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic adoption prior to implementation Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for Table 2—LCRMR provisions requiring State Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule adoption to maintain primacy 44214, August 18, 1998) requesting (52 FR 25690, Jul. 8, 1987). Table 3—Summary of monitoring public comment on a refinement of a Phase II Rule: National Revised requirements for water quality regulatory option discussed in the April Primary Drinking Water Regulations— parameters Table 4—Summary of changes to system 1998 Notice. Synthetic Organic Chemicals and reporting requirements ASDWA: Association of State Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Table 5—Net Effect of LCRMR on Average Drinking Water Administrators. Unregulated Contaminants; National Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting AWWA: American Water Works Primary Drinking Water Regulations Burden and Cost Association. Implementation; National Secondary

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR specific regulatory changes were quantifiable benefits, however, because 3526, Jan. 30, 1991). proposed. improved implementation should result Phase V Rule: National Primary and In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency in some health benefits being achieved Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; published, and made available for sooner. Synthetic Organic Chemicals and public review and comment, new data relating to two of the provisions B. Continued Exclusion of Transient Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule (57, FR Non-community Water Systems 31776, Jul. 17, 1992). discussed in the April 1996 proposal ppb: Part per billion. and several additional regulatory 1. Overview and summary of Agency PQL: Practical quantitation level. options that the Agency was considering position. In the preamble to the April PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act. (63 FR 20038, April 22, 1998). Finally, 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the PWS: Public water system. in August 1998, EPA requested Natural Resources Defense Council RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act. additional public comment on a (NRDC) had challenged the rule’s exclusion of transient non-community SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act. refinement of one of the options water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water discussed in the April 1996 Notice (63 as ‘‘transient systems’’) on the grounds Information System. FR 44214, August 18, 1998). 2. Overview of public comments that persons served by these systems Small System: For purposes of the received. EPA received approximately may be at risk of non-carcinogenic Lead and Copper Rule only, a water 900 comments from 97 commenters in adverse effects. The court granted the system serving 3,300 or fewer people. response to the April 1996 Proposal. Agency’s request for a voluntary remand TNCWS: Transient non-community With the exception of the proposed so that the Agency could provide a more water system. definition of ‘‘control’’ as it applies to detailed justification of this exclusion.1 UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform lead service line (LSL) replacement, In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA Act. commenters generally supported the indicated that the Agency was collecting WQP: Water quality parameter. proposed minor revisions; however, additional information relevant to this A. Background many suggested possible refinements of issue and would make this new specific provisions. A few commenters information available for public review 1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA also expressed frustration that the and comment prior to the promulgation promulgated maximum contaminant proposed changes were ‘‘too little’’ and of a final rule. EPA also requested level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for ‘‘too late’’ to benefit many systems. The public comment regarding the lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460, Agency received comments from 30 continued appropriateness of the June 7, 1991). The goal of the LCR is to commenters in response to the April exclusion, whether modification of the provide maximum human health 1998 Notice and 26 commenters current exclusion would be appropriate protection by reducing lead and copper responded to the August 1998 Notice. and, if so, what alternative approaches levels at consumers’ taps to as close to Most of the commenters to the 1998 are available for addressing those the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish Notices supported the additional systems. EPA included the new this goal, the LCR establishes regulatory options in concept, however, information in the April 1998 Notice requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs. were concerned with the draft rule and signaled its preliminary These systems must conduct periodic language discussed. conclusions that the new information monitoring and optimize corrosion The comments pertaining to topics does not resolve significant data gaps or control. In addition, these systems must addressed in these Notices and EPA’s present a compelling argument to perform public education when the response are summarized by topic in change the Agency’s policy of excluding level of lead at the tap exceeds the lead sections B through F of this preamble. TNCWSs from the provisions of the action level, treat source water if it is The verbatim comments and EPA’s LCR. found to contribute significantly to high responses to them are contained in Eighteen commenters submitted levels of lead or copper at the tap, and EPA’s Response to Comments on the comments on the appropriateness of the replace lead service lines in the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions continued exclusion in response to the distribution system if the level of lead (EPA, 1999e). April 1996 Proposal. All of the at the tap continues to exceed the lead 3. Impacts on costs and benefits. commenters supported the continued action level after optimal corrosion Today’s action does not affect the exclusion. No new data were submitted; control has been installed. treatment-related costs (e.g., capital however, most commenters cited In April 1996, EPA proposed a improvements) associated with the LCR. reasons for continuing the TNCWS number of minor revisions to the LCR The revisions affect costs associated exclusion. These reasons included: the (60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The with the monitoring and reporting absence of data suggesting there are proposed revisions do not affect the lead requirements of the LCR, however, and adverse health effects resulting from and copper MCLGs, action levels, or these estimated impacts have been short-term exposure to lead; the limited basic regulatory requirements. EPA calculated as part of the Information exposure that is likely to occur at proposed some of the minor revisions to Collection Request (EPA, 1999a) transient systems; the potential that streamline and reduce regulatory developed in support of today’s action. subjecting transient systems to the rule’s burden where such changes can be These impacts are discussed in section requirements will cause many of them made without jeopardizing the level of H.3. of this preamble. to close, with the possible unintended public health protection or protection of As discussed in the April 1996 consequence that consumers would the environment. The Agency proposed Proposal, the revisions in today’s action utilize other, less protected, sources of other minor changes to clarify are not expected to change the level of requirements and to improve the rule’s public health protection resulting from 1 This issue was one of several issues included in implementation. Finally, the Agency implementation of the lead and copper legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule addressed two issues that were the regulations. The Agency therefore has brought by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense subject of a judicial remand. The April not identified any quantifiable benefits Council (NRDC). (American Water Works 1996 Proposal also requested comment associated with today’s action. EPA Association, et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir., on several provisions for which no believes there should be some non- 1994).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1955 drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and basis (e.g., employees) would be at characterize potential exposure risks. Of streams in National Forests); concern health risk given the likely levels of lead 8,000 systems throughout the country that the rule’s monitoring and treatment to which they would be exposed. invited to receive free lead testing, 115 requirements were not appropriate for participated. The relatively small 2. Detailed discussion of rationale transient systems; and the tremendous number prevents conclusive analysis, added burden that would be placed on a. Background. A public water system although a fairly representative range of limited State resources. EPA received 18 is classified as a community water system types across the country is comments in response to the April 1998 system if it has at least 15 service included. Notice. Only one of these commenters connections used by year-round First draw (1-liter) and one-minute raised concerns with the exclusion. This residents or if it regularly serves at least purged (30 milliliters) samples were commenter recommended that 25 year-round residents. All other collected at each site. The median and TNCWSs, except those meeting the public water systems are non- average concentrations of the first draw materials criteria for monitoring waivers community water systems and are samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2 that EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be considered to be either ‘‘non-transient’’ ppb, respectively). Approximately 12 required to monitor tap and source or ‘‘transient’’ depending on the number percent of the sites (13) exceeded the water lead and copper levels at least of the same people regularly served over action level of 15 ppb. The average one- once every nine years. The commenter 6 months of the year. A non-community minute purged sample was 2.3 ppb, argued that transient systems, where the water system that does not regularly with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The difference between the source water and serve at least 25 of the same persons purged samples had much lower the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per over 6 months of the year is classified concentrations (75% lower on average) billion (ppb) lead, should not be as a transient non-community water and less variable readings than the first excluded from the Rule’s provisions. As system. Examples of transient systems draw samples. The maximum value discussed in the following paragraph, include highway rest stops, gas stations, reported from all sampling was 229 ppb. EPA disagrees with this commenter. and recreational facilities where fewer The flushed sample for this sampling After consideration of the additional than 25 of the same individuals site had a value of 0.7 ppb, raising the information collected by the Agency consume the water over an extended distinct possibility that the results of the and the public comments received, EPA period of time (i.e., at least six months first sample may have been the result of believes that it is appropriate to retain of the year). In addition, the vast sampling error such as contamination of the current exclusion. EPA believes that majority of people who consume water the sample. (EPA, 1995c). maintaining the longstanding exclusion from such systems (i.e., customers and While extensive information is not of transient systems from coverage of members of the public who are at the currently available, EPA believes that the NPDWR for lead is warranted in facility) generally consume small the results of the University of North light of the de minimis risk of adverse quantities over short periods of time. Carolina survey indicate generally that health effects cited by NRDC as EPA’s longstanding policy is to the levels of lead in transient systems justification for regulating these exclude transient systems from drinking are not dissimilar to the levels found in systems. Very high levels of lead have water regulations except for those non-transient systems. With both clinically evident effects on the brain contaminants, such as nitrate, that EPA transient and non-transient systems, it (acute encephalopathy). However, the believes have the potential to cause appears that the levels of lead are Agency was not able to identify any immediate adverse human health effects associated strongly with the length of studies that demonstrate critical resulting from short-term exposure. time that the water has been standing in neurochemical responses to short-term, These are known as ‘‘acute household plumbing prior to use. moderate lead exposures. The data on contaminants’’ because the adverse c. Health effects of lead. Lead is which the Agency based its health health effects may occur after limited considered a chronic contaminant that assessment for short term exposures to exposure. Other drinking water impairs and damages the nervous lead came from studies by Cools et al, contaminants are considered to be system and other systems or processes (1976), Schlegel and Kufner, (1979) and ‘‘chronic contaminants’’ because after extended periods of exposure. Lead Struik, (1974) which indicate that the adverse effects on human health toxicity is believed to be a function of most likely adverse effect of the generally have been associated with repeated exposures over time that result moderate levels of lead that might on extended periods of exposure. In the in a gradual accumulation of lead in the occasion be encountered at a TNCWS preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead would be temporary suppression of one explained that the Agency does not moves from its storage sites to the blood of the enzymes responsible for the believe it necessary to regulate water resulting in adverse effects even after synthesis of hemoglobin, the oxygen systems that only serve transient exposures have diminished. carrying protein in the blood. However, populations for chronic contaminants The Agency decision to exclude the data suggest that there are no because exposure to these contaminants TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by clinical effects of the enzyme for only brief periods of time, such as toxicological data from studies in adults suppression unless it continues for a that which occurs at transient systems, which identified increased more extended exposure period than does not pose a long-term health risk (52 concentrations of erythrocyte would typically occur for persons who FR 25695, first column). For the reasons protoporphrine and depressed activity drink water at transient systems such as discussed in the following section, EPA of aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as rest stops, motels, gas stations and considers lead to be a chronic the critical effects from short-term lead restaurants, which serve customers for contaminant. exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel only short periods of time. Morever, b. Occurrence and exposure at and Kufner, 1979; Struik, 1974). These EPA does not believe that even those transient systems. In 1995, the effects are markers for inhibition of persons who may drink water from Environmental Quality Institute at the heme synthesis (ATSDR, 1998; transient systems on a more continuous University of North Carolina at Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid Asheville conducted a survey to collect dehydratase is the key enzyme 2 See section C.5.l. of this preamble for a actual data on lead in drinking water regulating the rate of heme synthesis discussion of the monitoring waiver provisions. from transient systems in order to better and erythrocyte protoporphrine is a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations precursor to heme and, thus, a the average fully flushed sample was contamination consistent with biomarker for heme production. Heme is approximately 2 ppb. The 90th continued protection of public health.’’ the iron containing component of percentile value of first draw samples House Report 104–632, 104th Cong., 2d hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was pigment in red blood cells. fully flushed sample was approximately concerned that the 1986 amendments to A study by Struik (1974) 3 ppb. Taking into account the available the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new demonstrated the effects of short-team data regarding acute exposures to lead at contaminants every three years, a lead exposure on heme synthesis in TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there is requirement that had ‘‘imposed adults. Two groups of 5 women and one any significant risk that exposures significant burdens at the State, local group of 5 men were orally through drinking water at the and Federal level, and have led to administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in concentrations monitored would result questions about whether the Act is the form of lead acetate for three weeks. in adverse acute health effects among focused on the most significant risks to Suppression of the activity of users of transient systems, including public health.’’ Id. at 9. In numerous erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid infants and children. ways, the 1996 amendments reflected dehydratase became apparent by the d. Objections to the exclusion Congress’ desire for EPA to focus its third day of exposure. The degree of As noted above, all but one efforts taking into account risks to suppression increased until day 14 and commenter during this rulemaking then remained constant for the supported maintaining the exclusion of public health, as well as the benefits remainder of the study. Effects on transient systems. In its comments on and costs involved in setting standards erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted the original rule—and in subsequent under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section in the women but not the men after 2 litigation—NRDC argued that EPA’s 1412(b)(1)(C) (directing EPA to weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels exclusion of transient systems from the prioritize selection of contaminants for had increased to 40 µg/dL or higher rule was both inconsistent with the regulation based on consideration of before effects on erythrocyte SDWA and not justified by the science. those ‘‘that present the greatest public protoporphrine were noted. The effects According to NRDC, the Act mandates health concern’’); sections 1412(b)(3) on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without and (b)(6) (directing EPA to consider erythrocyte protoporphrine are exception, and therefore EPA lacks the information regarding the incremental reversible and do not persist after authority to fashion a de minimis costs and benefits in establishing exposure has ceased. A short term exclusion for transient systems. NRDC NPDWRs). While none of these deficit in heme production is not also argued that, even if EPA had the amendments addressed the precise immediately manifest in a decreased legal authority to exclude transient question of what PWSs must be covered supply of red blood cells. The average systems, lead causes acute adverse by NPDWRs, in light of Congress’ red cell remains in circulation for about health effects from short-term exposure, overall concern with encouraging 120 days and physiological controls on and that employees of transient systems flexibility and priority-setting in the their turnover insure that there is a would be at risk from longer term Act’s implementation, EPA does not continuous replacement of aging and exposures. believe it is logical or sensible to damaged cells (Montgomery et al., EPA first disagrees that the SDWA conclude that Congress intended to 1990). Therefore, a short term deficit in does not permit the Agency to fashion deprive EPA of its inherent heme production will not immediately an appropriate de minimis exclusion for administrative authority to fashion cause anemia or diminish the oxygen transient systems from regulation of appropriate de minimis exclusions from transporting properties of the blood. contaminants like lead. It is the the Act’s requirements where negligible Moreover, the lead levels used in this exceptional case in which an agency risks are present. Moreover, EPA’s study were several orders of magnitude does not possess such authority. In policy of excluding transient systems greater than the median lead levels Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d from NPDWRs for contaminants posing observed in TNCWSs in the University 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit chronic health risks has been in place of North Carolina study (EPA, 1995c). reviewed EPA’s decision to create a de for over a decade. At no time during this As discussed above, there is very minimis exclusion under the Clean Air period has Congress sought to modify limited information that can assist in Act. The court stated that, ‘‘[u]nless EPA’s approach. estimating the levels of lead that may be Congress has been extraordinarily rigid, of concern due to short-term exposures there is likely a basis for an implication NRDC has also contended that, even from drinking water. Because of the of de minimis authority to provide if EPA has the legal authority to create limited data EPA does not believe that exemption when the burdens of a de minimis exclusion, EPA’s decision it is possible to develop guidance at this regulation yield a gain of trivial or no was unlawful because lead does pose time. However, based on the data that value.’’ 636 F.2d at 360–361. EPA does non-carcinogenic adverse health effects are available, from the Struik study, not believe that the SDWA falls within from short-term, acute exposures. EPA EPA estimates that average, short-term, the very narrow class of statutes that believes that this contention is based on lead exposures would have to exceed precludes fashioning appropriate misunderstandings by NRDC of several 500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb for exclusions for activities with de factors. NRDC’s claim that lead is an infants or children and would have to minimis impact. acute contaminant was based on persist for an extended period of time to Congress has in numerous respects information from three reports: The cause even a transient effect on the accorded EPA substantial flexibility in National Academy of Sciences (NAS) oxygen carrying capacity of the blood focusing implementation on areas of report, Drinking Water and Health (EPA, 1998b). The value for infants is cognizable public health risks. Indeed, (1982), a study of lead exposure in lower than that for adults because such flexibility was a theme of the most infants, and EPA’s recommendation infants are able to absorb greater recent comprehensive amendments to regarding lead in school drinking water amounts of lead from the the Act in 1996. A major impetus for fountains. The Agency disagrees with gastrointestinal track. In the University this legislation was the ‘‘need for a more NRDC that these citations support of North Carolina study, the average first streamlined and flexible approach to classification of lead as an acute draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and controlling drinking water contaminant. The Agency’s conclusions

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1957 are discussed in the following service is to protect against acute health water in these systems, the vast majority paragraph. risks to young children. This is of water would consist of fully flushed NRDC’s reference to the NAS (1982) incorrect. The Agency developed that water. The median level of lead in report on Drinking Water and Health policy to protect children who are running water in transient systems focused on the ‘‘maximum daily exposed to lead in drinking water on a found by the University of North exposure recommendations for chronic, not acute, basis. Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7 children’’ cited in that report. The NAS NRDC has also argued that transient ppb, and the average level was report cites Mahaffey (1977) who systems should not be excluded from approximately 2 ppb. The median first recommended that lead intake for regulation because frequent users of flush level was approximately 2 ppb, children less than 6 months of age these systems, such as employees, could and the average level was 9 ppb, levels should be no more than 100 µg/day and be exposed to lead in the drinking water below those of health concern. Thus, the intake for children between 6 over an extended period of time. Such information collected by EPA strongly months and 2 years of age should be no persons could include pregnant women supports its conclusion that there are more than 150 µg/day. These values and children, who are particularly only de minimis risks in transient would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb, vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic systems from exposure to lead. assuming a daily water intake for lead exposure. While such users may Given the de minimis risks posed by children of 1 liter per day and no consume water from the same system lead in these systems, EPA continues to exposure from other sources. Mahaffey repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC’s believe that excluding these systems (1977) concluded that water containing concern that such persons can from the lead NPDWR is appropriate. 50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to realistically be said to be at risk of EPA believes, in fact, that including infants and children when other lead adverse health effects from exposure to them within the regulation could even exposures were minimized. These lead. As explained in detail in EPA’s have the unintended effect of harming values were derived based on an 1991 rulemaking, levels of lead at the public health. In the face of monitoring assumption of chronic exposure, not tap correlate with the length of time that and treatment requirements for lead, short-term exposures similar to those water has been sitting motionless in EPA anticipates, based on the public that would occur at a TNCWS and, thus, plumbing materials containing lead. The comments received and other anecdotal are not relevant. In fact, NAS longer the water sits, the more likely data, that many transient systems will determined that there were ‘‘no lead will leach from lead-bearing opt to stop providing water rather than adequate data to derive health-based plumbing materials into the water. to assume the extra burden of the rule’s guidelines for acute exposures, i.e. a 24- Typically, the highest levels of lead in requirements. This would leave hour or a 7-day ‘Suggested No-Adverse the water are contained in the first liter consumers in the position of finding Response Level’.’’ from the tap after the water has been their own alternative source of drinking In its comments on EPA’s prior sitting for some time. In order to have water. In some cases, the alternative rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by the best understanding of the extent to source may be less protective of public Shannon and Graef (1992) which they which corrosivity of the water is causing health than the transient system. For claimed showed that for 15 percent of leaching of lead, the LCR requires that example, if National or State parks were the lead poisoned infants at one clinic, sampling be done with such ‘‘first to no longer provide drinking water, the primary source of the lead was flush’’ water after the tap has not been visitors may drink untreated water infant formula made with drinking used for at least six hours. This directly from nearby lakes, rivers and water. This is not quite what the authors sampling protocol was designed to streams. reported. Although formula preparation ensure that the water system had the with lead-contaminated water was the benefit of the best information regarding C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, apparent cause for elevated blood lead the extent to which water chemistry was Requirements for Public Water Systems levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in interacting with lead-bearing materials 1. Revisions to § 141.81 unboiled, ‘‘first draw’’ water was the to cause leaching into drinking water, problem for only one case (2%). and also recognized that some users a. Clarification of the requirement to Excessive boiling of contaminated tap could, under some scenarios, repeatedly install and maintain operation of water for formula preparation was the drink first flush water. optimal corrosion control. (i) Proposed problem in 5 cases (10%) and use of a However, transient systems such as revision and background. In the April leaded vessel for the heating of the restaurants and gas stations by their 1998 Notice, EPA requested comment water (tap or spring) was the problem nature would serve a large number of on possible revisions to the regulatory for the other three cases (6%). In persons throughout the day. The vast language of § 141.81(b) and the first analysis of formula samples, lead majority of the users are, in fact, sentence of § 141.82(g) to clarify that all concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb ‘‘transient.’’ In addition, the nature of water systems are required to operate were detected, values far greater than these facilities would mean that taps are and maintain optimal corrosion control the levels observed at transient in fairly constant use, reducing the even if there are no specific Federal facilities. The blood lead levels of the likelihood of lead leaching into standing requirements for the system to monitor children exposed through formula were water. Also, given the types of for water quality parameters (WQPs). As similar to those children exposed populations served by transient systems, EPA explained in that Notice, there are through other routes (paint chips, we would anticipate that it would be several ‘‘pathways’’ by which systems household renovation), but hemoglobin extremely unlikely that the same may be considered to be optimized. and red cell volumes were lower persons would repeatedly be exposed to Many, but not all, require that corrosion indicating that the exposures had been the water that has been sitting for an control treatment (CCT) be physically chronic rather than acute. extended period of time. Data collected installed. The Agency is concerned that Finally, NRDC claims that the reason by EPA regarding occurrence of lead in some systems deemed to be optimized that the EPA recommends that any transient systems suggests that even pursuant to § 141.81(b) may school drinking water outlets that are frequent users are not at risk. Since it is misinterpret the absence of specific found to have more than 20 µg/L lead unlikely that the same persons would Federal controls in the regulatory in a 250 mL sample be removed from repeatedly be exposed to ‘‘first flush’’ language as meaning that they have

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations license to ‘‘turn off’’ or depart from to relieve such systems of the need to States to retain records of any optimal corrosion control treatment repeat those steps merely to comply conditions imposed by the State on (OCCT) between Federally-prescribed with the Rule’s milestones. Assuming a specific water systems deemed to be monitoring periods. water system had completed an optimized under § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) (ii) Comments and analysis. With one equivalent corrosion control study and to ensure the continued operation and exception, commenters supported the installed appropriate CCT prior to the maintenance of treatment in place. proposed clarification. The one effective date of the Rule, EPA believes These wording changes make clear commenter who objected to the the Rule is clear that additional the Agency’s intent in the 1991 Rule proposed clarification argued that it is treatment may not be warranted if the that all systems operate and maintain not necessary since his State already State believes the system’s CCT already optimal corrosion control. They do not had established such controls. EPA is optimized. For large water systems, add any new requirements. believes clarification is appropriate. The § 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the b. Water systems deemed to be Agency notes that while most States need to have any CCT in place, unless optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2). have reasonable process controls in the water system can demonstrate to the (i) Proposed revision and background. place to assure consistent and proper satisfaction of the State that such In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA operation of CCT, some do not. EPA treatment will have no effect on requested comment on a regulatory believes that it is appropriate to clarify reducing the levels of lead and copper option that would result in minor that all systems are expected to at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and wording changes to the language of maintain optimal corrosion control even copper action levels is not a sufficient § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that systems if they are not subject to Federally- test for large systems since the Rule deemed to have optimized corrosion prescribed WQP monitoring. requires these systems to reduce control pursuant to that paragraph are Several commenters predicated their corrosion to the maximum extent required to continue WQP monitoring support on the presumption that States possible to be considered optimized. after State designation of optimal water would retain flexibility to determine the EPA expects few, if any, large water quality parameters (OWQPs). The specific nature of the process controls systems can make this demonstration Agency proposed this change to for (b)(1) and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees without CCT. eliminate possible confusion about that such flexibility is appropriate. (iii) Today’s action. After considering monitoring requirements after the Today’s action, therefore, does not the comments received, the Agency has installation of CCT for these systems. prescribe specific operating decided to promulgate the revisions to (ii) Comments and analysis. EPA requirements for water systems to meet § 141.81(b) and the first sentence of received several comments on the the criteria of § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3). § 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory proposed clarification. None of the A few commenters expressed concern text of § 141.81(b) has been revised to commenters opposed the proposed that the proposed language changes read: ‘‘A system is deemed to have revision, however, one commenter would preclude a (b)(1) or a (b)(3) optimized corrosion control and is not raised concerns about how the system from ever changing its treatment required to complete the applicable requirement would be applied in those once it has been deemed to be corrosion control treatment steps instances where no treatment is optimized. EPA recognizes that water identified in this section if the system installed. The commenter also noted systems need to make treatment satisfies one of the criteria specified in that the requirement to monitor WQPs changes, on occasion, to react to paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this at every entry point could be onerous at changing circumstances (e.g., new section. Any such system deemed to such a system, particularly if it were a requirements, changes in source water have optimized corrosion control under ground water system with many wells. quality, and changes in the distribution this paragraph, and which has treatment EPA developed the § 141.81(b)(2) system). Nothing in today’s action is in place, shall continue to operate and optimization criteria to address those intended to prevent a State from maintain optimal corrosion control water systems that had both completed approving treatment changes when they treatment and meet any requirements a corrosion control study comparable to are warranted and appropriate. Rather, that the State determines appropriate to that required by the LCR and installed the intent of today’s action is to ensure ensure optimal corrosion control an appropriate CCT process prior to the that any such treatment changes are treatment is maintained.’’ The first Rule’s schedule. To be comparable, the consistent with the Rule’s goal of sentence (following the paragraph title) study would have had to include an minimizing levels of lead and copper at of § 141.82(g) has been revised to read: evaluation of the three corrosion control the tap to the maximum extent ‘‘All systems that have installed options—pH and alkalinity adjustment, practicable. The Agency believes the treatment optimizing corrosion control calcium hardness adjustment, and phrase ‘‘and meet any requirements that shall continue to operate and maintain inhibitor addition. This study also the State determines appropriate to optimal corrosion control treatment, would have had to use some of the ensure such treatment is maintained’’ including maintaining water quality testing methods specified in the Rule to provides States sufficient flexibility to parameters at or above minimum values evaluate the options. EPA believes that approve appropriate treatment changes or within ranges designated by the State studies that meet the § 141.81(b)(2) that may be warranted by emerging under paragraph (f) of this section, in requirements would indicate that the conditions at the water system. accordance with this paragraph for all installation of a CCT process was One commenter requested that EPA samples collected under §§ 141.87(d)– warranted and that it is therefore clarify in the rule language that (b)(2) (f).’’ appropriate to require (b)(2) systems systems are not required to have CCT This revision necessitates a change to deemed to be optimized pursuant to physically present. EPA disagrees that the State recordkeeping requirements in § 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2) Part 142. A requirement has been added OWQPs. applies only to those water systems that EPA recognizes that it may not be as a new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) 3 to require completed corrosion control steps necessary to install treatment at every equivalent to those specified in 3 As discussed in Section D.1. of this preamble, entry point, however, especially at § 141.81(d) or (e) before the effective today’s action renumbers existing paragraphs of ground water systems. As discussed in date of the LCR. The Agency’s intent is § 142.14(d)(8). section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1959 is making a change to § 141.87(c)(3) that LCRMR is published in the Federal that have conducted at least one round will allow ground water systems to limit Register, (b)(3) systems that exceeded of monitoring in the past three years. entry point WQP sampling to those the copper action level during the initial (C) Today’s action. EPA has added entry points that are representative of rounds of monitoring have time to make provisions at § 141.81(b)(3)(ii) water quality and CCT throughout the changes to reduce copper levels before pertaining to the routine monitoring system. This provision means that a being triggered out of (b)(3) status. requirement in today’s action. The ground water system deemed to be (C) Today’s action. In addition to the proposed requirement that routine lead optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2) 1991 (b)(3) criteria, today’s action and copper tap water monitoring occur may be able to reduce—but not prevents systems that exceeded the at least once every three years has been eliminate entirely—the number of entry copper action level on or after July 12, retained. The Rule language has been point WQP samples that must be 2001, from being considered to be a clarified to indicate that those (b)(3) collected. (b)(3) system. This requirement is systems that have conducted a round of (iii) Today’s action. EPA therefore is specified at § 141.81(b)(3)(iv). standard or reduced monitoring after revising § 141.81(b)(2), as proposed, by (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and September 30, 1997, may continue inserting a sentence after the second copper at the tap. monitoring at the reduced number of sentence in § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify (A) Proposed revision and sites every three years based on the date WQP monitoring requirements for background. EPA proposed to correct of their most recent monitoring. All systems deemed to have optimized another oversight in the 1991 Rule by other (b)(3) systems must conduct a corrosion control. The inserted sentence requiring (b)(3) systems to continue round of tap water monitoring for lead reads: ‘‘Water systems deemed to have routine monitoring for lead and copper and copper no later than September 30, optimized corrosion control under this at the tap at least once every three 2000. paragraph shall operate in compliance calendar years (triennially) at the (iii) State discretion to impose with the State-designated optimal water reduced number of sites specified in additional requirements. quality control parameters in § 141.86(c). This proposed revision (A) Proposed revision and accordance with § 141.82(g) and included a start date for resumption of background. The April 1996 proposed continue to conduct lead and copper tap monitoring no later than the first full revision to § 141.81(b)(3) states: ‘‘The and water quality parameter sampling in summer (i.e., June through September State may require any system deemed to accordance with § 141.86(d)(3) and time frame) after the effective date of the have optimized corrosion control § 141.87(d), respectively.’’ revision. pursuant to this paragraph to conduct c. Water systems deemed to have (B) Comments and analysis. additional monitoring or to take other optimized corrosion control under Commenters generally supported the action the State deems appropriate to § 141.81(b)(3). reduced monitoring frequency; ensure that such systems maintain (i) Copper action level requirements. however, several preferred less frequent minimal levels of corrosion in the (A) Proposed revision and monitoring cycles, such as once every distribution system (e.g., if there is a background. In 1996, EPA proposed that six or nine years. EPA disagrees with change in treatment or a new source is water systems demonstrating, pursuant the commenters who advocate added).’’ EPA proposed this provision to to § 141.81(b)(3), that very little lead monitoring less frequently than once provide States sufficient flexibility to corrosion is occurring in the every three years for (b)(3) systems. require additional actions in those cases distribution system (i.e., (b)(3) systems) Large systems comprise most, if not all, where such actions are necessary to be required to meet the copper action of the (b)(3) systems because most small ensure the system maintains minimal level. The Agency proposed such a and medium-size systems that satisfy corrosion in the distribution system. requirement to correct an oversight in § 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the (B) Comments and analysis. Several the 1991 Rule. less onerous criteria of § 141.81(b)(1) commenters raised concern that this (B) Comments and analysis. EPA that do not require source water provision could require (b)(3) systems to received mixed comments on this monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not conduct lead and copper tap sampling proposed change. Several commenters required to monitor their corrosion whenever treatment changes or a new viewed the revision as a new control process using WQPs, lead and source is added. The decision to require requirement that could lead to treatment copper tap monitoring is the only additional monitoring will be made by modifications in some systems. In the mechanism for determining whether the State only after considering the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA levels of lead and copper at the tap impact of the treatment change or acknowledged that a few systems may remain low. For this reason, EPA does addition of a new source on the be triggered into CCT because of the not believe that monitoring should be corrosion control process. The rule does requirement that (b)(3) systems meet the less frequent than once every 3 years for not, and is not intended to categorically copper action level. EPA agrees that these systems. require monitoring when treatment there will be additional costs incurred EPA also received comments on the changes are made. The additional by the systems if installation/ proposed deadline for the resumption of monitoring is not limited to lead and modification of CCT processes are monitoring. As proposed, (b)(3) systems copper monitoring. The State could necessary. The goal of the LCR, would have been required to resume require WQP monitoring and/or source however, is to minimize the risk from monitoring the first full June through water monitoring instead of, or in both lead and copper. EPA believes that September after publication of the addition to, lead and copper tap this change is appropriate to better LCRMR. This requirement would apply monitoring. conform with the stated goal of the LCR. only to those (b)(3) systems that had not (C) Today’s action. EPA has included The copper action level is equivalent to monitored during the three years the following provision at the copper MCLG, so adverse health immediately preceding promulgation of § 141.81(b)(3)(iii). ‘‘Any water system effects from copper should be avoided if the LCRMR. Several commenters did deemed to have optimized corrosion systems meet the action level. Since not realize that the schedule for the control pursuant to this paragraph shall (b)(3) systems that do not meet the resumption of monitoring would not notify the State in writing pursuant to copper action level are not triggered into apply to those (b)(3) systems that § 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment CCT processes until 18 months after the already are monitoring regularly and or the addition of a new source. The

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

State may require any such system to system with very low 90th percentile § 141.82(g) if the results of any WQP conduct additional monitoring or to take lead levels and undetectable source sample were below the minimum value other action the State deems appropriate water lead levels may be precluded from or outside the range of values to ensure that such systems maintain becoming a (b)(3) system. designated by the State under minimal levels of corrosion in the (B) Comments and analysis. EPA § 141.82(f). Systems could take a distribution system’’. EPA also has agrees with the commenter. Section confirmation sample within three days added a corresponding State 141.89(a)(3) requires that all of the original sample, however. If such recordkeeping requirement in a new measurements below the Method a confirmation sample were taken, the § 142.14(d)(8)(ix). Detection Limit (MDL) be reported as results of the original sample and the Section C.5.j. of this preamble zero, whereas measurements between confirmation sample were to be describes the reporting requirement, and the MDL and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L averaged to determine compliance. EPA’s rationale for adding it, in more may be reported as one-half the PQL Several commenters responding to detail. While the proposed revised (0.0025 mg/L). A system with source issues raised in the 1996 Proposal § 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not water lead levels just below an MDL of expressed concern about this method of explicitly require (b)(3) systems to 0.001 mg/L and a 90th percentile tap determining compliance. These notify the State when a new source is level of 0.005 mg/L would not be commenters, while advocating frequent added or changes in water treatment deemed to be optimized using the 1991 WQP sampling, noted that the Rule’s occur, the requirement was implicit in (b)(3) criteria which requires the approach for determining compliance the proposed reporting requirement for difference to be less than 0.005 mg/L. In creates a significant disincentive for any system subject to a reduced lead this example, the difference would be sampling more frequently than required, and copper tap water monitoring 0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L¥0mg/ since the more frequently measurements frequency. Today’s action clarifies that L=0.005 mg/L). On the other hand, are taken, the greater the potential that (b)(3) systems are included in this assuming a lead MDL of 0.001 mg/L, a some of the results will be outside the category. system with source water lead levels of State-specified limits. These (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion 0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of commenters urged EPA to adopt a control. 0.006 mg/L would be considered to be percentage-based approach to (A) Proposed revision and optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria determining compliance. background. Because it would no longer since the source water levels could be The April 1998 Notice contained a be possible for large water systems reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this regulatory option that would replace the newly triggered into CCT requirements example, the difference would be 0.0035 confirmation-sample concept with a to meet the date-specific milestones of mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L¥0.0025 mg/ repeat-sample concept. Under the the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in 1996 L=0.0035 mg/L). repeat-sample concept, a water system that any system triggered into CCT steps (C) Today’s action. Therefore, EPA is whose initial monitoring results were because it no longer meets the making a slight revision to § 141.81(b)(3) below the minimum value or outside § 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the to address the problem. The following the range of values designated by the treatment step and deadline provision has been added as State could take a repeat sample within requirements of § 141.81(e) with any § 141.81(b)(3)(i): ‘‘Those systems having three days of the original sample. If such large system adhering to the source water lead levels below the taken, the results of the repeat sample schedule specified in that paragraph for Method Detection Limit may also be would be used to determine compliance medium-size systems. deemed to have optimized corrosion under § 141.82(g); otherwise, the results (B) Comments and analysis. EPA did control under this paragraph if the 90th of the original sample would be used. not receive any comments objecting to percentile tap water lead level is less In the August 1998 Notice, EPA this provision. than or equal to the Practical sought public comment on a refinement (C) Today’s action. Section Quantitation Level for lead for two of the repeat-sample concept in order to 141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a consecutive 6-month monitoring better address issues associated with provision at § 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring periods.’’ measuring WQPs more frequently than any system triggered into CCT steps once a day. Under the refined option, because it no longer meets the 2. Revisions to § 141.82 compliance with § 141.82(g) would be § 141.81(b)(3) criteria to comply with a. Clarification of requirement to determined quarterly. To be in the treatment steps and deadline operate and maintain optimal corrosion compliance for the quarter, a water requirements in § 141.81(e). Any such control. As discussed in section C.1.a., system would need to be in compliance large system shall adhere to the EPA is revising the first sentence of for each applicable WQP at each schedule specified in that paragraph for § 141.82(g) to clarify that all systems sampling location at which that WQP is medium-size systems. deemed to have optimized corrosion measured during the quarter. The (v) Difference between source water control pursuant to § 141.81(b) are method of determining compliance for a lead concentrations and 90th percentile required to continuously operate and WQP at a sampling location would lead levels. maintain any installed CCT properly. depend on the frequency with which (A) Proposed revision and b. Excursions from State-designated that parameter is measured at that background. The April 1996 Proposal optimal water quality parameter ranges sampling location during the quarter. did not include any changes to the 1991 or values. Where the measurements are taken once criterion that allowed water systems to (i) Proposed revision and background. a day or less often, compliance would demonstrate that the difference between In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested be determined using a repeat-sample the highest source water lead public comment on a regulatory option approach similar to the one described in concentration and the 90th percentile that would revise the way in which the April 1998 Notice. That is, if the lead tap level is less than the Practical compliance with State-designated result of any measurement is below the Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead. OWQPs is determined under minimum value or outside the range Nevertheless, one commenter suggested § 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a designated by the State under that EPA modify the lead criterion of water system would be out of § 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat § 141.81(b)(3) because, as written, a compliance with the requirements of sample within 72 hours of the original

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1961 sample; if a repeat sample is taken, the State-specified OWQP limits. A few several times a day at the same location, those results would be used to commenters suggested that EPA allow the daily value for the purposes of determine compliance, otherwise the States the flexibility to determine the determining compliance with results of the original sample would be percent of samples that must be within § 141.82(g) will be calculated by used. For sampling locations where the acceptable levels. averaging all results collected during the parameter is measured more frequently EPA believes setting the performance day unless EPA has approved an than once a day, a system would be in measure at 95 percent is appropriate. alternative formula under compliance with the requirements of Today’s action adopts a percent-of-time § 142.16(d)(1)(ii) in the State’s § 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent approach to determining compliance. If application for a primacy revision. of the measurements taken for the the performance measure were set at 90 A few commenters also disagreed parameter at the sampling location percent, for example, a water system with the approach outlined in the during the quarter are within the State- could be out of compliance with WQP August 1998 Notice that would require designated limits and no single requirements for more than 18 days in each sampling location to be in excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In a six-month period or 36 days in a compliance in order for the system to be those instances where monitoring is twelve-month period. The Agency does considered in compliance. The Agency continuous, systems would be required not believe that allowing this much disagrees that aggregating the results to record the results at least every four deviation from OWQPs provides from all sampling locations before hours and to use the recorded results for adequate levels of public health determining whether or not an determining compliance. Finally, the protection. Since States will have the excursion has occurred provides August 1998 option also would revise results of the two 6-month rounds of sufficient health protection. Aggregating the reporting requirements at follow-up monitoring after the the results from multiple locations § 141.90(a)(1) to clarify that systems installation of corrosion control before could mask a problem that affects only would be required to report to the State designating OWQPs, the Agency a part of the system. EPA has therefore on a quarterly basis, all water quality believes it is reasonable for States to set retained the requirement that excursions parameter results collected during the OWQPs that water systems should be be determined for each WQP and quarter, unless the State specified a able to maintain at least 95 percent of sampling location. more frequent reporting schedule. the time. The Agency also believes that Some commenters raised concern (ii) Comments and analysis. While determination of OWQP compliance over the requirement that repeat commenters responding to the April (intended to demonstrate proper samples be collected within 72 hours of 1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample operation and maintenance of a the original sample. These commenters approach represented an improvement treatment process) is not sufficiently noted that it might not be possible to over the confirmation-sample approach, analogous to determination of action make necessary adjustments within 72 most expressed concern that the repeat- level exceedances (intended to indicate hours, particularly if the problem occurs sample approach did not eliminate the a need for treatment) to justify the use just before a weekend or holiday and the disincentives for frequent monitoring or of the same percentage for both just to system is unable to obtain a necessary the problems in determining maintain consistency in the part for several days or if several days compliance that would occur when calculations. are necessary before the effects of WQPs were measured more frequently No commenter objected to using a treatment changes are apparent at than once a day. These commenters percentage-based approach for water distribution system monitoring sites. continued to urge EPA to allow a systems that measure WQPs more than EPA believes the modified approach for percentage-based approach, at least in once per day. Many commenters determining compliance in today’s those instances where WQPs are advocated use of the percentage action will provide some relief to those measured frequently. approach for systems that collect daily systems that need several days to effect Most commenters to the refined samples and some advocated using the necessary repairs. At the same time, the approach discussed in the August 1998 percentage approach across-the-board Agency believes it is essential to Notice expressed support for a for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees minimize excursion durations to the percentage-based approach; however, that it is reasonable for a single maximum extent possible. One study, many disagreed with some of the approach to be used when determining for example, suggests that disruptions of specific provisions proposed. Several compliance, as long as the approach can four to five days in CCT may potentially commenters, for example, advocated accommodate large variations in affect levels of lead at the tap adversely using a lower percentage than that sampling frequency. To maintain (Colling, et al., 1992). The Agency has proposed by the Agency as the basis for reasonable fairness between systems no data that suggest the impact on determining compliance with the that collect entry point measurements copper levels would be any different. requirements of § 141.82(g). A number biweekly and those that collect entry The Agency believes it is appropriate, of commenters suggested that 90 percent point measurements several times a day, therefore, for those systems with would be more appropriate since lead the Agency has adopted the suggestion chronic equipment problems to develop and copper action level exceedances are made by several commenters to shift and implement appropriate sampling determined based on the 90th percentile from a percent-of samples calculation to schedules and contingency plans to lead and copper tap water values. Other a percent-of-time calculation. EPA also minimize possible ‘‘down’’ time. Since commenters supported the use of 90 has revised the compliance- the LCR does not require frequent percent because of system-specific or determination period from quarterly to sampling at distribution system tap uncontrollable factors that may affect every six months. To remain in locations, the Agency believes systems water quality. They argued that, if 10 compliance, a water system may have should have sufficient flexibility to percent, or more, of the water quality no more than nine days during a six- avoid sample collection at these measurements were allowed to be month monitoring period when any locations during times of known outside OWQP limits, the State would excursions occur (or persist). This equipment problems or other factors not tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than corresponds to having no excursions representative of normal operations. in those instances where 95 percent of approximately 95 percent of the time. Today’s action eliminates the repeat- the results were required to be within Where a system measures a parameter sample approach and makes no

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations distinction for compliance purposes a sample (or the results of a sample calculated based on the frequency of between samples collected at entry averaged with the results of a sampling for the parameter at the points and those collected from confirmation sample taken within three sampling location. If measurements for distribution system taps. The duration days of the original sample) were below the parameter are collected at the of an excursion for a WQP measured the minimum value or outside the range sampling location more frequently than less frequently than daily at a sampling of values designated by the State under once a day, the daily value will be location is the number of days between § 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a calculated by averaging all of the results the excursion and the day a subsequent violation as frequently as every two measured at the sampling location for sample taken for the same parameter at weeks. Under the revisions proposed in the parameter during the day (regardless the same sampling location is within the the August 1998 Notice, a water system of whether the results are measured State-specified limits. The day on which would incur no more than one OWQP through continuous monitoring, grab the daily value is outside the State- violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the samples, or both) unless EPA has specified limits is the first day of the Agency agrees that determining approved an alternative formula under excursion. The day preceding the day compliance with OWQPs once every six § 142.16 as a part of the State’s that a subsequent sample taken for the months, instead of once every three application for a primacy revision same parameter at the same sampling months, is more consistent with other submitted pursuant to § 142.12. If location is again within the State- monitoring frequencies in the LCR. For measurements for the parameter are specified limits is the last day of the these reasons, today’s action requires collected only once a day at a sampling excursion. Thus, if a distribution system OWQP compliance to be determined location, the daily value will be the tap location has an excursion (e.g., on a every six months. daily measurement. If measurements for Monday) and the system collects Finally, a few commenters responded the parameter are collected less another sample three days later (e.g., on that they did not believe the proposed frequently than once a day at the Thursday) that is within the limits, the modifications made clear the sampling point, the daily value will be system has had an excursion of with a circumstances that would remove a the most recent measurement taken, duration of 3 days and will remain in system’s eligibility for reduced even if that measurement was collected compliance if it does not have more monitoring under §§ 141.86 and 141.87. during a previous monitoring period. than six other days in the six-month Today’s action includes some additional Under this calculation, there is no period during which an excursion changes to the language of §§ 141.86 and distinction between a measurement occurs at any sampling location. 141.87 to clarify that failure to comply taken at an entry point and one The August 1998 Notice proposed with the requirements of § 141.82(g) collected from a distribution system tap. that where a water system is conducting removes a system’s eligibility for The Agency recognizes that systems continuous monitoring, the results be reduced monitoring for lead and copper subject to reduced monitoring for WQPs recorded every four hours for the at the tap as well as reduced WQP at the tap may not collect samples from purpose of determining compliance monitoring within the distribution every site during each six-month period. with § 141.82(g). Some commenters system. Systems that lose this eligibility In such cases, where the system does expressed concern that this requirement must requalify in accordance with the not collect any samples for a could be burdensome for some systems. requirements of § 141.86(d)(4) in order distribution system tap sampling One State noted that such a requirement to resume reduced monitoring for lead location during the six-month period, would necessitate a change to State and copper at the tap and must requalify the sampling location would have no reporting forms which currently only in accordance with the requirements of excursions if the most recent have room for the system to record a § 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced measurements at that site were within daily value for each WQP. Other monitoring for WQPs at the tap. the State-specified limits. If, on the commenters noted that the proposed (iii) Today’s action. After considering other hand, the system’s most recent provisions did not address those the comments received, EPA has measurements were taken at the instances where continuous monitoring modified the OWQP compliance distribution system tap sampling equipment is not working properly. EPA requirements of § 141.82(g) as follows: location during the previous monitoring has dropped the requirement to record • Compliance will be calculated for period and were outside the State- continuous monitoring results every each 6-month period specified in specified limits, the system would be four hours. States have the discretion to § 141.87(d) during which the water out of compliance with § 141.82(g) and specify the frequency of recording system is required to conduct WQP would therefore be triggered back into continuous monitoring results. Today’s monitoring, regardless of the frequency standard WQP monitoring. action makes no distinction between of WQP monitoring. The first six-month Corresponding revisions have been continuous monitoring results and grab period begins on the date the State made to the language of §§ 141.86, sample results. If both are collected on specifies the OWQPs under § 141.82(f). 141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the the same day, both must be included in A water system with excursions (see language of §§ 141.86(d)(4)(v)— the calculation of the daily value. following paragraph) occurring/ redesignated as § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)—and Several commenters objected to the persisting on more than nine (9) days 141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water proposed requirement that OWQP during the six-month period would be system that is out of compliance with compliance be determined quarterly and out of compliance. The 9 days need not the requirements of § 141.82(g) is suggested that a more appropriate be consecutive, but may be. ineligible to conduct reduced frequency would be annual or every six • An excursion is defined as a ‘‘daily monitoring for lead and copper at the months. A few of these commenters value’’ for a parameter that is below the tap and for WQPs within the expressed the opinion that a quarterly minimum value or outside the range of distribution system. Systems that lose compliance determination would be values designated by the State under their eligibility for reduced monitoring more stringent than the 1991 § 141.82(f) as representing optimal cannot resume reduced monitoring for requirements. EPA disagrees with this corrosion control. lead and copper at the tap or for WQPs interpretation. Under the 1991 • ‘‘Daily values’’ will be determined within the distribution system until requirements, a water system could for each parameter at each sampling they have completed two consecutive incur a violation any time the results of location. The daily values are to be six-month rounds of monitoring that

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1963 meet the requirements of §§ 141.86(d)(4) ‘‘control’’ that would include the the resident(s) within 3 days of the and 141.87(e), respectively. portion of the line the water system system’s receipt of the results; and (4) Section 141.87(d) has been revised to owns as well as any additional portion adding flexibility in the method of define the six-month periods for the over which it has the authority to resident notification. purpose of WQP monitoring once the replace. The Agency explained that it b. Comments and analysis. State has designated OWQPs under was concerned that the LSL replacement (i) Definition of ‘‘control.’’ In the April § 141.82(f). The first such period shall requirements in the 1991 LCR, which 1996 Proposal, the Agency solicited begin on the date the State specifies the obligated systems to also replace the comments, specifically regarding the OWQPs. For small and medium-size privately-owned portion of the line degree to which systems may have the systems conducting reduced monitoring where the system had the authority to authority to replace the privately-owned for lead and copper at the tap that are replace, repair, or maintain the line, or portions of LSLs. In addition, EPA triggered into WQP monitoring pursuant had other forms of authority over the solicited comments regarding the option to § 141.87(d), the end of the six-month line, could result in confusion and delay of only requiring replacement of the period for monitoring under § 141.87(d) in implementation of the Rule. portion of the line owned by the water shall be synchronized with the end of Confusion could result from different system, explaining that such an the reduced monitoring period under perceptions of the precise scope of the approach would further simplify § 141.86(d)(4) during which the action system’s legal authority, and resolution implementation of the rule because the level exceedance occurred. The wording of such disputes could require the division in ownership between the of § 141.87(d) has been streamlined by intervention of the State in a potentially system and the user would be clear to referencing, but not repeating, the time-consuming process. EPA also all parties. compliance requirements specified in proposed to remove the rebuttable Three commenters supported the § 141.82(g). The Agency has revised the presumption in § 141.84(e) that the definition of control that EPA proposed, requirements of § 141.90(a)(1) to require water system controls the entire length that is water systems must replace the that the WQP monitoring results be of the LSL. portion that they own as well as the provided to the State no less frequently EPA is aware of some information portion over which they have the than ten days after the end of each six- indicating that partial replacement of authority to replace. All other month monitoring period, unless the LSLs may result in transitory increases commenters supported the more limited State has specified a more frequent in levels of lead at the tap immediately definition that equates control with reporting requirement. following replacement (see 56 FR 26505, ownership. Commenters felt that it is Finally, today’s action revises the middle of second column, Jun. 7, 1991). appropriate to hold the water system provisions of § 142.16(d)(1) to add an The Agency believes that the entire responsible only for the portion of the optional special primacy condition for length of the service line should be service line the system owns. In States that want to use a formula, other replaced wherever such replacement is addition, the commenters felt that than that specified in § 141.82(g), to possible. For this reason, the 1996 defining control as ownership would calculate the daily value when multiple proposed revision to § 141.84(d) did not avoid confusion and ambiguities about measurements are taken on the same include any changes to the requirement the scope of the water system’s day for a water quality parameter at the that water systems offer to replace the authority to replace LSLs. These same sampling location. privately-owned portion of the LSL (at commenters opposed the idea of also requiring a water system to replace any 3. Revisions to § 141.84 the building owner’s expense) and, if requested by the resident(s), collect a additional portion of the line that it a. Proposed revision and background. post-partial replacement sample and does not own but for which it has the Section 141.84 requires systems that fail report the results to the resident(s) authority to replace. Their reasons for to meet the lead action level after within 14 days of the partial LSL opposing the proposed definition installing CCT and/or source water replacement. included: lack of legal authority; treatment to replace lead service lines In light of commenter concerns about difficulty obtaining permission to (LSLs). As promulgated in 1991, the retention of partial LSL replacement replace LSLs on private property; § 141.84(d) required a water system to requirements in the April 1996 concern about using public funds to do replace the entire LSL, up to the Proposal, EPA included a request for work on private property; and potential building inlet, unless the system comment in the April 1998 Notice on conflicts/lawsuits involving utilities, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the additional changes to the LSL homeowners and independent State that it controlled less than the requirements. Specifically, EPA contractors. Some commenters argued entire service line. EPA promulgated a requested comment on the following: (1) that EPA does not have the statutory definition of ‘‘control’’ that was Clarifying that a system should make authority to require LSL replacement by subsequently vacated and remanded to the offer to replace the privately-owned the water supplier on private property. EPA as a result of a judicial challenge portion of the LSL to the owner, rather After consideration of these to this aspect of the Rule to the extent than the user; (2) adding a requirement comments, the Agency agrees that the the definition of control applied to that the system notify the resident(s) of broader definition of ‘‘control’’ (that is, portions of the line beyond a water the building(s) served by the LSL at the water system would be required to system’s ownership.4 The court in that least 45 days prior to partial LSL replace the portion of the LSL that it case ruled that EPA did not provide an replacement and provide guidance on owns plus any additional portion of the opportunity for the public to comment possible short-term lead level increases line that it has the authority to replace) on the Agency’s expansive definition of and preventive measures consumers can could result in unintended delays and control. The court did not address the take to minimize exposure; (3) replacing other complications. For this reason, question of whether the definition was the 1991 LCR requirement for a EPA believes it is appropriate to equate within EPA’s authority under SDWA. In resident-requested follow-up sample ‘‘control’’ with ‘‘ownership’’ in order to the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested within 14 days of partial LSL eliminate potential legal confusion and comment on a revised definition of replacement with a requirement to delays in implementing the Rule. collect a sample within 24 hours of (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable 4 AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994). partial LSL replacement, and to notify presumption. Most commenters did not

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations explicitly address EPA’s proposal to control has been fully implemented and although lead levels at the tap will in remove the rebuttable presumption that optimized as required by the Rule. some instances increase immediately the water system controls the entire Four case studies were examined to after partial replacement of the LSL, length of the LSL. Those who did assess the impact of partial LSL over the long run, lead levels will address the issue supported the replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of decrease below the before replacement Agency’s proposal. EPA is eliminating the case studies have adequate data to levels. the rebuttable presumption as proposed, assess the impact on lead levels at the The EPA study was designed to since it is no longer needed now that the tap, relative to time elapsed after observe the effects of partial LSL definition of ‘‘control’’ equals replacement. The first study was replacement. First-draw samples and ownership under today’s rule. conducted in Scotland. Lead levels were service line samples were taken before (iii) Possible adverse health effects observed at a residence after partial LSL and after replacement of LSLs at four associated with partial LSL replacement over a four-month period sites in Oakwood, Ohio. One limitation replacement. A number of commenters (Britton and Richards, 1981). The other of this study is that the lead levels to the April 1996 Proposal and the April study was conducted by EPA at several before replacement were below the 1998 Notice expressed concern about homes in Oakwood, Ohio and lead trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement the possible adverse health effects levels were recorded for several weeks would not be required for these sites associated with partial replacement of after replacement (EPA, 1991b). under the LCR. Another limitation is the The study by Britton and Richards LSLs. These concerns were similar to duration of sampling. A complete set of showed a temporary rise in lead levels post-replacement samples was not taken those expressed by commenters to the at the tap. There were four monitoring at every site making it difficult to fully 1988 proposed LCR. The commenters periods in this case study: before examine the impact of time on post- felt that replacing only part of the replacement, one week after replacement lead levels. The third service line could actually increase the replacement, two months after limitation is that the date of the partial lead levels at the tap because of galvanic replacement, and four months after LSL replacement for each of the four action, the disruption of the protective replacement. During each period, 10 sites is not recorded in the summary. coating on the inside of the pipe and the first-draw and 10 random daytime The results from the first round of entry of particulate lead to the supplied samples were collected daily over a two- post-replacement samples are very water. Some of the commenters on the week period. First-draw samples were similar to the pre-replacement results. April 1996 Proposal referred to the case taken in the morning before any other The averages of the pre- and post- studies (Britton and Richards, 1981; water in the household had been run. replacement samples for three of the EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the The random daytime samples were sites were within 3 ‘‘µ/L of one another, Agency in the preamble to the 1991 taken later that day without running any and all were at or below 10 µ/L. The LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that water to waste before sampling. average service line lead level almost the Agency thought partial LSL The elevated lead levels produced by doubled at one site and exceeded the replacement could increase lead levels, partial LSL replacement were a short- action level of 15 µ/L after replacement. but that EPA believed increased levels, term phenomenon. The average However, the average for the three if they occur, will be temporary and will concentrations for the first-draw and service line samples taken at this site decrease over time. A number of random daytime samples taken ‘‘four the following week was dramatically commenters argued that these studies months after replacement’’ are lower lower. The averages for the service line show increased lead levels from partial than the average concentrations of the samples taken at the other two sites LSL replacement and that the levels do ‘‘before replacement’’ samples. In during this sampling period were also not necessarily decrease. EPA has addition, the first-draw and random lower than the averages for the first after reanalyzed the three case studies to daytime samples were averaged for each replacement sampling period. The better assess the lead level increases sampling period to better assess the results from the second round of post- resulting from partial LSL replacement impact of partial LSL replacement on replacement monitoring showed a (EPA, 1998c). This reanalysis confirmed lead levels at the site. The averages of significant decrease in lead levels when that lead levels at the tap, will in some all samples taken ‘‘four months after compared to the pre-replacement instances, increase immediately after replacement’’ is 25 percent lower than averages. The post-replacement averages partial replacement of the LSL. The the averages of all samples taken ‘‘before from the second monitoring period results of the same studies also revealed replacement.’’ The percentage reduction showed approximately a 50 percent that subsequently, over the long run, is even larger when the average of the reduction from the pre-replacement lead levels will decrease below the pre- first-draw samples are compared. The averages. The data from the third round replacement levels after partial LSL data on the range of concentrations and of post-replacement monitoring only replacement. The commenters on both the percentages of samples above 0.100 showed a slight additional decrease in the 1996 and 1998 proposals also stated mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the lead levels. The levels are below 5 µ/L, that several water systems which began benefits of partial LSL replacement. The so further significant reductions would voluntary programs to replace their highest concentration in the first-draw be unlikely. These data do not support portion of the LSL observed increased samples taken ‘‘four months after the commenter’s contentions that lead lead levels after replacement. However, replacement’’ is less than half the levels are elevated after partial LSL no new data were submitted to the highest concentration taken in the first- replacement and that lead levels do not Agency for analysis. The Agency draw samples taken ‘‘before necessarily decrease. These data do believes that the temporary rise in lead replacement.’’ In addition, the appear to indicate that requiring levels indicates not only the presence of percentages of samples with replacement of lines where tap levels lead materials in the distribution system concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and are already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1) (i.e., service lines, probably lead pipe), 0.050 mg/L are lower in the data taken might not result in dramatic but also poor corrosion control. It is ‘‘four months after replacement.’’ This improvements in lead levels. expected that potential for temporary trend is observed in both the first-draw In practice, EPA believes that many increases in lead levels will be minimal and the random daytime samples. This systems required to replace LSLs will for those systems where corrosion study supports EPA’s contention that receive consent to remove any privately-

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1965 owned portions since it is in the billing unit residents and suggested this samples if every unit requested one. The homeowners’ interest to completely should be the responsibility of the follow-up sampling that would be remove this source of lead in their building owner. Finally, several required by the changes to § 141.84(d) drinking water. In those cases where the commenters expressed concern about discussed in the April 1998 Notice is PWS cannot obtain permission to the requirement for a post-replacement intended to show the ‘‘worst-case’’ remove the entire line, EPA still sample taken within 24 hours of the effects of partial LSL replacement and is believes there are benefits to partial replacement. The concerns included not intended to be used in 90th replacement. Partial removal of a LSL timing problems associated with percentile calculations or for will reduce the likelihood of exposure weekends and holidays, the likelihood determining compliance with optimal to lead from drinking water because that such a sample would not be corrosion control or source water there will be a smaller volume of water representative of the lead levels after treatment requirements. Under the in contact with the LSL. Consumers are stabilization, and the added cost and revised requirement, the water system is more likely to consume water with burden associated with the requirement. required to collect only one sample for elevated lead levels from longer lines To minimize the risk that residents each partially-replaced LSL. EPA because a larger volume of water will will incur increased exposure because therefore does not believe that a large have elevated lead levels. As previously of partial line replacement, EPA is number of samples is required. explained in detail in the 1991 LCR, including the requirement that water EPA is including the requirement that data collected by Pocock (1980) from systems provide a notice of the partial the water system collect a tap water over 2,000 homes in the United replacement to the residents at least 45 sample representative of the water in Kingdom support the view that the days before commencing with the the service line for analysis of lead likelihood of elevated lead levels varies partial LSL replacement, inform content as prescribed in § 141.86(b)(3) in relation to the length of the LSL. residents that they may experience a and provide the results to the residents These findings are also consistent with temporary increase of lead levels in quickly. Prior to collecting the follow- Kuch and Wagner’s (1983) mass transfer their drinking water, and provide up sample, water must remain sitting in modeling, which predicted the residents with guidance about the the pipe for at least 6 hours following dependence of lead levels on the length measures they can take to minimize partial LSL replacement. The Agency is and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher their exposure to lead. The Agency feels sensitive to commenter concerns that lead levels with longer lead pipe). that 45 days is a sufficient amount of collecting such a sample within 24 The Agency believes the water system time for the recipients to study the hours of the partial replacement may should replace the entire length of the guidance provided by the water cause additional burden. In those cases line wherever possible. Today’s action supplier, to familiarize themselves with where the partial replacement is therefore retains a requirement for the the potential ramifications associated completed on a Friday or just before a water supplier to offer to replace the with the partial LSL replacement, and to holiday, staff may not be available privately-owned portion of the line. plan and implement appropriate outside of normal working hours to This requirement has been revised to measures to avoid exposure to lead. The collect such a sample. For these reasons, exclude those instances where doing so Agency agrees with commenters, EPA agrees with commenters that is precluded by State, local or common however, that a 45-day lead time is not extending the time frame for collecting law. There is no requirement for the practicable in those instances when the follow-up sample from 24 hours to system to bear the cost of replacing the replacement is being done in privately-owned portion of the line. conjunction with emergency repairs. 72 hours is reasonable and the Agency Thus, if the property owner does not EPA has therefore included provisions has done so in the final rule language. want to pay for removal of the privately- giving States the discretion to allow for In response to commenter suggestions, owned portion of the line, the system is notification of less than 45 days in such the Agency also is clarifying in the rule only required to replace the portion it instances. States will need to review language that the water system is owns. The Agency believes that the such requests on a case-by-case basis expected to pay for this sampling. EPA requirement for systems to offer unless they adopt appropriate State does not believe that the follow-up assistance with replacement of regulations to allow notification of less sampling and notification constitute a privately-controlled service lines is an than 45 days in conjunction with significant burden to the system efficient and effective means of emergency repairs. compared with the cost of the partial maximizing the public health benefits As an additional precautionary LSL replacement. achieved by the rule. measure, the water system is required to The Agency believes that the affected (iv) Resident notification of partial collect a follow-up LSL sample, to parties should be provided with the test LSL replacement. In response to the determine whether the partial LSL results as quickly as possible so they April 1998 Notice, no commenter replacement caused an increase of lead can implement appropriate measures, objected to requiring the system to levels in the drinking water, and to commensurate with the findings, as contact the ‘‘owner’’ rather than the provide the results to residents. The soon as they can to minimize their ‘‘user’’ when offering to replace the 1991 LCR required the water supplier to exposure to lead. In addition, privately-owned portion of the service inform residents served by partially- unnecessary expenses and further line. Several commenters expressed replaced LSLs that they were entitled to concerns on the part of consumers could concern that requiring notification to have a tap water sample drawn and be alleviated in instances where the residents 45 days in advance of the analyzed within 14 days of the analytical results indicate little or no partial replacement would present a completion of the partial replacement. increase in lead levels, or an immediate hardship in instances where the system Upon further consideration, the Agency decrease in lead levels, resulting from is replacing the line in conjunction with believes the requirement, as codified in the partial removal of the LSL. EPA making emergency repairs. A few 1991, could place an undue burden on therefore is retaining the requirement commenters objected to the requirement the water system in those instances that water systems provide the results of that the water system be responsible for where a line serves a large multi-family this post-replacement sample to providing notification to residents of residence because the system could be consumers within three days of multi-family buildings and other non- required to take a large number of receiving the results. The Agency has

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations clarified the rule language to reflect that did EPA ask for comment on those line for analysis of lead content in the three days are business days. requirements or otherwise reopen that accordance with the procedures While EPA is sensitive to the issue. specified in § 141.86(b)(3). The system difficulties associated with providing (vii) Other LSL comments. Some shall report the results of the analysis to notification to residents of non-billing commenters raised issues with the basic the owner and the resident(s) served by units (for example, apartment buildings LSL replacement requirements of the the line within 3 business days of and other rental units), the Agency rule, such as the requirement to replace receiving the results. Mailed notices believes it is important that the water or sample 7 percent of lines each year post-marked within 3 business days of system take pro-active measures to and the basic reasonableness of receiving the results shall be considered notify these residents. The Agency requiring systems to replace some ‘‘on time.’’ therefore is including the requirement portion of the line when levels at the tap • For the purpose of satisfying the that the water system provide the pre- are above 15 ppb. These comments are notification requirements of § 141.84(d), partial LSL replacement information outside the scope of this rulemaking the water system shall provide the and the post-replacement sample results because EPA did not propose revisions information to the residents of to these residents as well as to the to, or otherwise reopen, the basic LSL individual dwellings by mail or by other residents of billing units. In the case of replacement requirements in this methods approved by the State. In single family residences, this notice proceeding. Rather, the only aspects of instances where multi-family dwellings must be made by mail unless another the 1991 Rule addressed here are the are served by the line, the water system mechanism is approved by the State. To definition of ‘‘control’’ for purposes of shall have the option to post the avoid problems arising from delivery determining the portion of the service information at a conspicuous location. delays beyond the system’s control, line the system is required to replace, Today’s action also makes three other notifications which are postmarked and sampling and notification changes in § 141.84. Section 141.84(e) within the required time will be requirements that relate to the potential has been deleted, since the rebuttable considered acceptable. In the case of for partial LSL replacement. presumption is no longer appropriate. multi-family residences, the regulation c. Today’s action. EPA has eliminated Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been gives the water supplier the option to the ‘‘control’’ terminology from the redesignated as §§ 141.84(e) through (g). post the information in a conspicuous Rule. Today’s action revises § 141.84(d) The Agency also has made a slight place. to require the water system to replace modification to § 141.84(b) to explicitly (v) Reporting of post-replacement only the portion of the LSL that it owns. require the system to document, in sampling results to the State. Most Water systems subject to LSL system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s) commenters supported the proposed replacement requirements continue to owned by the system. The third requirement that water systems provide be required to offer to replace the sentence of § 141.84(b) has been revised the State a copy of the results of samples privately-owned portion of the line, to read as follows: ‘‘The system shall collected immediately following partial however, § 141.84(d) has been revised to identify the initial number of lead LSL replacement within the first ten clarify that the offer must be made to the service lines in its distribution system, days of the month following the month owner of the property, or the owner’s including an identification of the in which the results are received from authorized agent, rather than the user. portion(s) owned by the system, based the laboratory. Two commenters, Today’s action also revises the on a materials evaluation, including the however, suggested that EPA provide requirements in § 141.84(d) that a water evaluation required under § 141.86(a) States flexibility in the manner, format, system must satisfy when replacing only and relevant legal authorities (e.g., and timing of reporting; three other a portion of the LSL. The requirement contracts, local ordinances) regarding commenters opposed the requirement that a water system offer to take a post- the portion owned by the system.’’ EPA altogether. After consideration of these replacement sample within 14 days of does not intend that systems provide comments, EPA has retained the the partial replacement has been this information to the State; however, reporting requirement but has given replaced with the following the Agency thinks it is important for a States the flexibility to modify or requirements. record to exist that documents the eliminate it. Even if the State does not • At least 45 days prior to the partial baseline. These records should be require these results to be reported, replacement, the water system must available for inspection at the system water systems are required to maintain notify all residents of the building upon request. records of the sampling results in served by the line that the partial The reporting requirement at accordance with § 141.91. replacement will occur, alert them that § 141.90(e)(4), to submit documentation (vi) Financial impacts of LSL they may experience a temporary if the system believes it does not control replacement. Some commenters were increase of lead levels in their drinking the entire length of the line, has been concerned about the financial impacts water, provide them with guidance on replaced with a requirement that the associated with LSL replacement. They measures they can take to minimize water system report the results of the felt that compliance with the regulation their exposure to lead, and inform them post-partial replacement sampling to the will be particularly burdensome for that the water system will collect a State within the first ten days of the some cities that have a high percentage follow-up sample within 72 hours of month following the month in which of LSLs. One commenter stated the completing the partial replacement, and the system receives the laboratory belief that EPA’s 1991 LCR estimate of notify them of the results of that sample. results, unless otherwise specified by the average removal cost per line was The State has the discretion to allow the State. States, at their discretion, may extremely conservative when made and less than a 45-day advance notice in eliminate this reporting requirement. is now outdated, and actual costs could those instances where the partial Systems shall also report additional be significantly higher and submitted replacement is being performed in information as specified by the State, supporting data. The cost of the original conjunction with emergency repairs. and in a time and manner prescribed by LSL replacement requirements is • Within 72 hours of completing the the State, to verify that all partial LSL outside the scope of this rulemaking. partial LSL replacement, the water replacement activities have taken place. EPA did not propose any changes to the system shall collect a tap water sample Finally, these changes to § 141.84 basic LSL replacement requirements nor representative of the water in the service necessitate conforming changes to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1967

§ 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has concerns of EPA Regions and States that education language need to request revised the language of § 141.85(a) the mandatory language specified in the State approval. slightly to remove references to LSL 1991 LCR may not be appropriate for (iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the control. The phrase ‘‘each lead service NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such following revisions to § 141.85 to reflect line that we control’’ in § 141.85(a)(1)(i) as prisons and hospitals) that primarily the changes discussed above. The (as redesignated) has been revised to serve confined populations. In order to Agency has redesignated paragraph (a), read ‘‘the portion of each lead service incorporate these changes into the LCR, except for the phrase, ‘‘Content of line that we own.’’ The discussion of EPA proposed to renumber § 141.85(a) written public education materials,’’ as LSL replacement in as § 141.85(a)(1) and to incorporate the paragraph (a)(1) and titled it as § 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated) NTNCWS language at § 141.85(a)(2). ‘‘Community water systems.’’ The has been revised to reflect the EPA also proposed to add a paragraph subordinate paragraphs have been notification and post-partial (c)(7) to § 141.85. This new paragraph redesignated accordingly. The replacement sampling requirements in would identify the types of CWSs who introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) has today’s action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii), might be eligible to use the NTNCWS been expanded to allow CWSs, with requiring States to maintain records of language. As proposed, CWSs would State approval, to delete information their determination that a water system need State approval to use the NTNCWS pertaining to lead service lines if no does not control the entire length of the language, however, EPA also solicited lead service lines exist anywhere in the LSL, has been deleted; however, two public comment on the necessity of this water system service area. As discussed new State recordkeeping requirements up-front approval. in section C.3.c. of this preamble, EPA have been added. Section (ii) Comments and analysis. While all has replaced the phrase ‘‘each lead 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to commenters supported the proposed service line that we control’’ in maintain records of any system-specific revisions, some offered additional paragraph (a)(1) with the phrase ‘‘the determinations regarding the suggestions for consideration by EPA. portion of each lead service line that we submission of information, including For example, suggestions were made to own.’’ Section 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) also post partial replacement test results, to allow CWSs to delete references to LSLs has been revised to reflect that a water demonstrate compliance with partial where none exist, and to delete system is only required to replace the lead service line replacement references to building permit records portion of the lead service line that it requirements. Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii) where the records are unavailable. owns and to reflect the notification and has been added to include a Another suggestion was to allow post-partial-replacement sampling requirement that States maintain NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems requirements contained in § 141.84(d) of records related to system compliance to distribute the required public today’s action. Systems, however, may with partial lead service line education information electronically in continue to use pre-printed materials replacement requirements. Section lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with with the old language, if they so choose. 142.16(d)(3) has been revised to these suggestions, and has incorporated The language of § 141.85(a)(1) also has eliminate the requirement that States language which gives States the been expanded to allow systems to describe in their primacy program flexibility to approve these minor modify, with State approval, the revision application how they plan to changes to the public education language at (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and make determinations that a water language. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit system does not control the entire Some commenters suggested that EPA record availability and consumer access length of the LSL. It has been replaced allow systems additional flexibility to to these records if such information is with a requirement that States describe tailor public education language. The not available. in their primacy program revision how they will verify that all partial LSL public education language specified in EPA has added new paragraphs at replacement activities have been the regulations is a mandatory (a)(2) to specify alternative mandatory completed properly. minimum. The mandatory language language for use by NTNCWSs. These specified in the regulations was systems have the discretion to use either 4. Revisions to § 141.85 developed to provide consistent, the language in § 141.85(a)(1) or the a. Changes affecting content of written beneficial information to consumers language in § 141.85(a)(2). The materials. regarding lead in their water supply. introductory text of § 141.85(c)(4) also (i) Proposed revision and background. Systems may request approval from has been revised to update the In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA States to include additional language, to paragraph references applicable to requested comment on a revision that provide consumers with information repeat public education tasks. would provide separate mandatory specific to a particular system. EPA EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to public education language for use by believes the LCR, as revised by today’s § 141.85(c). This paragraph specifies the NTNCWSs and certain CWSs, such as action, provides sufficient flexibility to characteristics of CWSs that may be prisons and hospitals, which is more address system-specific circumstances. eligible to use the NTNCWS language appropriate for these systems. The EPA received mixed comments on and provides flexibility for eligible proposed NTNCWS language would whether up-front State approval for CWSs to substitute posting and eliminate references to ‘‘homes in the CWSs to use the NTNCWS public distribution of informational pamphlets/ community’’ and some suggestions for education language should be required brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS reducing lead exposure which may be for CWSs that meet the specified criteria public education distribution beyond the control of consumers served in the proposed § 141.85(c)(7). After requirements. CWSs delivering public by such water systems. As a part of this considering these comments, EPA education as if they were a NTNCWS provision, the Agency proposed that the believes that the issue of whether to would be required to repeat public CWSs approved to use the NTNCWS require up-front approval should be education tasks only once per calendar language also be permitted to deliver decided by the States. The language at year in which the system exceeds the their public education program as if § 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to lead action level. States have the they were a NTNCWS. The Agency allow States to decide whether systems flexibility to waive the requirement for proposed these changes to address that qualify to use the alternative public prior State approval for these special-

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations case CWSs to deliver public education system and ‘‘only those locations Several commenters recommended as if they are NTNCWSs. outside the system’s service area that are that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501 In addition, EPA has revised regularly visited by the system’s to 3,300 people to forego newspaper § 141.85(c)(4)(ii) to permit a NTNCWS consumers.’’ This latter requirement, to notification and broad distribution of to utilize electronic transmission in lieu provide informational materials to pamphlets and brochures to facilities of or combined with printed materials facilities and organizations not served and organizations that are visited as long as it achieves at least the same by the system, was not included in the frequently by pregnant women and coverage. proposed rule language. Several children. These commenters believe that Finally, EPA has added provisions in commenters expressed concern that the problems associated with newspaper a new § 142.14(d)(8)(x) that require including such a requirement would notification and broad distribution of States to maintain records pertaining to result in the same confusion and informational pamphlets and brochures any system-specific decisions made unintended consequences as the affect most small systems. EPA concurs under § 141.85 regarding the content of original requirements. EPA agrees that that many systems serving between 501 written public education materials and/ limiting the distribution of materials to and 3,300 people may be on the fringe or the distribution of these materials. facilities/organizations within the of an urban or suburban area and that b. Public education delivery service area is appropriate and the final distribution of broad-based public requirements. rule language has been revised education for these systems may have (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer accordingly. unintended consequences. The Agency people. The second discrepancy between the believes, however, that allowing these (A) Proposed revision and 1996 preamble and proposed rule systems to automatically limit background. The April 1996 Proposal language involves the question of what, distribution of public education included a provision to allow CWSs if anything, the water system would be materials is inappropriate. Such serving 500 or fewer people to forego required to do in lieu of newspaper and systems, for example, are more likely to the newspaper and electronic media electronic notification. In the preamble, be served by local newspapers in which notifications required as a part of public EPA indicated that the Agency was it may be appropriate to include education because these systems rarely proposing to require CWSs, that serve information about the system’s lead are served by general circulation 500 or fewer people and that desire to levels. EPA believes that States are in newspapers and radio/television omit tasks requiring submission of the best position to determine the extent stations that have audiences limited to information to newspapers and radio to which CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 the public water system’s service area. and television stations, to mail or hand people should limit distribution of The Agency explained that it believes deliver lead public education materials public education materials. The final such a revision is necessary to minimize to all other regular consumers (e.g., rule therefore gives States the authority, the unintended burden resulting from a tenants of multi-family residences either through State regulations or by system needing to respond to numerous whose water is included in their rent), case-by-case written approval, to allow inquiries from individuals it does not in addition to mailing these materials to CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to serve. For the same reason, EPA also all billing units (60 FR 16355, top of omit the newspaper notification proposed to allow systems serving 500 third column). EPA inadvertently requirements and to limit the or fewer people to limit the distribution omitted this requirement from the distribution of materials to appropriate of informational brochures to facilities proposed rule language. Even though facilities and organizations served by and organizations likely to be several commenters expressed concern the system. frequented by pregnant women and that such an alternative requirement Finally, one commenter suggested children. Finally, EPA requested public would be as burdensome as the original that the alternate delivery allowed for comment on a burden reduction requirements, the Agency believes that NTNCWSs and some small CWSs suggestion to allow CWSs serving 501 to such a requirement is appropriate when (institutions) should be extended to 3,300 people to forego the public service newspaper notification and/or broad mobile home parks, housing projects, announcement requirements contained distribution of pamphlets/brochures subdivisions and apartments. The in § 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the major does not occur. The purpose of these commenter believes such systems serve radio/television stations usually activities is to ensure that as many a more or less confined population that broadcast to a much broader area than individuals served by the system as is readily accessible through a central that served by the water system. possible receive timely public education mail area and/or laundry area that (B) Comments and analysis. Most of materials. For systems serving 500 and makes hand delivery much easier and the commenters supported the proposed fewer people, the Agency does not more effective. EPA believes that the revision pertaining to the delivery of believe that mailing or hand delivering revisions discussed below provide public education by CWSs serving 500 these materials to all households served sufficient flexibility for the delivery of or fewer people. Several commenters by the system, in lieu of these activities, public education by CWSs. EPA noted discrepancies between the constitutes an undue burden. The therefore has no plans at this time to preamble discussion and the rule revised provisions allow these systems make further changes to the public language, however, and expressed the flexibility to select the least education language requirements concern that the rule language, as burdensome among the allowable beyond those contained in today’s proposed, would not accomplish the delivery mechanisms. The Agency has action. intended objectives. therefore incorporated this requirement (C) Today’s action. EPA has revised One of the discrepancies involves the into the final rule language. the rule to add a new paragraph at distribution of informational pamphlets The comments received also § 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving or brochures to facilities and supported the burden reduction less than or equal to 3,300 people to organizations visited frequently by suggestion to eliminate the public omit the public service announcement pregnant women and children. In the service announcement requirement for requirements of § 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such preamble, EPA stated the Agency’s CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA systems are not required to obtain prior intent that these materials be distributed agrees and today’s action revises the State approval to omit these to appropriate facilities served by the rule language accordingly. announcements, nor are they required to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1969 substitute any other tasks, in lieu of with the materials to minimize the risk the system continues to exceed the lead public service announcements, as part that they would be discarded as ‘‘junk action level. There is nothing in the of meeting the public education mail.’’ The Agency proposed these regulation, however, that precludes requirements. changes to minimize the unintended such a system from mailing the In addition to omitting the public additional burden associated with materials sooner than 12 months after service announcement task for small making changes in a water system’s the initial mailing, in order to CWSs, the new § 141.85(c)(8) provides billing cycle and/or process to synchronize the repeat mailing with its some flexibility for small CWSs to omit accommodate the rule’s public billing cycle. the newspaper notification required by education requirements. (C) Today’s action. EPA is revising § 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the (B) Comments and analysis. § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a CWS the distribution of informational pamphlets Commenters generally were supportive option of using a separate mailing when under § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate of these proposed changes, except for the system’s billing cycle does not facilities and organizations served by one State which disagreed with include a mailing within 60 days of the water system. In addition to mailing allowing systems up to six months to exceeding the action level or where the lead public education materials to deliver the public education materials system cannot insert information with billing units, systems electing to limit/ because of the potential health risks, the water utility bill without making omit these activities must also mail or especially for pregnant women, if major changes in its billing system. The hand deliver the required public customers are not informed in a timely separate mailing must occur within 60 education materials to all other regular manner. After further consideration of days of exceeding the lead action level customers of the system (i.e., the public health issues, EPA has and the system must include an alert in households that are not billing units). decided to retain the current the package or on the outside of the CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people must requirement that all systems exceeding envelope containing the following receive prior written approval from the the lead action level distribute public message, in large print: SOME HOMES State. State approval is not required for education materials within 60 days of IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, the exceedance. The decision to retain ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR however, § 141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives the 60-day requirement is based on DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE States the authority to require such a these considerations: (1) Extending the A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR system to distribute to facilities and time period to distribute public HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE organizations not served by the system education materials could lessen public ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER in those instances where the State health protection. Pregnant women, in INFORMATION. believes that a broader distribution is particular, might not receive timely EPA also is revising the introductory appropriate. As discussed above, today’s notice if the system were allowed up to text of §§ 141.85(c)(2) and 141.85(c)(4) action also adds the corresponding State six months after becoming aware of an to clarify that the requirement to deliver recordkeeping requirements at a new exceedance to provide the public public education within 60 days of a § 142.14(d)(8)(x). education materials. (2) Allowing lead action level exceedance applies Finally, § 141.85(c)(8)(ii) clarifies that different time requirements based on only in the following instances: small CWSs that omit the public service non-risk-related factors such as billing • The first time the water system announcement tasks are required to cycles could provide unequal health exceeds the lead action level; or repeat public education tasks only once protection. (3) State administrative costs • The first time the water system during each calendar year until such would increase since the State would again exceeds the lead action level after time as the results of lead and copper need to be aware of a system’s billing one (or more) round(s) of tap water tap water monitoring indicate that they cycle in order to determine compliance monitoring for lead and copper where no longer exceed the lead action level. with this requirement. the system did not exceed the lead (ii) Timing and method of EPA agrees with commenters, action level. distribution. however, that the mailing of public c. Schedule for Reporting Completion (A) Proposed revision and education materials separately from the of Public Education Tasks. background. In the April 1996 Proposal, water bill is appropriate in many (i) Proposed revision and background. EPA sought comment on proposed instances and is revising the public The April 1996 Proposal included a changes pertaining to the mailing and education requirements accordingly. change in the deadline for a PWS to timing of public education materials by The Agency believes that this change report completion of public education CWSs that exceed the lead action level. will provide sufficient flexibility for tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule, Specifically, the Agency proposed two systems to meet the public education the deadline for reporting was December modifications to § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a) requirements without incurring the 31 of each year in which the system was Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that added burden of making substantial subject to the Rule’s public education does not include a billing within 60 changes to their billing processes. requirements. EPA proposed to replace days of exceeding the lead action level One commenter seems to have the December 31 deadline with a to mail the materials on the same misunderstood the requirements requirement for the water system to schedule as the system’s billing cycle as pertaining to the timing of public report completion of public education long as the mailing occurs within six education if a CWS is required to repeat tasks to the State within 10 days after months after the exceedance; and (b) public education tasks pursuant to the date by which the system is required allow a CWS that cannot insert § 141.85(c)(3). It is not EPA’s intention to perform any such tasks. EPA information in the water utility bill, that such a system provide public proposed this revision because the without making major changes to its education materials within 60 days of Agency believes that the schedule for billing system, to use a separate mailing any subsequent exceedance as well as water systems to report completion of to deliver the public education materials repeat mailing of these materials every public education tasks by December 31 as long as the information is delivered 12 months based on the initial of each year (in which the system is within the required time frame. EPA exceedance. Rather, the Agency intends required to conduct any public also proposed to require CWSs utilizing that public education materials be education task) fails to provide the a separate mailing to include an alert mailed every 12 months for as long as States and EPA with information in a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations manner timely enough to oversee States to determine whether all their sampling pools with representative systems’ compliance with the public appropriate actions have been taken. sites throughout the distribution system education program requirements. Today’s action does not alter the if they are unable to locate a sufficient (ii) Comments and analysis. requirement that the demonstration be number of sample sites that meet the Commenters were mixed in their supported with appropriate tiering criteria specified in § 141.86(a). support for this revision. Those documentation. The Agency agrees that EPA proposed this revision to clarify opposing it believe this will it may relieve some reporting burden for that all systems are required to collect unnecessarily increase burden. Of those systems if they are not required to samples from a minimum number of supporting the revision, some support it submit the same information more than sites in accordance with § 141.86(c), as written and some support it with once. On the other hand, EPA even if a sufficient number of high-risk changes. Two of those supporting it recognizes that eliminating the sites are not available. with changes wanted the reporting time requirement to submit the supporting (ii) Comments and analysis. Most to increase from 10 days to 30 days, and materials each time may increase the commenters agreed with the proposed one supporting it with changes State burden to determine compliance new language. However, one commenter expressed concern about submitting a since all of the information may not be suggested that EPA provide a clear full packet of information each reporting readily available at the time compliance definition or understanding of what period. is assessed. For this reason, the Agency constitutes a ‘‘representative site’’. The Several commenters who opposed believes it is most appropriate to leave Agency believes that a ‘‘representative this revision wanted to retain the annual the decision to the State about the need site,’’ in this context, is a site in which reporting requirement. EPA recognizes for repetitious submission of the same the plumbing materials used at that site that this revision will require those information. If the State elects to would be commonly found at other sites CWSs that must deliver public service eliminate these repetitious submissions, served by the water system. This announcements to radio and television however, EPA believes it is appropriate definition for ‘‘representative site’’ is stations every six months to submit two to require the water system to certify specific to these two paragraphs and has letters to the State during a calendar that there have been no changes in the been added to the regulatory language at year instead of the single letter initially supporting documentation. Regardless § 141.86(a)(5) and § 141.86(a)(7). required. However, EPA believes that of the State’s decision on this matter, One commenter suggested that, rather accelerating the public education § 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to than requiring a water system to identify reporting requirement will improve maintain records of system submittals representative sites to complete its compliance because, in addition to which should contain the initial and sampling pool if it cannot identify a making the requirements easier to any subsequent public education sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites enforce, it also will encourage water information sent to the State. This (if it is a CWS) or a sufficient number systems that exceed the lead action level requirement is not affected by today’s of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS), to deliver the public education program action. a CWS should be allowed to collect in a more timely manner. (iii) Today’s action. EPA is revising samples from only those sites meeting EPA also believes it is appropriate to § 141.90(f) to require any water system, the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a require reporting within 10 days after a subject to the public education NTNCWS should be allowed to collect public education task is scheduled to be requirements of § 141.85, to report its samples from only those sites meeting completed. The 10 days allows systems completion of all required public the tier 1 or 2 criteria, if they provide time to assemble records and notify the education tasks to the State within 10 written justification, even if it means State. Such a requirement is consistent days after the date by which the system collecting fewer than the minimum with the time frame allowed in other is required to complete semi-annual/ number of required samples. reporting requirements, which allow 10 annual public education tasks. The EPA believes that if a water system days for reporting to the State after an Agency also is adding language to collects fewer than the required number action or the end of a reporting period. § 141.90(f) that eliminates the need for of samples, the water system will not be Very few systems should be required to systems to submit supporting able to accurately characterize a lead or conduct public education tasks more documentation that has been submitted copper problem, if it exists. The number than once per year, since today’s action previously unless there is a change in of samples specified for initial also eliminates public service the information or the State requires monitoring, follow-up monitoring and announcements for small CWSs. In that the documentation be included reduced monitoring was established to addition, since it is expected that not with each submission. Systems that do sufficiently account for variability of many systems will continue to exceed not submit supporting documentation lead and copper at taps while at the the lead action level after installation of must certify that there have been no same time being reasonable for a system OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that changes to the information. A new to implement. Since there can be this new requirement will not increase § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to variability in lead and copper levels at burden for most systems. maintain records of any system-specific different taps within the same building As stated previously, one commenter decisions made under § 141.90(f) and even at the same tap at different suggested that, for ongoing public regarding the resubmission of detailed points in time, EPA believes that education, it should not be necessary for documentation to demonstrate systems that do not have the requisite a water system to submit the full packet completion of public education tasks. number of sites must sample at multiple of information to the State for each taps used to provide drinking water for subsequent public education task to 5. Revisions to § 141.86 human consumption within available verify that all appropriate actions have a. Systems with an insufficient buildings. Systems with too few taps been taken, as long as the State receives number of tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites. must collect multiple samples from a letter indicating that the information (i) Proposed revision and background. available taps used to provide drinking has been sent out and the letter includes The April 1996 Proposal included new water on different days during the any changes to the original information. language at § 141.86(a)(5) and monitoring period to meet the The 1991 Rule requires that systems § 141.86(a)(7) which instructs CWSs and monitoring requirements. The Agency provide sufficient documentation for NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete therefore is not revising the minimum

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1971 site requirement to allow fewer samples of sampling sites served by a LSL for its deleted. Section 141.86(a)(9) has been to be collected. sampling pool, send a letter to the State redesignated as § 141.86(a)(8) and (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised demonstrating why it is unable to do so. revised to eliminate reference to the the language of § 141.86(a)(5) to require EPA explained that the original intent of reporting requirement that a water that a CWS complete its sampling pool these requirements was to help ensure system with LSLs that does not have with representative sites throughout the that systems collect samples from high- sufficient sites served by LSLs available distribution system if it does not have risk sites. The Agency expected these to comprise 50 percent of the sampling a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3 justification letters to be completed pool send a letter to the State justifying sampling sites available. Likewise, the prior to the start of initial monitoring. why it cannot do so. Section Agency has revised the language of Water systems are having to adjust their 141.90(a)(4), which contained the § 141.86(a)(7) to require that a NTNCWS sampling pools much more frequently corresponding reporting requirement, complete its sampling pool with than EPA anticipated because of the has been replaced with a new reporting representative sites throughout the difficulty they are experiencing in requirement pertaining to small system distribution system if it does not have obtaining continued access to the same waivers (see section C.5.l. of this a sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2 sites. The requirement of constantly preamble). Although the regulatory sites available. The revised language of justifying the adjustments to the requirement to send these sample site both provisions includes the definition sampling pool is adding an unintended justifications to the State has been of a ‘‘representative site,’’ discussed extra burden on systems, however, and eliminated, the Agency encourages above, that applies to these provisions. the Agency believes that other systems to provide this information to While today’s action provides systems appropriate tools available to States, the State as a courtesy. the flexibility to use any representative such as periodic on-site inspections and c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that file reviews, can be used to ensure that provide first-draw samples. are unable to locate a sufficient number systems are routinely sampling at (i) Proposed revision and background. of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and appropriate sites. One of the provisions that EPA NTNCWSs that are unable to locate a (ii) Comments and analysis. proposed in April 1996 would allow sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample Commenters were supportive of these NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps sites to add to their sampling pool those proposed changes. One commenter, where the water will have stood in the sites with copper plumbing installed however, objected to the basic plumbing for at least six hours to ask the subsequent to local implementation of requirement in § 141.86(a)(9) State, in writing, for approval to sample the lead ban (typically 1988 or 1989), (redesignated by today’s action as from taps where the water will have provided these sites can be considered § 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a stood for less than six hours. These ‘‘representative’’. Sample sites meeting system with LSLs collect 50 percent of systems would be required to collect the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria have a greater the samples each monitoring period first-draw samples from as many taps likelihood of experiencing high lead from taps served by LSLs. EPA did not having at least a six-hour standing time levels than sample sites not meeting the propose to revise this requirement. The as possible. For the remaining samples, tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites commenter noted that requiring the systems would be required to identify typically contain the newest lead collection of samples at all sites and report to the State, sampling times plumbing materials in a community or identified in the sampling plan is and locations that would likely result in a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead unrealistic, as not all homeowners the longest standing time. Systems leaching potential than older lead.) identified in the sampling plan are would then be required to sample at These same sample sites, however, may willing to participate. EPA recognizes times and locations approved by the actually have a lesser likelihood of that there may be times when the State. EPA also requested comment on experiencing high copper levels than system may be denied access to targeted an alternative that would give the States sample sites not meeting these criteria sites. In those instances, where there is flexibility to eliminate the requirement because these sites may not contain the an insufficient number of tier 1 sample for up-front State approval of the newest copper plumbing materials in a sites or an insufficient number of sampling plan. Under this scenario, community or a facility. Including sites willing participants served by lead NTNCWSs would still be required to in the sample pool that have copper service lines to constitute 50 percent of sample from taps with the longest plumbing installed more recently than the sampling pool, the system is standing times possible, however, States 1988 or 1989 may allow a water system expected to collect samples from all would not need to approve these sites to identify copper corrosion problems such sites that it can. The system must prior to monitoring. In the preamble to not apparent by sampling sites meeting then choose other sample sites from the April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria. which to collect the remaining number States would retain discretion to verify, b. Elimination of justification letters of samples. Sites where the homeowner at any time, that the proper sampling for use of non-tier 1 sample sites and refuses access are no longer available for was done. insufficient lead service line sample inclusion in the sampling pool and the EPA proposed this provision to sites. water system should document the address the problem many NTNCWSs (i) Proposed revision and background. reason the site was not sampled in its that provide drinking water 24 hours a One of the burden reduction measures files. EPA believes this issue is best day (e.g., a factory operating on a 3-shift that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to clarified through guidance rather than a basis) face in complying with the LCR’s eliminate the requirement at change in rule language. requirements. Such systems may not §§ 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)–(3) that (iii) Today’s action. After considering have periods of normal operation during a system unable to locate a sufficient the comments received, EPA is revising which the water will have stood number of tier 1 sites send a letter to the the provisions of §§ 141.86(a)(8)–(9) and motionless in the plumbing for at least State justifying the selection of non-tier 141.90(a)(2)–(4) as proposed in April six hours prior to collecting tap water 1 sites. EPA also proposed to eliminate 1996. Specifically, §§ 141.86(a)(8) and lead and copper samples. The Agency the requirement at §§ 141.86(a)(9) and 141.90(a)(2)–(3), requiring the system to believes that it is unnecessary to require 141.90(a)(4) that a system with LSLs, send a letter to the State justifying the such systems to shut down operations that cannot identify a sufficient number use of non-tier 1 sites, have been in order to achieve a standing time that

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations does normally exist. The proposed approval but suggested that the system where the water will have stood for less provision would allow these systems to should be free to proceed without than six hours. sample at times and locations that are specific written concurrence from the (iii) Today’s action. EPA has added most likely to be representative of these State if the State did not respond within provisions at § 141.86(b)(5) that require systems’ worst case scenarios. a reasonable period. Several a NTNCWS which does not have (ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported substitution of enough taps that can supply first-draw commenters supported allowing these samples without prior State approval; samples to collect as many first-draw NTNCWSs to substitute non-first-draw however, some supported such samples from appropriate sample taps samples for first-draw samples if they flexibility only if States were allowed to as possible and to complete the do not have enough taps that can conduct verification inspections. sampling pool with locations that would achieve the required six-hour standing In consideration of these comments, likely result in the longest standing time time. A few of these commenters, today’s action gives States discretion to for the remaining samples. These however, suggested that it is not always decide whether or not to require prior provisions also apply to special-case practical to try to determine which State approval of sampling plans. CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those tap(s) have the longest standing times. Systems in States not requiring prior specified in §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) Others suggested that repeat sampling, State approval must submit where the system is a facility, such as on separate days, at the tap(s) that meet documentation of their sampling plan to a prison or hospital, where the the six-hour standing time requirement the State, when they submit their population served is not capable of or is be permitted, rather than substituting sampling results. This documentation prevented from making improvements samples that do not meet the six-hour must include identification of the to plumbing or installing point-of-use standing time requirement. substitute sample sites and the length of treatment devices and where the system EPA believes that if a system cannot standing time for each substitute provides water as part of the cost of locate the requisite number of taps that sample. services provided and does not satisfy the six-hour standing time Some commenters also used this separately charge for water requirement, it must make the effort to opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs consumption. identify the taps having the longest that have fewer than five sample taps States have discretion to decide standing times and collect substitute where five samples are required, or whether or not prior State approval is samples from these sites. Sampling at fewer than ten sample taps where ten required before a system can substitute sites that have the longest standing time samples are required, be permitted to non-first-draw samples. EPA has added will assist the system in determining the collect only as many samples as there provisions at § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States maximum potential level of lead and are sample taps. EPA believes that it is to maintain records of any system- copper exposure from drinking water. inappropriate to reduce the minimum specific decisions made regarding use of EPA also believes that it is more number of samples required. The LCR non-first draw samples. Where prior important to collect samples from the requires all water systems to collect a State approval is not required, systems required number of sites (as long as minimum number of samples must submit documentation with the these are sites that are typically used to (dependent on size of population served sampling results that identify each site provide drinking water) than it is to by the system) as per § 141.86(c). As that does not meet the six-hour collect samples that have stood in the stated previously, the number of minimum standing time and the length tap for six hours if a six-hour standing samples specified for initial, follow-up, of standing time for the sample(s) time is not typical at that NTNCWS and reduced monitoring has been collected from that site. Nothing in the because it is operating 24 hours per day. established to sufficiently account for rule language precludes verification The minimum number of samples for variability of lead and copper at taps inspections by the State. A State initial, follow-up, and reduced while at the same time being reasonable conducting a water system inspection monitoring has been established to for a system to implement. There is also for any purpose can also use that sufficiently account for the variability of some variability in concentrations opportunity to review the sampling plan lead and copper at different taps while across multiple samples from the same that should be available on-site. (Water at the same time being reasonable for a tap collected at different points in time. systems are required to retain all records system to implement. Collecting the EPA believes that absent a sufficient for at least 12 years, as per § 141.91.) required number of samples, but from number of appropriate taps, the States opting to allow systems to fewer sample sites, does not address the variability in lead levels from samples proceed with sampling without variability issue as well, especially if the collected from the same tap at different requesting prior approval from the State system has other taps that are typically times warrants retaining the used and that can be sampled. For these requirement for the minimum number should inform the systems, before the reasons, today’s action retains the of samples to be collected. Water start of the monitoring period, that up- requirement to collect at least the systems with fewer sample taps than front approval is not required. Today’s action also modifies the minimum number of samples specified required should thus contact the State to language at § 141.90(a)(2) 5 in § 141.86(c). discuss an appropriate sampling plan to add the Many of the commenters supporting that would include collecting the corresponding reporting requirement. If the substitution of non-first-draw required number of samples at the the State requires prior State approval, samples did not address the issue of up- available sample taps. the system must provide written front State approval. Commenters who Finally, one commenter noted that documentation to the State identifying did address this issue were mixed in there also are some CWSs (e.g., prisons, sampling times and locations of the their support. While most commenters nursing homes) that have similar non-first-draw samples which the who supported up-front approval did characteristics to NTNCWSs. EPA system proposes to use to complete its not explain why they did so, one agrees. Today’s action therefore also sampling pool prior to sampling. If the commenter suggested that up-front allows special-case CWSs, such as 5 As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the notification and approval may be easier prisons and hospitals, that do not have requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(2) for for States to implement and control. a sufficient number of taps to provide a CWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sampling sites Another commenter supported up-front first-draw samples to sample from taps has been eliminated.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1973

State does not require prior State maintain consistency with the analytical reduced monitoring without any approval, the modified language at methods for other metals. Another restrictions, might be tempted to select § 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to commenter opposed the proposed only those sites that had the lowest identify each site that did not meet the revision on the basis that it would analytical results during the initial 6-hour minimum standing time and the decrease the amount of time available monitoring, thereby skewing the 90th length of standing time for that for sample analysis, thereby increasing percentile calculations downward. particular sample, and submit this the potential for laboratory error (ii) Comments and analysis. In their information at the same time that it resulting in the need to collect comments, some water systems raised submits its lead and copper tap sample additional samples. This commenter concern that States might require them results. apparently interpreted the acidification to select only those sites with the Finally, today’s action makes a holding time as the maximum time that highest analytical results during the conforming revision to the language at can elapse between acidification and initial monitoring, which would skew § 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw analysis. In fact, the acidification the 90th percentile calculation upward. samples collected pursuant to holding time is the minimum time that EPA does not want either of these § 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume must elapse after acidification before the extremes to be used in the selection of and to be collected at an interior tap sample is analyzed. By reducing this sites under reduced monitoring and is from which water is typically drawn for time, EPA believes that, if anything, the therefore revising § 141.86(c) to require consumption. This changed language potential for laboratory error will that the sample sites selected under provides coverage for those NTNCWSs decrease, as the amount of time reduced monitoring be representative of and special-case CWSs that must available for sample analysis will those selected initially. complete their sampling pool with non- increase. Of the 18 comments received, only 1 first-draw samples and is consistent One commenter who supported the commenter directly disagreed with the with the requirement that first-draw revision noted that EPA also needs to proposal. That commenter felt the samples be one liter in volume and be revise the laboratory licensure proposal displayed a lack of trust in drawn from taps that are routinely used requirements in the CFR to reflect this water systems and increased the burden to provide drinking water. change. Laboratory certification on the States. EPA believes that the d. Minimum holding time for acidified requirements are defined in the revised wording in today’s action lead and copper samples prior to ‘‘Manual for the Certification of should not be construed as indicating a analysis. Drinking Water Laboratories’’, not in the lack of trust in all water system (i) Proposed revision and background. CFR. EPA has revised this manual to decisions. The intent of the revised In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA sought conform with the revised holding times wording is to allow most water systems comment on a revision to § 141.86(b)(2) specified at § 141.86(b)(2). to make their own decisions, but to also to make the minimum length of time (iii) Today’s action. Today’s action allow a State the option of specifying that a lead and copper sample must revises the next to last sentence of the sampling sites under reduced stand in the original container after § 141.86(b)(2), as proposed, to read: monitoring, if it believes that a system acidification consistent with the ‘‘After acidification to resolubilize the needs assistance in identifying which of analytical methods for other metals. metals, the sample must stand in the the sample sites in the system’s Rather than explicitly specifying the original container for the time specified sampling pool are truly representative of holding time in subpart I, the proposed in the approved EPA method before the the sampling pool. EPA expects that revision would require these samples to sample can be analyzed.’’ States will allow most water systems to stand in the original container ‘‘for the e. Selection of sample sites under specify reduced monitoring sample site time specified in the approved EPA reduced monitoring. locations without State involvement. method,’’ eliminating the need to revise (i) Proposed revision and background. However, if the State feels the need to the LCR in the future to reflect methods The LCR specifies the number, location, intervene, the Rule now clearly gives changes. The Rule, as promulgated in and timing of samples to be collected for them the authority to do so. 1991, requires that a sample stand in the standard monitoring of lead and copper Three commenters questioned the original container for at least 28 hours at the tap. At a minimum, systems must requirement to draw 50 percent of the after acidification before sample conduct standard monitoring initially tap samples from sites served by a LSL analysis can occur. The analytical and as a follow-up to installing CCT. during reduced monitoring. These method requiring this minimum holding The Rule also allows a reduced number commenters believe that water systems time was revised in 1994 to allow and frequency of samples for certain should be permitted to sample from any laboratories to analyze samples for water systems once corrosion control of the original tap sites during reduced metals other than lead and copper 16 has been optimized. However, the rule monitoring. Two of these commenters hours after acidification, instead of language promulgated in 1991 failed to also believe that for a water system with having to wait 28 hours before this specify which of the previously tested only a few LSLs, the requirement to analysis can occur (59 FR 62456, sampling sites should be included in the collect samples from all of the sites with December 5, 1994). EPA believes the reduced sampling pool. To correct this LSLs will provide a misleading revision to § 141.86(b)(2) relieves omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to characterization of the sampling pool laboratories of the burden to have require reduced monitoring sites to be and the distribution system in general. separate acidification holding times for representative of the sites required for The sampling scheme promulgated in lead and copper and increases the standard monitoring. EPA also proposed 1991 was not established to characterize number of samples that can be analyzed to allow States the discretion to specify lead and copper levels throughout the in a day. which sites a system subject to reduced entire water system. Rather, it was (ii) Comments and analysis. Two monitoring should use if, in the established to ensure that systems commenters had concerns about the judgment of the State, such an action is collect samples from residences most proposed change. One requested warranted. likely to experience elevated levels of clarification as to why the change was EPA proposed this language because lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e., needed. As explained above, EPA of the concern that some water systems, high-risk sites). EPA believes that these believes this revision is appropriate to if allowed to select sample sites under high-risk locations should be accounted

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1974 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations for in a monitoring plan to better ensure f. State determination of eligibility for maintains the range of values for the that high levels of lead are detected and reduced monitoring. WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the that the system institutes treatment that (i) Proposed revision and background. State under § 141.82(f) to reduce the provides uniform and adequate levels of Under the 1991 Rule, systems subject to frequency of monitoring to once per public health protection throughout the water quality parameter monitoring after year or once every three years, entire distribution system. EPA feels the installation of corrosion control respectively, if the system meets the that the reasoning that led to the treatment must explicitly request State other conditions specified in requirement that 50 percent of the tap approval to begin reduced monitoring §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii), samples be drawn from sites served by for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996, respectively, and receives written a LSL during initial monitoring is just EPA proposed to eliminate the notification from the State that it can as valid for reduced monitoring and has requirement for these systems to request reduce the frequency of monitoring. The thus not revised this requirement. In State approval. However, such systems system reporting requirement at addition, just as for initial monitoring, would still be required to receive § 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request systems with LSLs, which do not have written approval from the State before approval for reduced monitoring has enough sample sites with LSLs to reducing the frequency of monitoring. been eliminated. comprise 50 percent of their sampling EPA proposed this provision as a g. Timing of sample collection under pool, must collect samples during burden reduction measure. Since most reduced monitoring. reduced monitoring at as many homes States routinely review eligibility for (i) Proposed revision and background. with LSLs as they have access to. reduced monitoring at the time they The 1991 Rule language required water One commenter thought that EPA’s review monitoring results and notify systems subject to reduced monitoring language in § 141.86(c) could be those systems that have become eligible to conduct that monitoring during the months of June, July, August, and/or interpreted to mean that a water system to reduce monitoring, the requirement September. EPA imposed this is required to collect only one sample in that systems explicitly request the State requirement because the Agency a round of monitoring (although that to determine eligibility is an believed that the highest levels of lead sample would have to represent the unnecessary administrative burden. (ii) Comments and analysis. Most at the tap were most likely to occur required number of sites, possibly by commenters agreed with EPA’s during warm weather months. This being a composite sample or possibly by proposal. Some, however, expressed requirement, however, has had the being taken randomly from one of the concern that systems may become unintended consequence of forcing sites) and suggested a revision to the confused as to what their monitoring seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate wording that would require at least one requirements are; others expressed during the summer months to collect sample be collected from each of the concern that States might not routinely samples during periods that are not number of sites specified. EPA believes provide timely notification unless representative of normal operations. To that the vast majority of water systems prompted by a request from the system. correct this problem, in 1996, EPA have been interpreting EPA’s intent These commenters suggested that EPA proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS correctly and are collecting one sample at least provide States flexibility to that does not operate during the months per site during reduced monitoring. In retain the current requirement. The of June, July, August, or September, to addition, the Agency believes that the Agency does not believe that such collect samples, under reduced commenter’s suggested wording change, flexibility needs to be written into the monitoring, during the system’s that systems conducting reduced rule language. Nothing in the Federal warmest month(s) of operation. monitoring collect at least one sample regulations precludes systems from (ii) Comments and analysis. Most from ‘‘each of the number of sites continuing to request State approval if commenters supported this proposed specified,’’ might confuse those they believe that such a request will revision. A few commenters expressed NTNCWSs that have fewer sites (i.e., ensure timely State notification. concern, however, that it would be faucets) available than the number of Some commenters also raised the difficult to determine alternate samples they are required to collect in question of whether the proposed ‘‘warmest month(s) of operation’’ or that a monitoring period. Those systems change effectively reduces burden or the revised requirement would create a must collect multiple samples from merely shifts it from the system to the hardship for laboratories by forcing all some sites in order to collect the State. The Agency believes that this monitoring into a single month. These required number of samples. The provision will reduce burden. EPA commenters suggested that EPA give commenter’s wording could be estimates that the current requirement States the authority to designate the interpreted to mean that the system imposes both a system burden alternative month(s) of sampling or need only collect as many samples as (requesting approval for reduced retain the current requirements. Two there are sample sites. Since this is not monitoring) and a State burden commenters stated their belief that there EPA’s intent, the wording has not been (reviewing the request and relevant is no justification for requiring any revised as suggested by the commenter. monitoring and treatment data and system to limit reduced monitoring to (iii) Today’s action. For the reasons providing written notification to the warm weather months and suggested discussed above, EPA has revised the system). The Agency estimates that the EPA remove this requirement across the wording of § 141.86(c), as proposed, to system burden will be eliminated with board. clarify that the reduced monitoring sites the revised provision and that no EPA has reviewed recently published must be representative of the sites increase in State burden will occur data and analyses pertaining to the required for standard monitoring and to because the State will determine a effect of temperature on lead and copper give States discretionary authority to system’s eligibility for reduced leaching. The Agency provided notice of specify the reduced monitoring sites. A monitoring as part of its routine the availability of these data and corresponding State recordkeeping determination of compliance with the requested public comment in the April requirement, to maintain records LCR monitoring requirements. 1998 Notice on a regulatory option that pertaining to any State designations of (iii) Today’s action. Sections would allow systems conducting reduced monitoring sites, has been 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii) have been reduced tap water monitoring for lead added as § 142.14(d)(8)(xii). revised to allow any water system that and copper to collect samples during

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1975 months of normal operation when lead monitoring schedule, that want to take of sampling. Systems on a triennial levels are likely to be the highest, or as advantage of the greater flexibility in the schedule must collect their first round otherwise designated by the State. revised regulation. Most of the of samples during the alternate months Although there is no definitive data, commenters who addressed this during a time period that ends no later there are several factors which might question strongly supported including than 45 months after the previous round explain why metal levels could provisions for a transition period in the of sampling. Thereafter, these systems frequently be higher in cold weather rule language. EPA agrees that it is must revert to an annual or triennial months, various combinations of which appropriate to define a transition schedule based on the alternate months may be simultaneously present in a period. It is not the Agency’s intent that of sampling. given water system. These factors systems already on reduced monitoring This transition period allows systems include: be locked into the months of June conducting annual or triennial • The intrinsic net solubility of many through September for sample monitoring an extra nine months in minerals, especially carbonates, collection. Nor is it the Agency’s intent which to make the transition without increases as the temperature decreases. that such systems be penalized by being sampling significantly early or incurring • Corrosion inhibitors, especially forced into scheduling a subsequent a monitoring and reporting violation. orthophosphate, may react more slowly round of monitoring significantly earlier For systems transitioning to an alternate at lower temperatures, so passivating than otherwise would be necessary just sampling period that includes the film formation is less effective in colder to change the allowable months for period of March, April, or May, EPA water. sample collection. EPA has therefore believes it is not unreasonable that the • Corrosion inhibitors and other included provisions for a transition first round of samples under the treatment chemicals may be more period in today’s action. alternate months be collected slightly viscous at lower temperatures. (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised earlier than would otherwise be Therefore, the chemical feed rates may the language of § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to required. For similar reasons, the be lower when cold. require that systems subject to reduced Agency does not believe it is necessary • Many pipes are near heating monitoring collect samples during the to specify a transition period for small systems, and in the winter the operation months of June, July, August, or water systems with monitoring waivers of the heating systems causes the pipes September unless the State has granted under § 141.86(g). The revised to be hotter. Plus, the change in approved a different sampling period. § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that temperature could also disrupt the The alternate sampling period must be the first round of monitoring using the existing protective films in the pipes no longer than four consecutive months alternate months be completed within 9 built up over the earlier months of more and represent a time of normal years of the previous round of stable temperatures. operation where the highest levels of monitoring for systems with waivers. • Dissolved oxygen levels are often lead are most likely to occur. EPA Finally, today’s action makes two higher in colder waters, resulting in recognizes that in many cases it will be conforming changes to Part 142. EPA increased concentrations of oxidants difficult to predict when the highest has added a State recordkeeping (e.g., oxygen, free chlorine, chloramines) lead values might occur given a system’s requirement at § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii). in the water. This causes more rapid water chemistry coupled with other States must maintain records pertaining increases in metal levels through influencing physical factors. There may to any system-specific determinations to enhanced oxidation during short be instances, however, where alternative sample collection periods for standing times (less than 16 hours). monitoring data from similar systems or systems subject to reduced monitoring. Only one commenter opposed such a prior monitoring or survey experience at EPA also has added a special primacy revision, on the basis that such a change a particular system is available to the condition at § 141.16(d)(4) for States to might be disruptive to utilities and States that would suggest when the most describe how they plan to determine the laboratories. EPA disagrees. Since the appropriate monitoring time(s) will months when the lead levels are likely revised language allows States to retain occur. If the State is unable to identify to be the highest at community water the requirement to conduct reduced an alternate monitoring period for a systems subject to reduced monitoring monitoring during the months of June system where the highest levels of lead where tap water lead and copper through September, the Agency believes are most likely to occur, then the system samples will be collected in months the regulatory language provides must continue monitoring during the other than June, July, August and/or sufficient flexibility to accommodate the months of June, July, August, or September. scheduling issues raised by the September. However, if the system is a h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for commenter. NTNCWS that does not operate during lead and copper at the tap. Based on a review of the current the months of June through September, (i) Proposed revision and background. science and comments received in the final rule allows these systems to Under the provisions of response to the April 1996 Proposal and monitor during a period designated by § 141.86(d)(4)(iii), a small or medium- the April 1998 Notice, EPA believes that the State that represents a time of size water system may reduce the the requirement to limit reduced normal operation for the system. frequency of lead and copper tap water monitoring to warm weather months is For systems already on reduced monitoring to once every three years if no longer justified. Today’s action monitoring that have been collecting it does not exceed either action level therefore revises § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to samples during the June through during three consecutive years of annual provide States some flexibility to September time frame, the revision to monitoring. The regulations also allow specify an alternative time for the § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) specifies the deadline any water system that maintains the collection of samples under reduced for completing the first round of range of values for the water quality monitoring. monitoring using the alternate period. control parameters reflecting OCCT In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also Systems on an annual monitoring specified by the State during three requested public comment on the need schedule must collect their first round consecutive years of monitoring to for the rule language to explicitly allow of samples during the alternate months reduce the frequency of lead and copper a transition period for those water during a time period that ends no later tap water monitoring to once every three systems, already on a reduced than 21 months after the previous round years, if approved by the State. In the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help those levels most protective of public percentile lead and copper levels meet water systems avoid significant health. This is explained as follows. The the criteria for accelerated reduced unnecessary monitoring costs and MCLG is the level at which no known monitoring after conducting the minimize the inconvenience to or anticipated adverse effect on the required two rounds of follow-up homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA health of persons would occur and sampling subsequent to the installation proposed that systems with very low which allows an adequate margin of of OCCT. It will also be available for levels of lead and copper at the tap safety. EPA must regulate contaminants systems that are triggered into a new set during two consecutive six-month in drinking water to a level as close to of two six-month rounds of full tap rounds of monitoring be allowed to the MCLG as is feasible. The action level sampling due to changes in treatment or immediately reduce the frequency of for copper is set at the MCLG of 1.3 mg/ source water. For these reasons, the lead and copper tap water monitoring to L, thus there is no health concern at Agency still believes it is appropriate to once every three calendar years without copper levels equal to the action level add provisions for accelerated reduced having to conduct the required rounds or, subsequently, at one-half the action monitoring to the LCR. of annual monitoring first. In the level (0.65 mg/L). In addition, EPA (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring proposal, the thresholds for ‘‘very low believes that it is highly unlikely that a for only one contaminant. Two levels of lead and copper at the tap’’ water system having a 90th percentile commenters suggested that States be were defined as ‘‘less than or equal to copper level equal to one-half the action given the option to authorize the PQL for lead specified in level might exceed the copper action accelerated reduced monitoring for § 141.89(a)(1)(ii),’’ which is 0.005 mg/L, level during subsequent monitoring. In either lead or copper if a system is only and ‘‘less than or equal to one-half the contrast to copper, the action level for able to meet the 90th percentile copper action level specified in lead is set at 0.015 mg/L, which is threshold for one of the contaminants § 141.80(c)(2),’’ which is 0.65 mg/L. higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it but not the other. While EPA wishes to (ii) Comments and analysis. While is unreasonable to expect that most reduce monitoring burdens where one commenter specifically disagreed systems can achieve a 90th percentile possible, EPA meant for this provision with the proposal, the vast majority of lead level of zero, EPA established a to be applicable only to those systems commenters either agreed fully or lead action level which the Agency where there is little likelihood of agreed while raising one or more of the believes is achievable and sufficiently discovering elevated levels of either issues which EPA is addressing below. protective of public health. However, lead or copper at the tap during (A) Using the PQL as the lead because there are health concerns for subsequent monitoring periods. EPA threshold. A number of commenters any lead level above zero, EPA believes believes that there is less of a risk that suggested that it is inconsistent to use that setting the threshold level for lead there may be an undetected problem if the PQL as the threshold for lead while for accelerated reduced monitoring at both lead and copper levels are below using one-half the action level as the the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more protective the threshold levels than if only one of threshold for copper. Some commenters of public health than setting the level at the contaminant levels is less than the suggested that using the PQL for lead is one-half the lead action level (0.0075 threshold level and that there is more too restrictive and that one-half the lead mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it uncertainty in the case where one of the action level should be used instead. In is less likely that a system whose 90th contaminant levels is higher than the the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal, percentile lead level is equal to or less threshold level. To avoid this potential EPA indicated that accelerated reduced than the PQL would exceed the lead risk, the Agency has decided to not monitoring would apply only to those action level during a subsequent round allow accelerated reduced monitoring systems whose 90th percentile lead and of monitoring than it is for a system for one contaminant when the other copper levels fall significantly below the whose 90th percentile lead level is one- contaminant has a 90th percentile level lead and copper action levels during half the action level. above the specified threshold level. two consecutive six-month monitoring A few commenters expressed concern (D) Monitoring less frequently than periods. The Agency’s intent was to that the PQL is hard to measure triennially. Another commenter allow for a burden reduction but still accurately and therefore should not be suggested changing the frequency of provide adequate public health used as a threshold. EPA disagrees. reduced monitoring to once every nine protection. Because of the high degree of Performance evaluation (PE) studies years (provided that there is no change variability in lead and copper levels at have confirmed that at least 75 percent in treatment or new source introduced) household taps, EPA believes it is of EPA, State, and commercial and suggested that this would be important to establish criteria that laboratories can analyze lead at 0.005 consistent with the ‘‘reliably and minimize the risk of allowing systems mg/L within ±30%. EPA believes that consistently’’ waivers allowed under the that may have elevated levels of lead or specifying the PQL for lead as the Phase II and Phase V rules. The age copper at the tap during subsequent threshold for identifying very low levels range for the population at risk for lead monitoring periods to be eligible for is appropriate on the basis of laboratory is prenatal up to about six years of age. accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA capability. For systems that contain lead and believes that the criteria that minimize (B) Usefulness of proposed provision. copper materials, a nine-year risk are the PQL for lead and one-half Several commenters, including the monitoring cycle would allow large the action level for copper. commenter who specifically disagreed groups of the sensitive subpopulations EPA disagrees with those commenters with the proposal, mentioned that it is to be exposed to water that was never who believe there is an inconsistency too late for this provision to have any tested during their highest risk years. between using the PQL for lead and one- effect for existing systems. EPA agrees EPA believes it is inappropriate to half the action level for copper when that this provision will be of no benefit reduce the monitoring to a frequency consideration is given to the to those systems that are already where some children would not receive relationship between the action level conducting monitoring on a triennial the benefit of such monitoring. The and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies basis. This provision may benefit new Agency considers a 9-year monitoring in the fact that the minimized risk levels systems, however, in addition to those cycle appropriate only for systems that (i.e., the threshold levels for allowing water systems that are in the process of have no lead or copper materials present accelerated reduced monitoring) are installing CCT and whose 90th and that meet the criteria for a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1977 monitoring waiver pursuant to j. Requirements for systems subject to monitoring that either adds a new § 141.86(g). reduced monitoring that change source of water or changes any water (E) Prior State approval. One treatment or source water. treatment to inform the State in writing commenter suggested that written (i) Proposed revision and background. no later than 60 days after making the approval by the State should be required In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA change or addition, unless the State before a system is permitted to requested comment on a provision that requires earlier notification. The State accelerate reduced monitoring. would require water systems operating has the authority to require the system Elsewhere in § 141.86(d), written under reduced monitoring to report any to take appropriate steps to ensure that authorization by the State to reduce lead changes in treatment or changes in optimal treatment is maintained. The and copper tap monitoring is required source water to the State within 60 days. corresponding system reporting only when the basis for the reduction is If the State believes the change merits requirements have been added as a new compliance with optimal water quality additional monitoring, the State may § 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State control parameters for two consecutive require the system to resume standard recordkeeping requirements have been 6-month monitoring periods or three monitoring, increase WQP monitoring, included as a part of the consecutive years. Those cases are more or re-evaluate its corrosion control and/ § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) provisions. complex and require greater State or source water treatment given the k. Sample invalidation. oversight. The basis for a system being potentially different water quality (i) Proposed revision and background. able to accelerate reduced monitoring is considerations. EPA proposed this The April 1996 Proposal included straightforward and EPA does not requirement to help ensure that timely provisions which defined four believe it is necessary to mandate prior and appropriate action is taken to conditions under which States could State approval in this case. Nothing in maintain optimal corrosion control invalidate tap water lead and copper the rule language, however, prevents a when events occur that could samples: State from requiring such approval. significantly affect water quality. • If the laboratory establishes that (iii) Today’s action. After careful (ii) Comments and analysis. Most improper sample analysis caused consideration of all comments commenters supported the proposed erroneous results; pertaining to this issue, EPA has change. Several commenters thought the • If the State determines that the decided to promulgate the provisions proposed rule was too general and sample was taken from a site that does for accelerated reduced monitoring as should include more information not meet the site selection criteria of proposed in April 1996. EPA is adding describing a reportable treatment § 141.86; these provisions to § 141.86(d)(4) by change. These commenters provided • If the sample container is damaged redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as language to limit reportable treatment in transit; or (d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph changes to those that affect the WQPs or • If the State has substantial reason to (d)(4)(v). This new paragraph allows any interfere with the efficacy of the believe that the sample was subject to water system that demonstrates for two corrosion control strategy. EPA tampering. consecutive six-month monitoring disagrees with these commenters. EPA The proposed provisions also periods that the 90th percentile lead does not believe that all systems specified documentation requirements level is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/ understand the potential impacts of and provided a window for replacement L and the 90th percentile copper level other treatments on corrosivity and, samples to be taken, if needed, to avoid is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to thus, is requiring that systems report all a monitoring and reporting violation. reduce the frequency of sampling to treatment changes to the State to avoid EPA believes sample invalidation under once every three calendar years. situations where systems could any of the above-mentioned conditions i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead potentially overlook factors that is appropriate to avoid the use of sample and copper tap water monitoring. As influence corrosivity. The State will results that may not represent the tap discussed in section C.2.b. of this then review the treatment change and water levels of lead and copper taken preamble, today’s action contains a determine if additional monitoring or from the water system’s high risk sites. conforming change to the requirements other action is necessary. EPA does (ii) Comments and analysis. Several of the newly designated agree, however, that it should not be States, PWSs, and water utility trade § 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system necessary for the system to notify the associations commented on the subject to reduced monitoring that also State every time the system makes proposed sample invalidation is subject to the WQP monitoring changes among approved sources of provisions. None of the commenters requirements of § 141.87(d) or (e) loses water. For this reason, today’s action objected to the four conditions its eligibility for reduced monitoring for limits the reportable source water proposed; however, several advocated lead and copper at the tap (until such changes to those involving the addition providing States even more flexibility time when it may again qualify) if it of a new source of water. fails to meet the compliance The only other major concern relayed than proposed. A few commenters, for requirements of § 141.82(g). Today’s by commenters is that some believe that example, recommended that EPA allow action also corrects an error in this water systems may be required to States to invalidate any samples they paragraph. The first sentence has been conduct unnecessary monitoring every believe are inappropriate. Other corrected to read: ‘‘A small or medium- time treatment is changed. EPA has commenters suggested adding a fifth size water system * * * shall resume addressed this issue in section C.1.c. of condition, such as allowing for sample sampling in accordance with paragraph today’s preamble as a part of the invalidation when improper sample (d)(3) of this section and collect the discussion pertaining to water systems collection procedures are used or when number of samples specified for deemed to have optimized corrosion the water has been standing in the pipes standard monitoring under paragraph control in accordance with for longer than the six-hour standing (c) of this section.’’ The paragraph § 141.81(b)(3). time required by the Rule. EPA believes previously read: ‘‘ * * * collect the (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised 6 As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the number of samples specified for the LCR by adding a provision at requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(3), standard monitoring under paragraph § 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water for a NTNCWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sites, (d) of this section.’’ system subject to reduced tap has been eliminated.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations that the conditions proposed in April four circumstances, described above, invest limited resources on frequent 1996 will allow sufficient flexibility to under which the State may invalidate a monitoring where sources of lead and ensure that samples can be invalidated sample. A water system requesting copper contamination appear to be non- where appropriate. Sample invalidation sample invalidation must submit existent. provisions are not intended to replace appropriate documentation to the State (ii) Comments and analysis. While all the need for proper guidance in the along with the results of all samples commenters supported this monitoring collection of samples. The Agency collected, pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2). The waiver concept, many commenters took believes that proper education is a more requirement for States to document all issue with how § 141.86(g) and the appropriate method to address incorrect decisions in writing and provide the preamble were worded. Section sample collection procedures. rationale for the decision is contained in 141.86(g) has been reworded in today’s Although the 1996 Proposal did not § 141.86(f)(3). This paragraph also action to address these comments. address the provision that prohibits a prohibits States from invalidating a These changes should remove the system from challenging the results of sample solely because a follow-up ambiguity of the proposed rule and samples collected by residents, several sample has a higher or lower clarify requirements that were unclear commenters objected to its retention. concentration than the original sample. in the proposal. The major comments Those comments are outside the scope Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any received are discussed below. of this rulemaking because EPA did not replacement samples for samples (A) Materials specification. reopen that provision in the 1991 Rule invalidated pursuant to § 141.86(f) be Commenters raised several concerns or otherwise solicit comment on that taken as soon as possible, either within with the language that addressed the provision. 20 days of the date the State invalidates materials requirements. Several of these One commenter requested that EPA the sample or by the end of the commenters objected to the use of the clarify the rule language to specify that applicable monitoring period, terminology ‘‘all plastic system.’’ These only one of the four conditions needs to whichever is later. Replacement commenters felt that EPA’s use of such be met for a sample to be invalidated. samples are necessary only in those terminology would send a message that EPA agrees that clarification would be instances where there otherwise would EPA considers other plumbing materials useful and has made this correction in be too few samples, due to the unacceptable. They pointed out that today’s action. Another commenter invalidation of one or more of the there are other plumbing materials that recommended that systems be allowed original samples, to meet minimum pose no concern from the standpoint of to proceed with follow-up samples and sampling requirements. Replacement then submit all results including follow- lead and copper contamination and samples taken after the end of the identified the many benefits of metallic up results with detailed documentation applicable monitoring period may not to the request for sample invalidation. plumbing, including copper pipes. One also be used to meet the monitoring commenter noted that copper from The Agency believes States have requirements of a subsequent copper pipes contributes to meeting the sufficient flexibility to decide whether monitoring period. This paragraph also essential nutrient requirements for to allow this without expressly adding requires that any replacement sample be humans. Commenters also noted that this provision to the Rule. EPA also taken at the same location as the many manufacturers of brass and bronze encourages water systems to collect invalidated sample or, if that is not fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint more than the minimum number of possible, then at a location other than devices) are attempting to meet the required samples to minimize the need one already used for sampling during standard established by National to collect replacement samples in the the monitoring period. first place. Today’s action also includes a Sanitation Foundation (NSF) The preamble to the April 1996 revision to the system reporting International for lead leaching for Proposal stated the Agency’s intent that requirements in § 141.90. As proposed, faucets and other drinking water States be prohibited from invalidating a EPA is adding the requirement for a plumbing components that contain low sample solely on the grounds that the system requesting sample invalidation levels of lead or are completely free of lead or copper concentration found in a to submit the appropriate lead-containing materials. follow-up sample is higher or lower documentation to the State at EPA, in utilizing the terminology ‘‘all than the lead or copper concentration § 141.90(a)(1)(ii). Corresponding State plastic system,’’ did not intend to found in the original sample. EPA recordkeeping requirements have been advocate the use of one particular type inadvertently omitted this prohibition added at § 142.14(d)(10)(iii). of plumbing over any other. The in the proposed rule language for l. Monitoring waivers for small proposed rule used the phrase ‘‘all § 141.86(f)(3). Although a few systems. plastic system’’ as short-hand for commenters objected to this prohibition, (i) Proposed revision and background. systems that are free of lead-containing the Agency believes it is appropriate. A The April 1996 Proposal included a new and copper-containing materials that number of factors may cause the levels provision at § 141.86(g) that would have the potential to adversely affect of lead and copper at the tap to vary at allow States to grant monitoring waivers levels of lead and copper at the tap. The times and the existence of an elevated to small systems that satisfy specific Agency recognizes the benefits of many result may be an indicator that 90th percentile lead and copper levels different types of plumbing materials. additional treatment is warranted. The and meet certain materials EPA recognizes the confusion that the mere fact that the level in the follow-up requirements. The intent of the ‘‘all plastic system’’ terminology has sample has changed would not alone be proposed provision was to provide caused and agrees that the wording in an indicator that the sample is invalid, monitoring relief to small systems that the proposal could be interpreted to especially because lead levels can be so provide substantive documentation or preclude the granting of a waiver to a variable at the tap. EPA has therefore equivalent evidence that they are free of water system even if none of the inserted this language in the final rule. sources of lead and copper buildings connected to the system have (iii) Today’s action. EPA is contamination. EPA believes that any ‘‘lead-containing’’ or ‘‘copper- promulgating sample invalidation monitoring relief is appropriate for these containing’’ materials. EPA has dropped provisions, as proposed, in a new systems because there is no value in the use of the ‘‘all plastic system’’ § 141.86(f). Section 141.86(f)(1) defines requiring States and water systems to terminology in today’s action.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1979

The language in today’s action is dispensers, drinking fountains, water apply for a waiver once it had specific as to what materials are coolers, glass fillers, residential completed one six-month round of considered lead-containing and copper- refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and standard tap monitoring for lead and containing. Lead-containing materials endpoint control valves. Today’s action copper subsequent to becoming free of include: Plastic pipes and service lines does not incorporate specific reference materials containing lead and copper. which contain lead plasticizers; lead to the NSF standard, however, in case To qualify for the waiver, the system’s service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered other standards that meet the 90th percentile lead and copper levels pipe joints; and leaded brass or bronze requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d) could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or alloy fittings and fixtures that do not and (e) are established in the future. 0.65 mg/L for copper. Systems with meet the specifications of any lead- Notification of additional third-party waivers would be required to complete leaching standard established pursuant standards that meet these specifications at least one round of monitoring, at the to section 1417(e) of the SDWA will be published in future Federal reduced number of sites specified in Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g– Registers as appropriate. § 141.86(c) at least once every nine 6(e)). While the proposed rule did not The rule language remains silent on years. specify the exclusion of plastic pipes the materials composition of in-line One commenter requested that the and service lines which contain lead devices, such as valves and meters. EPA language be modified to require ‘‘at plasticizers, this exclusion can be has no data that suggest that in-line least’’ one six-month round of standard inferred from the proposed regulatory devices will contribute lead or copper at tap water monitoring to provide States language since this kind of plastic pipe levels that will leach these materials in some flexibility and authority to require is a ‘‘lead-containing material.’’ 7 The excess of the action levels. Thus, water additional testing if the State believes language pertaining to plastic pipes and systems with in-line devices containing these additional data are needed to service lines which contain lead lead or copper components may apply make the waiver decision. EPA agrees plasticizers has been added to the final for a waiver, if they meet the other that this is appropriate and has rule for the purpose of clarification. eligibility requirements. incorporated this modification into Copper-containing materials include Some commenters pointed out that today’s action. copper pipes and copper service lines. the language in the proposed rule could A few commenters questioned the EPA agrees that copper in drinking preclude the issuance of any monitoring rationale for establishing the lead PQL water can contribute to meeting dietary waivers because it would have required (0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for requirements. However, humans have that all ‘‘buildings’’ (rather than waiver eligibility and suggested that the limited tolerance to copper. Although ‘‘plumbing’’) connected to the system be threshold be set at one-half the action low levels of exposure (below the free of materials containing lead and level, as proposed for copper. EPA does MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels, copper. Commenters interpreted this to not believe that setting the lead especially when present in water or mean that water systems with buildings threshold for waivers at one-half the containing materials such as copper lead action level is as protective of beverages, can cause nausea, vomiting 8 and/or diarrhea. The MCLG for copper wiring, brass screws, or any copper- public health as setting it at the PQL. in potable water was established to containing or lead-containing materials In addition, since systems receiving a protect humans from these adverse in building wastewater systems, would monitoring waiver will be required to effects. Thus, because changing be ineligible to receive a waiver. monitor lead and copper levels only Today’s action clarifies that the circumstances at systems with copper- once every 9 years, the Agency believes materials requirement applies only to it is essential to minimize the risk that containing materials could result in the drinking water distribution or these systems will have elevated levels copper levels above the MCLG, EPA service lines and the drinking water of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower believes it would be inappropriate to supply plumbing (including plumbing 90th percentile lead level for allowing allow such systems to monitor for conveying drinking water within all waivers will help to minimize this risk. copper less frequently than once every residences and buildings connected to Today’s action, therefore, retains using three years. Today’s action does not preclude the system). the lead PQL, for determining if a Other commenters suggested that only small water systems with leaded brass system may qualify for a waiver. a limited number of CWSs would be Another commenter disagreed with or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that able to qualify for a waiver, either setting the lead level for States to meet the ‘‘lead free’’ criteria defined because it would be difficult for most consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because, under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the water systems to identify all the under this requirement, source water SDWA from qualifying for a monitoring plumbing materials used in all buildings with lead levels at or slightly above this waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA or because few water systems, when level could exclude a system from published a Federal Register Notice examining all the buildings connected qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9, to the water system, would actually be that if a system’s 90th percentile lead as meeting the requirements for a able to meet the materials requirement. level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR EPA recognizes that it may be quite what the reason, tap water lead levels 44686). This standard, developed with difficult for CWSs to identify all the should not go unchecked for as long as the assistance of EPA, the plumbing plumbing materials used in all buildings nine years. industry, numerous State and local connected to the system and that it is One commenter suggested that EPA regulatory officials, water utilities, possible that very few systems may be rethink and expand the waiver option independent health consultants, and the able to meet the materials requirement. included in the April 1996 Proposal to academic community covers endpoint The Agency believes that some systems allow any system that ‘‘reliably and devices including kitchen and bar will qualify, however, and is including consistently’’ meets the action levels for faucets, lavatory faucets, water the waiver provisions in today’s action 8 Section C.5.h. of this preamble provides EPA’s 7 to benefit those systems. Information regarding the suitability of different (B) Monitoring issues. Under the rationale for utilizing the PQL for lead instead of plastic materials may be obtained by investigating one-half the action level when establishing a compliance with third-party standards such as NSF provisions proposed in 1996, a system threshold lead level for implementing accelerated Standard 61. meeting the materials criteria could reduced monitoring.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations lead and copper to reduce its containing faucets used within the (C) Changes potentially affecting monitoring to once every nine years. homes and buildings served by this new monitoring waivers. The April 1996 The commenter also pointed out that public water supply. Many faucets proposed rule language included a this concept would tie in to most of the purchased in the last ten years, although requirement for a water system subject existing State waiver programs. The labeled ‘‘lead free,’’ may contain up to to a monitoring waiver to notify the Agency believes that a ‘‘reliably and 8 percent lead, which had been allowed State within 60 days of the addition of consistently’’ waiver is appropriate for under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act a new source of water or any change in many inorganic and organic Amendments, and thus may leach high water treatment. EPA proposed to give contaminants regulated under the Phase levels of lead. Prior to August 6, 1998, the State discretion to require additional II and Phase V rules because source States may have approved the use of the monitoring or other appropriate action, water levels of these contaminants are aforementioned ‘‘lead-free’’ faucets if the State believes such action is not highly variable. Lead and copper (although they may have required warranted in these cases, to ensure that levels, which are measured at the tap, warning labels on these faucets). low levels of tap water lead and copper can be highly variable. Tap water lead In addition, all States allow the use of are maintained. The proposed language and copper levels can vary from day to copper pipes in distribution systems also required a water system to revert to day and even hour to hour at the same and/or interior building plumbing. New monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) if, sample site. Because of this high copper pipes frequently leach high as a result of new construction or variability, EPA does not believe a levels of copper until the pipes stabilize. repairs, the system could no longer waiver program based solely on lead Additionally, copper in source water certify it was free of lead-containing and and copper analytical values is can still be a concern in systems with copper-containing materials. Finally, sufficiently protective of public health no lead in the source water. While the the proposed language would have because there is a risk that such an 1996 SDWA Amendments require all given States the discretion to require a approach would allow a system with an faucets introduced into commerce after system to revert to more frequent undetected lead or copper problem to August 6, 1998, to meet the monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(3) or reduce monitoring to a point where the specifications of an approved lead- (4) and/or to take other appropriate population most at risk (children) leaching standard which will lessen the action if the system’s 90th percentile would not receive the benefit of such amount of lead that can leach from a lead levels exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or monitoring if it occurred only once tap, there is still the potential for some the 90th percentile copper levels every nine years. The Agency has lead to leach from some taps. With this exceeded 0.65 mg/L during a therefore coupled very low tap water continued potential for lead leaching, subsequent round of monitoring. No lead and copper levels with the copper leaching, and copper in source commenters addressed these provisions materials criteria to further reduce this water, EPA disagrees with the specifically; however, upon further risk. commenter’s contention that there is consideration, the Agency believes a A few other commenters proposed little reason for conducting lead and few modifications to these provisions that a system not be required to monitor copper monitoring if new systems are are appropriate. at all once it meets the materials properly installed under State The requirement for a water system requirements and demonstrates that its specification and approval, if approved subject to a monitoring waiver to notify 90th percentile lead level is less than or plumbing materials are used, and if the State if the system adds a new equal to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th there is no lead in the source water. percentile copper level is less than or EPA also disagrees with the source of water or makes a change in equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not commenter’s statement that the standard water treatment has been revised incorporated this suggestion into the number of sample sites is excessive for slightly to keep it consistent with the final rule. The Agency believes that the new systems. Such systems have yet to comparable requirement for (b)(3) risks from ingesting copper and lead are confirm that their water supply is systems and other systems subject to too much of a health hazard to totally minimally corrosive. The number of reduced monitoring. Today’s action ignore. Tap water monitoring (even if samples required for initial monitoring clarifies that the notification must occur conducted only once every nine years) was established to sufficiently account no later than 60 days after the change is could point out use of lead-containing for variability of lead and copper at taps made, unless the State requires earlier plumbing fixtures or copper pipes that while at the same time being reasonable notification. The LCR does not require have been installed unbeknownst to the for a system to implement. Assuming prior State approval of these changes; system owner/operator in the years these systems do not otherwise qualify however, it may be required by other following receipt of a waiver. for a monitoring waiver, if testing does drinking water regulations or by the One commenter stated that if new confirm that these new systems are very State. In those cases where prior State systems are properly installed under low in lead and copper (i.e., the approval is not required, EPA State specification and approval, if system’s 90th percentile lead level is nevertheless encourages water systems approved plumbing materials are used, less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the to notify the State before making the and if there is no lead in the source system’s 90th percentile copper level is change to minimize the risk that the water, there is little reason for less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during change will result in unanticipated conducting lead and copper monitoring. two consecutive six-month monitoring adverse effects on tap water lead and The commenter also stated that the periods, today’s action allows these copper levels. Today’s action does not standard number of sites to be sampled systems to reduce sampling to once prescribe that additional tap water is excessive for these systems even if every three years and allows systems monitoring for lead and copper occur as some confirmatory monitoring is that collected 10 samples or more a part of these changes; however, States performed. during initial monitoring to reduce the have the authority to require additional EPA believes that monitoring for lead number of sample sites by half.9 round(s) of monitoring and/or other and copper is still necessary in these appropriate action, if the State thinks circumstances. Even if a system is 9 See section C.5.h. in this preamble for such action(s) are warranted to ensure ‘‘properly installed,’’ the water may be discussion pertaining to ‘‘accelerated reduced that the water system continues to meet corrosive to copper pipes and lead- monitoring.’’ waiver eligibility criteria.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1981

Today’s action also clarifies that a system could meet the copper-related system. EPA has incorporated these water system that becomes aware that it waiver criteria. Similarly, a lead waiver provisions into today’s action. can no longer certify that it is free of should be available to those systems In some cases, however, States may lead-containing or copper-containing that meet the waiver criteria with have issued waivers without requiring materials must notify the State within respect to lead but not with respect to any prior tap water lead and copper 60 days of becoming aware of this copper. These commenters suggested monitoring. Although such waivers situation. Such systems no longer are that this would allow additional were not precluded by the 1995 eligible for a monitoring waiver. reductions in monitoring and reporting guidance memo, they are inconsistent Likewise, a system loses its waiver for such systems and would allow the with the provisions of today’s action eligibility if it has a 90th percentile lead States to focus more of their limited that make clear the requirement that all level greater than 0.005 mg/L or a 90th resources elsewhere. EPA has community and non-transient non- percentile copper level greater than 0.65 considered these suggestions. While the community water systems conduct some mg/L subsequent to receiving the Agency questions whether such monitoring to verify that they do not waiver. Assuming a system that loses its provisions will significantly reduce have undetected lead or copper waiver eligibility has not exceeded burden, today’s action gives States the problems. Today’s action, therefore, either action level, it must revert to a discretion to grant a waiver for either requires water systems with waivers triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such lead or copper, if the system meets all issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have systems may be able to take action to the criteria relevant to that contaminant. not conducted at least one round of tap identify and remove source(s) of lead The Agency is adding this provision water monitoring consistent with the and/or copper before they are due to because some water systems, if granted requirements of § 141.86(g)(2) to collect samples again and may reapply a waiver for either lead or copper, complete a round of monitoring for a waiver. Systems exceeding an although still required to collect tap pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) no later than action level, however, must begin water samples every three years (or September 30, 2000. Assuming such a implementation of CCT in accordance more often) for the non-waived system continues to meet the waiver with the deadlines in § 141.81(e). EPA contaminant, may be able to benefit eligibility criteria, the next round of believes these rule language from reduced analytical costs due to the monitoring under the waiver would be modifications are consistent with the fact that the tap water samples will only due no later than nine years later. intent of the monitoring waiver program have to be analyzed for one of the (iii) Today’s action. After considering which only allows a system to monitor contaminants in two of the three the comments received and other factors once every nine years if it can provide monitoring periods (assuming the non- as discussed above, today’s action an acceptable materials certification and waived contaminant is on a triennial includes new provisions at § 141.86(g) demonstrate acceptable 90th percentile schedule) that constitute the nine-year that allow States to grant monitoring lead and copper levels. waiver period. waivers to small water systems if (D) Waiver renewals. The proposed On the other hand, the Agency also specified conditions are met. In order to rule language neglected to specifically recognizes that the issuance of partial qualify for a full waiver, a small water address what happens with a waiver if waivers may add administrative burden system must meet all of the materials the system continues to satisfy the to States who would now be required to criteria specified in § 141.86(g)(1) and waiver requirements. Some commenters track additional monitoring schedules. the monitoring criteria specified in suggested that systems be required to re- For this reason, EPA is leaving the § 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the system certify periodically that they remain free decision whether, or not, to issue partial must certify, with appropriate of lead-containing and copper- waivers up to the State. supporting documentation, that the containing materials. EPA agrees that (F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware distribution system and service lines periodic re-certification is appropriate that several States already may have and all drinking water supply plumbing, and has therefore included a issued monitoring waivers for small including plumbing conveying drinking requirement in today’s action for the systems based on guidance provided to water within all residences and water system to submit the re- the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). buildings connected to the system, are certification every nine years, along In some cases, the State’s free of lead-containing and copper- with its lead and copper tap water implementation of waiver provisions is containing materials. A system is results and 90th percentile calculations. very similar to those contained in considered to be free of lead-containing States may require re-certification today’s rule. That is, in addition to materials if it contains no plastic pipes sooner, for example, if the system adds requiring that the system demonstrate it with lead plasticizers or plastic service a new source of water, modifies water is free of lead-containing and copper- lines with lead plasticizers and if it is treatment, or undergoes new containing materials, the State required free of lead service lines, lead pipes, construction. Any system that loses that the system demonstrate, through at lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded eligibility for a monitoring waiver must least one round of standard tap water brass or bronze fittings and fixtures, revert to more frequent monitoring and/ monitoring, that the 90th percentile lead unless such fittings and fixtures meet or implement CCT as discussed above. level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and the specifications of any lead-leaching (E) Partial waivers. A few commenters the 90th percentile copper level does standard established pursuant to 42 suggested that a copper waiver should not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section be available to those systems that are monitoring waivers issued prior to April 1417(e)). Systems are considered free of unable to meet the rule’s lead waiver 11, 2000 should remain in effect as long copper-containing materials if they criteria because of lead-containing as the water system meets the ongoing contain no copper pipes or copper components within the system, if the waiver monitoring requirements and service lines. Systems also must have continues to meet the waiver eligibility completed at least one 6-month round of 10 EPA does not believe it is necessary that these requirements. The next round of standard tap water monitoring for lead systems monitor more frequently than once every monitoring for such systems should and copper, subsequent to becoming three years since they would have been on a triennial schedule already if the waiver had not occur no later than nine years after the free of lead-containing and copper- been issued and they had reduced monitoring in date of the most recent lead and copper containing materials, at sites approved accordance with the schedule in § 141.86(d)(4). tap water monitoring conducted by the by the State and from the number of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations sites required for standard monitoring monitoring), if it deems such additional the system has monitored for lead and under § 141.86(c) that demonstrates that conditions are necessary to assess and/ copper at the tap. If, on the other hand, the 90th percentile levels of lead and or address treatment or source water the pre-existing waiver was issued to a copper at the tap do not exceed 0.005 changes at the system. A system with a small system that met the materials mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper. full or partial waiver also must notify criteria in § 141.86(g)(1) but was not If permitted by State regulation, the State within 60 days of becoming required to conduct any tap water § 141.86(g) also permits a small system aware that it is no longer free of lead- monitoring and/or to meet the lead and that meets the lead-related criteria of containing and/or copper-containing copper threshold levels specified in §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the materials. § 141.86(g)(2), the waiver will remain in copper-related criteria, to apply for a As long as the water system is in effect only if the system continues to partial waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead compliance with the requirements of meet the eligibility requirements of waiver). Likewise, a small system that § 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the § 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of meets the copper-related criteria of appropriate eligibility materials criteria standard monitoring for lead and copper §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the lead- of § 141.86(g)(1), and maintains 90th at the tap by September 30, 2000 in related criteria, may apply for a partial percentile lead levels that do not exceed which the 90th percentile lead and waiver for copper only (i.e., a copper 0.005 mg/L (unless the system has a copper levels do not exceed 0.005 mg/ waiver). copper waiver) and 90th percentile L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State copper levels that do not exceed 0.65 the eligibility criteria of § 141.86(g)(2)). to notify the system, in writing, of its mg/L (unless the system has a lead After completing this round of waiver determination, setting forth the waiver), § 141.86(g)(5) specifies that the monitoring, the system must continue basis for the decision and any waiver will be renewed automatically monitoring at a frequency of once every conditions of the waiver. States have the unless the State notifies the system nine years. authority to impose conditions such as otherwise, in writing, setting forth the Today’s action also makes two requiring limited monitoring in addition basis of its decision. Systems with changes to the provisions of § 141.90(a) to the once every nine year monitoring waivers that have been revoked may re- to reflect system reporting requirements required by § 141.86(g)(4) and/or apply for a full or partial waiver, as associated with small system waivers. requiring the system to provide periodic appropriate, at such time as it again As discussed previously,12 § 141.90(a)(3) outreach to consumers to remind them meets the eligibility criteria of now specifies the reporting requirement to avoid installation of materials that §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2). for a water system monitoring for lead might void the waiver. A system cannot Systems whose waivers have been and copper at the tap less frequently reduce to a nine-year tap water revoked must complete appropriate CCT than every six months to report, in monitoring frequency before it receives and/or lead and copper tap water writing, the addition of a new source or the written waiver approval from the monitoring requirements. This a change in water treatment to the State State. provision is specified in § 141.86(g)(6). no later than 60 days after the change Routine tap water monitoring In other words, if the system’s waiver is has occurred, unless the State requires requirements and requirements for revoked because the system has earlier notification. Section 141.90(a)(4) reporting certain system changes exceeded the lead or copper action contains the reporting requirements between tap water monitoring events are level, the system must implement CCT associated with applying for a waiver specified in § 141.86(g)(4). Systems with in accordance with the deadlines and submitting appropriate waivers must conduct a round of specified in § 141.81(e). If the system’s documentation demonstrating whether monitoring for the waived waiver is revoked for other reasons, and or not the system continues to meet the contaminant(s) at least once every nine the system meets both action levels, the continuing waiver eligibility criteria. years at the reduced number of sites system must monitor for lead and Finally, two new changes in State specified in § 141.86(c) and provide copper at the tap no less frequently than recordkeeping requirements have been appropriate materials re-certification to once every three years using the made to § 142.14. A new the State along with the monitoring reduced number of sample sites § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the results. Systems with partial waivers specified in § 141.86(c). requirement for States to maintain must continue to monitor for the non- Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if records pertaining to monitoring waiver waived contaminant in accordance with anything, a system with a full waiver 11 determinations, waiver recertifications, the provisions of § 141.86(d)(1), (d)(3), granted prior to April 11, 2000 must do and waiver revocations. As previously or (d)(4), as appropriate. Systems with for the waiver to remain in effect. Pre- discussed, § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains waivers must notify the State no later existing waivers issued to a small the State recordkeeping requirements than 60 days after the addition of a new system that have previously met the pertaining to systems monitoring less source of water or any changes in water eligibility requirements of both frequently than every six months that treatment. As discussed above, systems §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2) remain in change treatment or add a new source may be required by other Federal effect so long as the system continues to of water. drinking water regulations or State meet the waiver eligibility criteria of 6. Revisions to § 141.87 regulations to receive prior State § 141.86(g)(5). The first round of tap approval before making any of these water monitoring conducted pursuant to a. Monitoring for optimal water changes. Where prior State approval is § 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no quality parameters. As discussed in not required, EPA encourages systems to later than nine years after the last time section C.2.b. of this preamble, today’s notify the State before making the action revises the way in which change to minimize the risk it will 11 Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would compliance with OWQPs is determined result in an unanticipated adverse effect have reflected guidance provided in a policy memo under § 141.82(g). Corresponding on tap water lead and copper levels. issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). That memo changes have been made to §§ 141.87(d) States have the authority to impose addressed systems that were free of both lead- and (e)(4). The language of § 141.87(d) containing and copper-containing materials. EPA additional waiver conditions (e.g., therefore does not believe that there should be any has been streamlined to refer to, but not requiring a materials re-certification systems with partial waivers issued prior to the and/or requiring additional rounds(s) of effective date of the LCRMR. 12 See section C.5.j. of this preamble.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1983 repeat, the compliance requirements of that entry point monitoring for WQPs at identity, well flow rates and total § 141.82(g). The language of least once every two weeks is volumes per day into the distribution § 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water system, observed chemical dosages per that a system subject to the reduced systems after the installation of CCT and unit of flow and usage rates that are frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the for those small and medium-size demonstrated to be the same as those at tap must revert to standard WQP systems that continue to exceed an the ‘‘equivalent’’ entry point(s). The monitoring if it fails to comply with the action level after the installation of CCT. documentation supporting the selection requirements of § 141.82(g). The regulations, as revised by today’s of these representative sites must be b. Use of representative sites for entry action, provide sufficient flexibility for submitted to the State prior to the start point water quality parameter systems to meet this requirement of any routine WQP monitoring monitoring at ground water systems. without imposing an unreasonable pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). EPA is (i) Proposed revision and background. monitoring burden where it is not adding the corresponding system The April 1996 Proposal included a warranted. reporting requirement at provision that would allow ground (iii) Today’s action. The Agency § 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding water systems to limit entry point WQP therefore is making the following § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to monitoring to those locations that are regulatory changes. First, EPA is maintain records of any determinations representative of the water quality revising the wording of §§ 141.87(a)(2) made pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). conditions throughout the system. As and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for explained in the 1996 preamble, some § 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to water quality parameters at the tap. ground water systems, especially in the entry point monitoring ‘‘except as (i) Proposed revision and background. western States, can have dozens or even provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this The April 1996 Proposal also included more than a hundred wells and it can section’’ (which contains the provisions new language at § 141.87(e)(2) that be difficult and expensive to conduct pertaining to ground water systems). would allow water systems meeting the biweekly monitoring at each entry EPA also has revised § 141.87(c)(2) to criteria for accelerated reduced point. The Agency believes that clarify that once every two weeks monitoring for lead and copper at the monitoring at each entry point for large (biweekly) is the minimum sampling tap to also accelerate reduced ground water systems may not be frequency for routine entry point WQP monitoring for WQPs at the tap to once necessary in all cases. Ground water monitoring. The Agency has replaced every three years, more rapidly than systems can limit entry point sampling the phrase, ‘‘one sample every two previously allowed. This revision to those entry points that are weeks (biweekly),’’ with the phrase, ‘‘at applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3), representative of water quality and least one sample no less frequently than systems but could apply to any system treatment conditions throughout the every two weeks (biweekly).’’ Since subject to the monitoring requirements system. If water from untreated ground many systems are monitoring WQPs of § 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained water sources mixes with water from more frequently than biweekly, EPA in the preamble to the April 1996 treated ground water sources, the believes this change is appropriate to Proposal, this revision would not affect system must monitor for WQPs both at clarify that entry point monitoring is to the requirement that systems subject to representative entry points receiving be conducted no less frequently than WQP monitoring after the installation of treatment and representative entry every two weeks. CCT collect WQP samples at entry points receiving no treatment. For EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3) points no less frequently than once example, a ground water system with to § 141.87 to allow ground water every two weeks, as specified in seven entry points may draw water from systems subject to WQP monitoring § 141.87(c)(2). a distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where requirements after the installation of (ii) Comments and analysis. In water from the zone does not mix with CCT to limit their entry point general, commenters supported the water from any other zone). If the monitoring to those locations that are proposed accelerated reduced system can demonstrate to the representative of water quality monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only satisfaction of the State that all seven conditions throughout the system. At a two commenters opposed the provisions entry points drawing water from the minimum, these systems must monitor allowing accelerated reduced same distinct hydraulic zone have for WQPs both at some points receiving monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of similar water quality characteristics, treatment and at some points receiving these, one advocated retaining the taking seasonal variability into account, no CCT if the water from those points current monitoring frequency; the other the State can allow the system to mixes with other source water in the suggested EPA require daily monitoring. conduct biweekly entry point system that is treated. Systems taking These commenters may have monitoring at one or two of the entry advantage of this provision are required misunderstood the intent of the points instead of all seven. However, if to provide sufficient documentation to proposed revision and thought that EPA CCT is applied at one of the seven entry the State to demonstrate that the was proposing to also reduce the points and not at the other six entry locations monitored are, in fact, frequency of entry point WQP points, then a representative sample or representative of water quality monitoring. As explained in section E.1. samples would need to be taken for the throughout the system. The specific of this preamble, EPA is retaining the six entry points and a sample would documentation to be provided may vary requirement that water systems subject also need to be taken at the entry point depending on the system’s to water quality parameter monitoring where the CCT is applied. characteristics and State reporting requirements after the installation of (ii) Comments and analysis. requirements. For locations that are not CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry Commenters generally supported this treated, for example, such points no less frequently than once proposed revision. Two commenters documentation might include complete every two weeks. The Agency agrees expressed concern that the proposed water analyses from the different wells changes still would require extensive over time, or taken for the purpose of 13 The reporting requirement associated with monitoring for large water systems determining equivalence. For wells systems requesting approval for reduced monitoring, previously codified at § 141.90(a)(5), relying on ground water sources, even receiving treatment, documentation has been eliminated. See section C.5.f. of this when no CCT is required. EPA believes might include records of chemical preamble.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations that this monitoring is essential for good level is discussed in section C.5.h. of frequency with which it collects tap process control and encourages water this preamble. samples for applicable WQPs specified systems to conduct such monitoring Another commenter pointed out a in § 141.87(e)(1) to every three years if even more frequently than once every discrepancy between the April 1996 the system demonstrates during two two weeks. The LCR already permits preamble and the proposed revised rule consecutive monitoring periods that its systems to reduce the frequency of language. The proposed rule language tap water lead level at the 90th water quality parameter monitoring would have required lead and copper percentile is less than or equal to the within the distribution system to levels to be ‘‘ less than’’ the lead PQL PQL for lead specified in triennial. The proposed revision would and one-half the copper action level, § 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water allow this to occur more rapidly. EPA respectively; the preamble stated that copper level at the 90th percentile is also encourages systems to perform this systems with lead and copper levels less than or equal to one-half the action monitoring more frequently but has not ‘‘less than or equal to’’ the lead PQL and level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in made it a regulatory requirement one-half the copper action level, § 141.80(c)(2), and that it also has respectively, would be eligible for because of the potential burden maintained the range of values for the reduced monitoring. The preamble involved. WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the language reflected EPA’s intent and the State under § 141.82(f). Two commenters who supported the Agency has corrected this error in idea of accelerated reduced WQP today’s action. d. Summary of water quality monitoring at the tap suggested (iii) Today’s action. EPA is monitoring requirements. The table alternative eligibility criteria. One promulgating the following revisions to shown below summarizes the WQP recommended the copper threshold be § 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph monitoring requirements, and reflects set at one-half the copper PQL instead § 141.87(e)(2) has been redesignated as the clarification that entry point of one-half the copper action level. § 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph, monitoring after the installation of CCT EPA’s rationale for setting the copper § 141.87(e)(2)(ii) has been added to must occur no less frequently than every threshold at one half the copper action allow a water system to reduce the two weeks.

TABLE 3.ÐSUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial Monitoring ...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps and at entry point(s) to dis- Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium, conductivity, tribution system. temperature. After Installation of Corrosion Con- pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. trol. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. After State Specifies Parameter pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. Values for Optimal Corrosion silica 3, calcium 4. Control. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. Reduced Monitoring ...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months, annually 7 or silica 3, calcium 4. every 3 years 8; reduced number of sites. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. 1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements. 2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for WQPs only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level. 3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control. 5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system. 7 Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8 Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1985

7. Revisions to § 141.88 0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater the same schedule as systems that are a. Resampling triggers for composite than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater treating their source water and source water samples. than or equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper complying with the State-specified (i) Proposed revision and background. levels greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/ maximum permissible source water EPA proposed to revise § 141.88(a) to L. levels. EPA proposed that the systems delete the reference to § 141.23, which In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA exceeding an action level after the State pertains to inorganic chemical sampling requested public comment on whether has determined that source water requirements, and to spell out the compositing should be allowed in light treatment is not required be allowed to specific requirements for lead and of the fact that the resampling trigger for reduce the frequency of source water copper source water monitoring in composited lead source water samples monitoring if the source water lead § 141.88(a). The Agency explained that is the detection limit and therefore, half concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/ it believed it would be less confusing to the samples whose true value is at the L and the source water copper specify the requirements regarding lead MDL could be reported as false concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L. and copper in Subpart I, where all other negatives. While no commenters EPA proposed these levels since Agency lead and copper sampling is addressed. suggested eliminating compositing due guidance suggests these are the levels In addition, the Agency proposed to to the above-mentioned concern, several above which source water treatment retain the resampling trigger for commenters wanted compositing to be may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c). eliminated because of a concern about (ii) Comments and analysis. Several composite source water samples for lead the ability of laboratories to successfully commenters suggested refinements to at the detection limit of 0.001 mg/L and analyze samples near the detection the rule language to make it more to change the resampling trigger for limit. The Agency does not believe that consistent with other parts of the rule. composite source water samples for it is appropriate to eliminate flexibility One of these commenters suggested that copper from the detection limits of and potential cost savings for some reduced source water monitoring be 0.001 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L to 0.160 mg/ utilities because some laboratories may allowed if source water levels are ‘‘less L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule not be able to meet the criteria to than or equal to’’ (instead of ‘‘less than’’) language to clarify that compositing of perform compositing. Therefore, 0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8 mg/L copper. samples must be done by certified compositing is being retained in today’s EPA agrees that the lead and copper laboratory personnel and to allow action. concentrations should be ‘‘less than or systems to use duplicates or original (iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the equal to’’ the source water threshold samples, where possible, instead of following changes to § 141.88(a)(1). The levels and has made this change in resampling. The remaining requirements for source water sample today’s action. requirements in § 141.88(a), pertaining location, number of source water A second commenter suggested that to sample location and number of samples, and collection methods have EPA set the same lead and copper samples, were retained from § 141.23. been incorporated directly into concentrations for reduced source water (ii) Comments and analysis. While § 141.88(a)(1) and the reference to monitoring as for accelerated reduced most commenters supported the § 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems lead and copper monitoring at the tap. proposed revisions to § 141.88(a), a few may composite up to five source water The Agency agrees that it is less commenters raised issues. One samples. The compositing must be done confusing to use the same lead and commenter asked how the 90th by certified laboratory personnel. If the copper thresholds for both accelerated percentile would be calculated when lead concentration in the composite reduced tap water monitoring and samples are composited. EPA would sample is greater than or equal to 0.001 reduced source water monitoring where like to clarify that compositing applies mg/L or the copper concentration in the the State has determined that source to source water samples only. Tap composite sample is greater than or water treatment is not required. Today’s samples cannot be composited. equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the system action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as Therefore, compositing does not affect must take and analyze a follow-up the copper threshold for reduced source the way in which the 90th percentile is sample at each sampling site used in the water monitoring where the State has to be calculated. composite within 14 days; however, if determined that no source water Another commenter discussed the duplicates of, or sufficient quantities treatment is required. The Agency potential impact of rounding the from, the original samples from each estimates that less than one percent of reported value for the composite sampling point used in the composite water systems have source water copper sample. The commenter was concerned are available, the system may use these levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/ that if water systems with a source instead of resampling. L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus believes that water lead level just above 0.001 mg/L b. Reduced source water monitoring very few, if any, systems will be rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the for systems without State-designated precluded from reducing source water proposed rule, resampling of the maximum permissible source water monitoring as a consequence of composite sample would not need to levels. establishing this slightly more stringent occur. EPA has addressed this potential (i) Proposed revision and background. threshold than the Agency proposed in problem by revising the language in In 1996, EPA proposed to add 1996. today’s action to change the resampling provisions to the source water Another commenter criticized the triggers from lead levels greater than monitoring requirements that would Agency for not proposing to revise the allow the same reduction in the reduced source water monitoring 14 Since up to five samples may be composited for frequency of source water monitoring frequency consistent with a 5/10/15 analysis, in 1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers that are one-fifth of the levels above which EPA for systems that exceed an action level year monitoring framework for chemical recommends source water treatment. (EPA’s if the source water lead and copper contaminants regulated by the Phase II/ guidance document Lead and Copper Rule levels are low and the State has V rules that the Agency was Guidance Manual Volume II: Corrosion Control determined that source water treatment considering. In 1997, EPA published an recommends source water treatment when the concentration of lead in the source water is greater is not required. This change would Advance Notice of Proposed than 0.005 mg/L or the concentration of copper in allow such systems to reduce the Rulemaking that requested comment on source water is greater than 0.800 mg/L.) frequency of source water monitoring on possible Chemical Monitoring Reform

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations and Permanent Monitoring Relief sensitive to the implementation that the proposed changes to the provisions for the chemicals regulated complications arising from different composite source water resampling under the Phase II/V rules (62 FR 36100, frequencies, it does not believe that triggers for lead and copper at Jul. 3, 1997). EPA has since decided not adequate public health protection § 141.88(a)(1)(iii) necessitate revisions to move forward with Chemical should be sacrificed merely for the sake to the laboratory certification Monitoring Reform. However, the of consistency. procedures pertaining to composite Agency has published Alternative One commenter pointed out a source water samples at Monitoring Guidance (formerly known discrepancy in the proposed language at § 141.89(a)(1)(iii). EPA therefore § 141.88(e) regarding whether systems as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that proposed to delete the requirement for are required to monitor for both lead permit States meeting specified a laboratory to achieve the MDL for conditions to issue five-year monitoring and copper. The language in § 141.88(e)(1) has been revised to clarify copper. It is no longer necessary to waivers for contaminants to which the specify that laboratories be capable of State has determined the system is not that systems subject to source water achieving the copper MDL in order to vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a monitoring requirements must sample accept composite source water samples. waiver has been issued, the system must for both lead and copper. continue to monitor for the Phase II/V Finally, one commenter stated that in With the copper resampling trigger set chemicals within the 3/6/9 year making these revisions, EPA was setting at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be framework. source water treatment levels by default. sufficiently tested on its capabilities EPA does not intend to set specific under § 141.89(a)(1)(ii)(B) where it is The Agency agrees that a consistent levels requiring source water treatment. framework for chemical contaminants is required to achieve a quantitative EPA’s intent is to specify the levels of ± desirable to the extent that it does not acceptance limit of 10 percent of the lead and copper in source water which jeopardize public health protection or actual amount of the performance will determine whether a system can the environment. EPA does not believe evaluation sample when the actual reduce source water monitoring. it would be appropriate to revise the amount is greater than or equal to 0.050 (iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore mg/L. monitoring frequency for lead and finalized the revision as proposed, copper in source water along the lines incorporating the clarification discussed b. Comments and analysis. EPA did being considered for the Chemical above. Sections 141.88(e)(1) and (2) not receive any comments objecting to Monitoring Reform/Permanent have been revised to allow water this revision. Monitoring Relief, however. Other systems that exceed the action level, but c. Today’s action. The Agency has regulated chemical contaminants for which the State has determined that revised § 141.89(a)(1)(iii) to delete the address chemicals where existing source water treatment is not needed, to requirement for laboratories to achieve contamination and vulnerability to reduce the frequency of source water future contamination can be identified the copper MDL in order to accept monitoring if the system maintains composite samples. Sections relatively easily and where the public source water lead levels at or below health concern is overall lifetime 141.89(a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) have been 0.005 mg/L and source water copper eliminated since they no longer are exposure. The issues pertaining to the levels at or below 0.65 mg/L for three necessary. control of lead and copper are consecutive monitoring periods, if using significantly different. The health effect an exclusively ground water source, or 9. Revisions to System Reporting of primary concern is exposure to lead three consecutive years, if using a Requirements in § 141.90 for children. Since systems triggered surface water or combined surface and into source water monitoring exceed ground water source. EPA is promulgating a number of one or both action levels, EPA does not changes to water system reporting 8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification believe it appropriate to reduce the requirements at § 141.90. The following Requirements in § 141.89 monitoring frequency for source water chart summarizes these changes. lead and copper beyond the schedule in a. Proposed revision and background. today’s action. While the Agency is EPA noted in the April 1996 Proposal

TABLE 4.ÐSUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Preamble Paragraph Revision discussion

141.90(a)(1), introductory Remove reference to § 141.88 and revise examples of ``applicable monitoring periods'' to in- C.9.a. text. clude a 9-year monitoring period. 141.90(a)(1)(ii) ...... Remove requirement for certification of first-draw samples collected by the system ...... C.9.b. Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation re- C.5.k. quests. 141.90(a)(1)(iii) ...... Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first-draw samples collected by residents C.9.b. and reserve paragraph. 141.90(a)(1)(iv) ...... Modify to address reporting requirement for those systems for which the State will be calcu- C.9.c. lating the system's 90th percentile lead and copper levels. 141.90(a)(1)(viii) ...... Add requirement for reporting WQP monitoring results collected under §§ 141.87(c)±(f) ...... C.2.b. 141.90(a)(2) ...... Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient num- C.5.b. ber of Tier 1 sites cannot be located. Replace with a new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first-draw sampling C.5.c. sites to identify non-first-draw sample times and locations. 141.90(a)(3) ...... Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient C.5.b. number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1987

TABLE 4.ÐSUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTSÐContinued

Preamble Paragraph Revision discussion

Replace with a new requirement for systems monitoring at the tap less frequently than once C.5.j. & C.5.l. every 6 months to notify the State within 60 days if there are any changes in treatment or addition of a new source water. 141.90(a)(4) ...... Remove requirement to send letter to State demonstrating why 50% of sampling sites are C.5.b. not served by lead service lines. Replace with new reporting requirement for small systems requesting a monitoring waiver ... C.5.l. 141.90(a)(5) ...... Remove reporting requirements associated with requesting reduced monitoring ...... C.5.f. Replace with new reporting requirement demonstrating representative locations for biweekly C.6.b. entry point water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of corrosion control treatment. 141.90(e)(2) ...... Revise all references to ``§ 141.84(f)'' to read ``§ 141.84(e)'' ...... C.3.b. 141.90(e)(4) ...... Remove reporting requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of entire C.3.b. length of LSL. Add new requirement for systems collecting LSL samples after partial lead service line re- C.3.b. placement to report results to the State. 141.90(f) ...... Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks ...... C.4.c. 141.90(h) ...... Add new requirement for reporting lead and copper concentrations where the State cal- C.9.c. culates a system's 90th percentile levels.

Most of these changes are described in (ii) Comments and analysis. One with § 141.88. Because the reporting more detail in other sections of the commenter pointed out that EPA had requirements for source water preamble, as indicated in the table apparently omitted the phrase, ‘‘below monitoring are specified in § 141.90(b) above. The remaining changes to system for,’’ in the first sentence of the and not in § 141.90(a)(1), the reference reporting requirements are described proposed rewording in the April 1996 to § 141.88 has been deleted from the below. Proposal. EPA agrees that the phrase introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1). a. Timing of reporting of tap water was inadvertently omitted from the b. Elimination of certification monitoring for lead and copper and April 1996 Proposal and has corrected requirements pertaining to first-draw water quality parameter monitoring. the error in today’s action. No samples. (i) Proposed revision and background. commenter took issue with the (i) Proposed revision and background. The introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) of proposed changes to the introductory Section 141.90(a)(1)(ii) of the LCR, as the 1991 LCR requires a water system to text of § 141.90(a)(1) in response to promulgated in 1991, required water report monitoring data to the State for either the April 1996 Proposal or the systems to certify that each sample all tap water samples within the first 10 August 1998 Notice. collected by the system pursuant to days following the end of each (iii) Today’s action. The introductory § 141.86(d) was one-liter in volume and, applicable monitoring period specified text of § 141.90(a)(1) has been revised to to the best of the system’s knowledge, in §§ 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. The reflect ‘‘every 9 years’’ as one of the had stood motionless in the service line applicable monitoring periods listed in applicable reporting frequencies. or in the interior plumbing of a the original rule were ‘‘every six- Today’s action also revises the sampling site for at least six hours. months’’, ‘‘annually’’, and ‘‘every 3 introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) to Section 141.90(a)(1)(iii) required water years.’’ Because the proposed revisions include the qualifying phrase, ‘‘except systems to certify that each tap sample included a provision that would allow as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of collected by residents was taken after certain small water systems to conduct this section.’’ Since today’s action the water system informed the residents tap water monitoring once every nine retains the requirement for a six-month of the proper sampling procedures. EPA years (see § 141.86(g)), EPA also monitoring period for WQPs after the included these requirements to help proposed a revision to the introductory State designates OWQPs under ensure use of the proper sampling text of § 141.90(a)(1) to include ‘‘every § 141.82(f), instead of revising this to a protocol contained in § 141.86. Most 9 years’’ as one of the applicable quarterly period, EPA has omitted water systems have now completed at monitoring periods. In the August 1998 ‘‘quarterly’’ from the list of applicable least two rounds of monitoring for lead Notice, the Agency proposed to add monitoring periods referenced in the and copper and have experience in ‘‘quarterly’’ to this list to reflect the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1). The collecting first-draw samples. Because proposed requirement that water Agency believes that the language of the Agency believes that continuing to systems subject to the WQP monitoring § 141.90(a)(1)(viii), added by today’s require systems to provide these requirements of §§ 141.87(d) and (e) language, makes clear that systems must certifications every monitoring period report these results quarterly. Because report these WQP monitoring results to imposes a burden that can no longer be EPA was also proposing to give States the State no less frequently than every justified, EPA proposed eliminating explicit discretion to require more six months. these two certification requirements in frequent reporting of WQP results, the Today’s action also makes one the April 1996 Proposal. Agency also proposed to add a qualifier technical correction to the introductory (ii) Comments and analysis. Most to the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) text of § 141.90(a)(1). This language, as commenters supported the proposal to to make clear that the specific WQP promulgated in 1991, referenced tap eliminate the requirement for written reporting requirements took precedence water samples collected in accordance certification of first-draw sample over the general reporting requirements with § 141.86, WQP samples collected collection. However, concern was wherever the two appeared to be in in accordance with § 141.87, and source expressed that improper sample conflict. water samples collected in accordance collection might occur due to: new

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations homeowners who are not aware of preamble to the April 1996 Proposal requiring States to perform these collection requirements; staff turnover, requested comment on a burden calculations would increase the data particularly at NTNCWSs; and reduction measure that would give manipulation load on already customers who forget proper sample States the flexibility to eliminate the overburdened State regulatory staff. collection procedures over time. requirement that systems calculate and Some commenters suggested that EPA acknowledges that requiring report 90th percentile lead and copper eliminating the requirement for systems written certification provides an extra values, provided that the State performs to calculate the 90th percentile lead and level of assurance that samples have the calculation. A number of water copper values would result in systems been collected correctly. However, EPA systems, especially small water systems, not having time to take appropriate also believes that the reduced burden find it difficult to calculate these 90th follow-up actions (such as collecting resulting from the elimination of these percentile values. Some States have WQP samples) within the required time requirements outweighs the benefits of found that the 90th percentile lead and frame if the State reported the 90th maintaining the certification copper values submitted by such percentile values back to the system requirements, especially since systems are incorrect. Consequently, a later in the monitoring period, or after § 141.86(b)(2) still requires water number of these States routinely it had ended. Finally, several systems to instruct residents regarding recalculate the 90th percentile values commenters opposed allowing the first-draw sample procedures. EPA also based on the individual tap sample data States to calculate systems’ 90th believes it is prudent to provide that systems are required to submit. percentile levels because they felt that technical assistance, when necessary, to Granting States the option to calculate water system owner/operators need to new water system staff, water system the 90th percentile values in lieu of the take responsibility for what is occurring customers sampling for the first time, water system would result in a burden in their systems. and customers who have previously reduction for those water systems who EPA shares the concerns raised by sampled, to ensure proper sample are finding it difficult and time these commenters. Nevertheless, the collection. EPA has therefore eliminated consuming to do the calculation on their Agency believes that there may be these certification requirements. own and would not increase the burden instances where it is least burdensome One commenter favored elimination for those States who have already opted overall for the State to perform the of the certification requirement but to recalculate the systems’ 90th calculations, as long as systems are suggested that public water systems percentile values. notified of the results sufficiently early should require a certification from the (ii) Comments and analysis. Many in the monitoring period to take any homeowner. In addition, the commenter commenters supported this measure. A required follow-up action. EPA also suggested adding a requirement few commenters, however, did not therefore has included provisions that a chain of custody be maintained support such a change. One commenter providing States some flexibility to until the laboratory has finished suggested that rather than eliminating eliminate the 90th percentile reporting analyzing the sample. The LCR will the requirement for systems to calculate requirements for all systems, no continue to require (at § 141.86(b)(2)) and report 90th percentile values, the systems, or some subset (e.g., small that water systems provide sampling Rule should stipulate that it is up to the systems). Water systems for which the instructions to residents who will be State to determine whether systems State will calculate the 90th percentile collecting first-draw samples. However, should report the results of all tap lead and copper levels must submit the because EPA can only regulate water samples, the 90th percentile values, or results of all lead and copper tap systems, the Rule cannot incorporate both. The commenter maintained that samples to the State by a date language that would require this change would be appropriate in designated by the State. The State will homeowners to provide a certification their State since the certified then calculate the system’s 90th that they sampled correctly. Water laboratories are already required to percentile lead and copper systems are responsible for ensuring calculate and report the 90th percentile concentrations and will provide the that reported results accurately reflect values based on the results of the lead results of the calculations, in writing, to the samples collected. The absence of a and copper tap samples that they have the system prior to the end of the Federal requirement for chain of just analyzed. applicable monitoring period. custody does not preclude the State or Because it is difficult to ensure that a EPA agrees that if the State calculates the system from establishing these certified lab will report results to the the 90th percentile lead and copper controls. EPA encourages States and State within the reporting time frame levels, it is possible that a water system systems to establish the necessary required of public water systems, would not have sufficient time to collect controls; however, the Agency has no today’s action does not include language water quality parameter samples during plans to add a chain of custody that allows States the flexibility to rely the same monitoring period that an requirement to the lead and copper on information reported to the State by action level is exceeded. To avoid this regulations. certified laboratories in lieu of system situation, EPA strongly encourages (iii) Today’s action. The certification reporting of the lead and copper tap States to provide the results of the 90th requirements pertaining to first-draw water results and 90th percentile percentile calculations to each system lead and copper tap water samples, calculations. EPA cannot impose well in advance of the end of the previously codified at §§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii) reporting requirements on certified labs monitoring period. States will need to and (iii), have been deleted. New through the LCR and EPA does not have advise systems when they must submit requirements have been added at authority to take enforcement action lead and copper tap water sample § 141.90(a)(1)(ii) associated with against certified labs that do not report results to the State so that the State can requesting sample invalidation (see data within the reporting time frame do these calculations in a timely section C.5.k. of this preamble). required of public water systems. manner. While determining when the c. State calculation/reporting of 90th A few commenters suggested that the systems must submit their lead and percentile levels. 90th percentile reporting requirements copper tap results, the State should: (1) (i) Proposed revision and background. be eliminated for small systems only; Consider the length of time it will need Although no specific regulatory another commenter opposed the to review the lead and copper tap language changes were proposed, the proposed measure due to the belief that results provided by all affected water

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1989 systems; and (2) consider the length of selected for the sampling pool, and an definition of ‘‘lead free’’ the following: time needed by water systems exceeding identification of sampling sites utilized ‘‘When used with respect to plumbing the lead and/or copper action level(s) to during the current monitoring period fittings and fixtures intended by the collect water quality parameter samples. that were not sampled during previous manufacturer to dispense water for If lead and copper tap results are not monitoring periods along with an human ingestion refers to fittings and provided by the date required by the explanation why sampling sites have fixtures that are in compliance with State, it becomes the system’s changed. voluntary standards and testing responsibility to calculate their 90th • The State must provide the results protocols for the leaching of lead in percentile values. of the 90th percentile lead and copper accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e).’’ The Agency agrees that all systems calculations, in writing, to the water As discussed previously (see section should take responsibility for the system before the end of the monitoring C.5.l.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA has quality of water delivered to their period. recognized NSF International’s Standard customers. However, it appears that EPA is also revising § 142.14(d)(9) to 61, Section 9, as meeting the some systems still find it difficult to make clear that States must maintain requirements for a voluntary lead- calculate 90th percentile lead and records pertaining to any State- leaching standard under Section 1417(e) copper levels correctly. Today’s action calculated 90th percentile levels along (62 FR 44686, Aug. 22, 1997). If other allows States that are concerned with with records of data submitted pursuant standards that meet the requirements of the accuracy of the systems’ calculations to § 141.90. SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are to perform the calculations and then 10. Revisions to § 141.43 established in the future, EPA will provide the results to the system before publish appropriate notification in the Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 141.43 the end of the monitoring period so that Federal Register. the system can take appropriate action. contain a one-time requirement for EPA strongly encourages all water public water systems to identify and D. Revisions to Requirements for States systems to calculate their 90th notify persons that may be affected by As discussed earlier in this preamble, percentile lead and copper levels on lead contamination of their drinking primacy States must adopt and submit their own using the ‘‘instructions’’ water. This requirement is obsolete. to EPA for approval a primacy program found in § 141.80(c)(3) even if the State Notification pursuant to § 141.43 was to revision to incorporate the provisions of has committed to performing these have occurred no later than June 1988. today’s rule into their approved primacy calculations and providing the results of Moreover, the requirement for a water program. In addition to the revised the calculations to the water system. system to conduct public education system requirements in Part 141, today’s Systems that determine that they have pursuant to § 141.85 as long as the water rule amends the State recordkeeping exceeded an action level may proceed system exceeds the lead action level is requirements of § 142.14, the LCR- with the appropriate follow-up much more comprehensive and specific State reporting requirements in requirements, such as WQP monitoring accomplishes the same goal of § 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy or lead public education. If, based on informing the public about the requirements unique to specific the same lead and copper tap results possibility of lead contamination. EPA regulations in § 142.16. These revisions submitted by the system, the State has therefore deleted and reserved are discussed below. determines that the system’s 90th §§ 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes 1. Records kept by States. As percentile lead and copper levels this revision is appropriate to avoid discussed in C. of this preamble, today’s actually do not exceed either the lead or confusion and redundancy. action contains several conforming EPA also is revising § 141.43 to copper action levels, the system may changes to the State recordkeeping amend the definition of ‘‘lead free’’ to discontinue with any follow-up actions requirements associated with the LCR. reflect the provisions of Sections it has begun. These requirements are codified at 1417(d) and (e) of the 1996 SDWA (iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore § 142.14(d)(8). The following Amendments. Section 1417(a)(1) of the revised the requirement at summarizes these revisions. § 141.90(a)(1)(iv), requiring system SDWA states that ‘‘no person may use • Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been reporting of the 90th percentile lead and any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting eliminated. copper level calculations, to omit the or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the • Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi) requirement in those instances where installation or repair of any public water has been redesignated as the State will be performing the system or any plumbing in a residential §§ 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii), calculations in accordance with the or nonresidential facility providing respectively. provisions specified in a new water for human consumption that is • A new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been § 141.90(h). Section 141.90(h) contains not lead free.’’ Under section 1417(d), added to require States to maintain the following requirements. ‘‘lead free’’ means that solders and flux records of any system-specific • The State must have previously may not contain more than 0.2 percent requirements for (b)(1) and (b)(3) notified the system that the State will lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well systems that have corrosion control calculate the 90th percentile lead and pumps may not contain more than 8.0 treatment installed. copper levels and have provided the percent lead; and plumbing fittings and • The newly designated system with a date, earlier than the end fixtures must meet standards § 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been revised to of the monitoring period, by which the established under section 1417(e) (42 eliminate the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of system must provide the results of all U.S.C. 300g–6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the the paragraph. lead and copper tap water samples SDWA states that ‘‘lead free’’ with • The newly designated collected during the monitoring period. regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures § 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been revised to • The system must provide the intended to dispense water for human correct the punctuation at the end of the following information to the State by the consumption means those fittings and paragraph. date specified: The results of all lead fixtures that are in compliance with a • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been and copper tap water samples, standard established under that section. revised to change the reference to including the location of each site and Today’s action adds a paragraph (d)(3) ‘‘Section 141.84(f) to read ‘‘Section the criteria under which the site was to § 141.43 to incorporate into the 141.84(e).’’

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• Section 142.14(d)(8)(ix) has been records of sample invalidation § 141.82(f), require the reporting of the added to require States to maintain determinations. maximum permissible source water records of any determinations of • Section § 142.14(d)(11) has been levels designated by the State under monitoring or other requirements for revised to change the reference to § 141.83(b)(4), and retain the systems monitoring for lead and copper ‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(viii)’’ requirement for States to report any at the tap less frequently than every six to read ‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through accelerated lead service line months that change treatment or add a (d)(8)(xvii).’’ replacement schedule established new source of water. 2. Reporting requirements for States. pursuant to § 141.84(f). • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been a. Proposed revision and background. In light of the public comments added to require States to maintain Under the 1991 Rule, States were received and other, concurrent internal records of system-specific decisions required to report up to eleven LCR Agency discussions, EPA requested regarding the content of written public implementation milestones for each public comment in the April 1998 education materials and/or distribution water system. These milestones were: Notice on another regulatory option of these materials. • Lead action level exceedance and pertaining to State reporting • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been date of the exceedance; requirements. Under the April 1998 • added to require States to maintain Copper action level exceedance and option, EPA would require the records of any system-specific date of the exceedance; following: • Corrosion control study required; • All lead 90th percentile values for determinations regarding use of non- • first-draw samples under § 141.86(b)(5). Corrosion control study completed large and medium-size systems; • • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been and date State received the results of the 90th percentile values that exceed added to require States to maintain study; the lead action level for small systems; • State designation of CCT and date • records of any system-specific or case- 90th percentile copper values that of the determination; by-case designations of sampling exceed the copper action level for all • State designation of source water locations for systems subject to reduced systems; treatment and date of the determination; • A new ‘‘deemed’’ milestone, monitoring. • CCT installed; indicating the system has optimized • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii) has been • Source water treatment installed; corrosion control and the basis for that added to require States to maintain • State designation of optimal water determination, and the date of the records of system-specific quality control parameters and date of determination; determinations pertaining to alternative the determination; • The streamlined lead service line sample collection periods for systems • State designation of maximum replacement required milestone subject to reduced monitoring. permissible source water levels; and • proposed in 1996; and Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) has been • Lead service line replacement • A new ‘‘done’’ milestone, indicating added to require States to maintain required, accelerated replacement the system had optimized corrosion records of any determinations, schedule (if any), and annual control and completed any required including waiver renewals and compliance with the replacement source water treatment steps and lead revocations. schedule. service line replacement requirements, • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been Through implementation guidance, and the date of the determination. added to require States to maintain EPA had also requested that States The ‘‘deemed’’ and ‘‘done’’ milestones records of any determinations made report 90th percentile lead and copper would be reported for all systems. The regarding representative entry point values in conjunction with lead action lead service line replacement required monitoring locations at ground water level exceedance and copper action milestone would continue to be systems. level exceedance milestones, reported only for those systems • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been respectively, and requested States to triggered into the requirement. added to require States to maintain provide all 90th percentile lead levels b. Comments and analysis. records of any system-specific for large systems and for any medium- EPA received mixed comments in determinations made regarding the size and small size system once they response to the April 1996 Proposal. submission of information to had exceeded the lead action level While some commenters agreed with demonstrate compliance with partial (EPA, 1992b). the proposed revisions, others took lead service line replacement In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA issue with some, or all, of the requirements. requested comment on several revisions milestones that EPA proposed to retain. • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has to these milestones. These changes In particular, several commenters took been added to require States to maintain included a requirement to report all issue with the need to report many of records of any system-specific decisions 90th percentile lead values for large and the interim milestones, arguing that it is regarding the resubmission of detailed medium-size systems, elimination of the inconsistent with the concept of documentation demonstrating two corrosion control study milestones, performance partnerships for EPA to completion of public education the CCT installed milestone, and the track LCR implementation at the level requirements. State designation of maximum suggested by the milestones. Two • Section § 142.14(d)(9) has been permissible source water levels commenters objected to reporting all revised to include any State-calculated milestone. The proposed revisions also 90th percentile lead values for large and 90th percentile values among records would have added a date to the source medium-size systems. One of these States must maintain relative to data water treatment installed milestone and commenters thought the information submitted pursuant to § 141.90. streamlined the lead service line would be confusing to the public; the • Section § 142.14(d)(10) has been replacement required milestone. In other commenter raised concern about revised to include records of State addition, the Agency requested public the burden implications. A third activities, and the results thereof, to comment on whether it should require commenter recommended that EPA determine compliance with the the reporting of the optimal water require the reporting of all 90th requirements related to partial lead quality control parameter limits percentile values for all systems. None service line replacement and to include designated by the State under of the commenters supported reporting

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1991 of the additional items (i.e., State- time in the future.16 While the Agency process of developing an automated specified optimal water quality control believes that most systems not triggered information system and that it would parameters, State-specified maximum into lead service line replacement not be possible to incorporate the permissible source water levels, and requirements should be ‘‘done’’ at the proposed revisions until some time after accelerated lead service line time they are considered to have the new system was online. Other replacement schedules) on which EPA optimized corrosion control, the commenters questioned whether requested comment. The reasons for potential exists that this may not be requisite resources would be available opposing such requirements were true, especially since there is no way to to make necessary changes to State similar to those expressed, in general, discontinue source water treatment information systems. EPA recognizes about State reporting requirements— requirements once a State has that a relatively long lead time is needed lack of clear justification on the part of determined that source water treatment to give States time to make changes to EPA, burden implications, and is required. The Agency has eliminated automated data systems. EPA also needs inconsistency with the concept of all milestones that might otherwise time to make the necessary revisions to performance partnerships. indicate that a water system has been the Safe Drinking Water Information triggered into source water treatment. System (SDWIS). Beginning May 15, In light of these comments, the EPA therefore believes it is important 2000, States may report in accordance Agency thoroughly re-examined its need for States to explicitly indicate that a with the new requirements; however, for, and planned use of, system-specific system is ‘‘done,’’ rather than for EPA to States have until January 14, 2002 to LCR implementation data. EPA infer this based on the ‘‘deemed’’ complete the transition to the new concluded that the Agency needs more milestone and the available 90th reporting requirements. States will not information for this Rule than is percentile level information. The be required to report in accordance with generally true for other NPDWRs. The Agency believes the additional burden the revised requirements until January Agency’s rationale is explained in the of reporting this milestone will be 14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and April 1998 Notice and is based on the minimal in those cases when the January 14, 2002, States have the option fact that lead is a priority contaminant ‘‘deemed’’ and the ‘‘done’’ milestones to report compliance with either the as well as the nature of the rule that occur at the same time. EPA 1991 reporting requirements or the provides States broad discretion in acknowledges that future events may revised requirements in today’s action. specifying precisely what constitutes necessitate some ‘‘done’’ systems to Because of this compliance schedule, compliance for each water system. The revisit specific LCR treatment technique EPA has separately codified the new Agency also concluded, however, that requirements. The Agency will address requirements at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The the use of exception-based reporting 15 how these situations are to be reported requirements, codified in the 1991 Rule for this Rule has resulted in in implementation guidance. at §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have unanticipated data anomalies that make A few commenters objected to been redesignated as the use of the reported milestones reporting 90th percentile lead levels §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), problematic. EPA therefore requested other than those reflecting action level respectively, and introductory text public comment on a revised option that exceedances. EPA would like to receive added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the would eliminate all but one of the all 90th percentile values and period during which they are to be original treatment milestones and encourages States to provide them. In reported. replace the others with two newly light of the reporting burden involved, Finally, the Agency received a few defined milestones that would need to however, the Agency is not requiring comments in response to EPA’s request the reporting of either non-exceedance for comment on the need for the rule be reported for all systems. lead values for small systems or non- language to explicitly state that the Commenters were more supportive of exceedance copper values for any size Administrator of EPA would specify the the April 1998 option than they were of system. EPA plans to use the 90th format of reporting. No commenter the 1996 option. Several commenters percentile lead values to show how objected to this revision, however, two continued to have concerns, however. A levels of lead at the tap have changed commenters suggested that EPA adopt a few commenters believe EPA still has over time for large and medium-size consistent format for reporting drinking not provided adequate justification for systems and, by extrapolation, for small water data and adhere to it to minimize this reporting. In particular, several systems. In terms of routine reporting, State burden. EPA agrees that the commenters opposed the requirement to this is the only measure that the Agency reporting format for the LCR should be report the ‘‘done’’ milestone for every has for showing the Rule’s effectiveness. consistent with other drinking water system and suggested that it be required The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels data reporting and will publish specific only for those systems that continue to at the tap to as close to zero as possible. formatting instructions as a part of exceed an action level after optimizing Without any 90th percentile lead data implementation guidance. CCT. One commenter questioned below the action level, EPA would have c. Today’s action. After considering whether a system would ever really be no way to measure progress toward the the public comments received, EPA has done, since new requirements and/or goal. revised § 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of other changes at the system could Several commenters who supported the regulatory option discussed in the necessitate adjustments in CCT or the revisions to the reporting April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the trigger a system [back] into lead service requirements noted that States would Agency has made the following line replacement requirements at some need a long lead time to implement the revisions. changes. One commenter, for example, • EPA has made two substantive 15 Under the 1991 requirements, States only mentioned that his State was in the changes to the introductory text of report a milestone if it is appropriate to a water § 142.15(c)(4). (1) EPA has changed the system. Thus, for example, there is no requirement 16 Systems may cease lead service line schedule of reporting from ‘‘May 15, to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/ replacement before they have replaced all the lead August 15, November 15, and February medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized service lines they own if the 90th percentile lead after demonstrating for two consecutive six-month levels from routine tap water monitoring do not 15 of each year’’ to ‘‘quarterly.’’ monitoring periods that it does not exceed either exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring Although the Agency has no plans to the lead or the copper action level. periods. change the actual due dates at the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations current time, this revision provides has been eliminated. In their place, water lead and copper samples in flexibility to make such a change today’s action requires the reporting of months other than June, July, August, through guidance, rather than requiring the following three milestones. and/or September. another rulemaking, should it be —A ‘‘deemed’’ milestone to be reported E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not appropriate to alter the schedule in the for each public water system for Adopted future. (2) The Rule now states that the which the State has designated Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe optimal water quality control In the preamble to the April 1996 the format of reporting. As discussed parameters under § 141.82(f), or Proposal, EPA requested public above, this will be done through which the State has deemed to have comment on seven burden reduction implementation guidance. optimized corrosion control under suggestions that the Agency had • Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3), and the date received in the Summer of 1995 but which EPA had not evaluated have been redesignated as and basis of the determination. This thoroughly. EPA did not propose §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), milestone is to be reported for all specific provisions in the April 1996 respectively. Introductory text has been systems, pursuant to Proposal, but indicated that the added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to indicate that § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will comments might be considered for the requirements in that paragraph are provide instructions on how to report further rulemaking after they had been effective through May 14, 2000. different scenarios (e.g., the system • fully evaluated. The Agency invited A new paragraph had been added at adjusted existing treatment rather comments to provide suggestions as to § 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to indicate that States than installing new CCT) in the how these suggestions might be have the option to report in accordance implementation guidance. implemented. with the requirements in either —Each public water system required to § 142.15(c)(4)(i) or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii) After considering the comments begin replacing lead service lines as received and other factors, EPA has during the time period of May 15, 2000 specified in § 141.84 and the date the through January 14, 2002. decided to adopt two of the system is to begin replacement, suggestions—flexibility for States to • A new set of reporting pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E). requirements, described below, has been eliminate system reporting/calculation —A ‘‘done’’ milestone to be reported for of 90th percentile levels and elimination added at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must each public water system that has begin complying with these of the public service announcement task completed all of the following under public education for small requirements on January 14, 2002. requirements, as appropriate: Under these revised reporting systems. These revisions are included in Optimization of corrosion control; any today’s action and discussed in sections requirements, States no longer are applicable source water treatment required to submit the system name, as C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of this requirements under § 141.83; and any preamble. The Agency has no plans to well as the system identification applicable lead service line number. EPA deleted the requirement implement the other five suggestions. A replacement requirements under summary of the comments received on for the system name as a part of LCR § 141.84. States also are required to reporting since this information already these suggestions and EPA’s rationale report the date of the State’s for not adopting them follows. is contained in EPA’s information determination that these requirements system through inventory data have been completed. This milestone 1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality submitted under § 142.15(b). is to be reported for all systems, Parameter Monitoring at Entry Points for The other revised State reporting pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F). Systems Subject to Water Quality requirements are as follows. Parameter Monitoring Requirements • 3. Special primacy considerations. As The requirement to report lead and discussed in C of this preamble, today’s a. Burden reduction suggestion and copper action level exceedances action contains several changes to the background. The regulations require all (§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of language of § 142.16(d). These changes large water systems (except (b)(3) the 1991 Rule) has been eliminated. In are summarized below: systems), and many small and medium- its place, today’s action requires the • EPA has added provisions at size water systems that install OCCT to reporting of 90th percentile values and § 142.16(d)(1) for States to use an collect one sample at each entry point the first and last date of the monitoring alternative method of aggregating to the distribution system, at least every period for which the 90th percentile multiple measurements taken during a two weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if value was calculated as follows: single day for a water quality parameter alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is —All 90th percentile lead values, at a sample location. States need not adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of regardless of whether the lead action submit anything under this paragraph if the dosage rate of the chemical used to level is exceeded, for all large and they elect to use the formula for adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used, medium-size systems, pursuant to aggregating these results specified in and the alkalinity concentration or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(A); § 141.82(g). concentration of orthophosphate or —90th percentile lead values for each • Section 142.16(d)(3) has been silica (whichever is applicable). In the small system for each monitoring revised to eliminate the requirement for April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for period in which the system exceeds States to specify in their primacy comment on whether the frequency of the lead action level, pursuant to applications how they plan to verify this monitoring should be reduced from § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and PWS demonstrations of limited control biweekly to monthly. —90th percentile copper values for each over lead service lines. b. Comments and analysis. EPA system for each monitoring period in • A new § 142.16(d)(4) has been received a number of comments on this which the system exceeds the copper added to require States to specify in issue. Over half the commenters favored action level, pursuant to their primacy applications how they revising the rule to allow less frequent § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(C). plan to determine periods when lead monitoring, at least for ground water • The reporting of interim treatment levels are likely to be the highest for systems not under the influence of milestones (§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(B) through community water systems subject to surface water. These commenters (G), as redesignated, of the 1991 Rule) reduced monitoring that collect tap expressed the opinion that monthly, or

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1993 even quarterly, entry point WQP WQP monitoring, the system will be explained that almost all of the water monitoring should provide sufficient deemed to be in compliance with the used at their facility is for industrial information for systems and States to OWQPs so long as it has excursions processes, but is conveyed in the same ensure maintenance of optimal from the State-specified values/limits on piping as water used for non-potable corrosion control. Several commenters no more than 9 days in a six-month purposes. Bottled water is used for noted that biweekly monitoring period. drinking, but the piped water is still represents a major burden for many A few commenters raised related used for hand-washing and the flushing ground water systems, especially those issues. One commenter, for example, of toilets. The commenter notes that it which tend to have relatively stable suggested that the frequency of WQP is not ingested and should therefore water chemistry and many entry points. monitoring be reduced to quarterly both pose no health risk from lead or copper. One commenter suggested that EPA at entry points and within the Another system commented that bottled should give States the discretion to distribution system. This commenter water is already provided to employees determine monitoring frequency on a also noted that it was important that for aesthetic purposes. The commenters case-by-case basis. States be able to adjust monitoring felt that in these cases, the entire The remaining commenters urged the frequencies to address seasonal volumes of water would need to be Agency to retain the current variability. EPA does not believe that treated at considerable cost, with no requirement for biweekly monitoring; a further rule changes are required to additional health protection, and the few suggested that systems be required address these concerns. The Agency systems would still be paying for bottled to collect samples daily to ensure proper notes that nothing in the regulations water. operational control. Several of the precludes a water system from After considering all comments commenters who opposed reducing the collecting routine distribution system received, EPA has concluded that, in frequency of monitoring thought that it WQP samples on a quarterly basis. general, for the purposes of this would be appropriate to reduce the Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a nationally-applicable rulemaking, the frequency of reporting the monitoring State from setting seasonal ranges, if use of flushing and/or bottled water for results to the State, however, and appropriate, to reflect seasonal NTNCWSs may not be as protective of suggested that the reporting frequency differences that might affect water human health, may not provide any be reduced to monthly or quarterly. quality. significant relief to systems, and could EPA disagrees with those commenters be a burden increase on States. who believe that monthly, or quarterly, 2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at EPA believes that in order for a WQP monitoring at entry points will NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion Control flushing and/or bottled water program provide sufficient information to ensure Treatment to be effective, and as protective of the maintenance of optimal corrosion a. Burden reduction suggestion and human health as the installation of CCT, control at most systems. The Agency background. EPA requested comments the following criteria would have to be believes there are a number of variables, on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use met, at a minimum. A water system such as pH and inhibitor concentration flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of using bottled water would need to that may affect levels of lead and copper installing CCT to ease the burden of ensure that the bottled water meets the at the tap within a matter of days. installing and operating CCT at these Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Frequent monitoring is required so that systems. lead and copper standards (either via a appropriate measures can be taken to b. Comments and analysis. In general, State-approved monitoring program or adjust for these variables in a timely commenters supported the use of via certification from the bottled water manner. EPA therefore is retaining the flushing and/or bottled water, with purveyor on an annual basis) and that requirement for biweekly monitoring for some commenters suggesting certain only the bottled water will be used for WQPs at entry points to the distribution restrictions. A few commenters human consumption at all times. A system and encourages water systems to suggested allowing flushing and/or system relying on flushing would need conduct even more frequent monitoring bottled water for small CWSs as well. to utilize an automatic flushing device for process control purposes. EPA has Commenters expressed many reasons that flushes all faucets used for revised the language at § 141.87(c)(2) for supporting the use of flushing and/ consumptive purposes at a State- regarding the frequency of WQP or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The approved frequency identified through a monitoring at the entry points to allow main reasons for favoring flushing and/ State-approved monitoring program. States the flexibility to require more or bottled water were the cost of The flushing and/or bottled water frequent entry point monitoring. The installing CCT, the lack of trained program would need to include new language states that systems must personnel to operate and maintain the additional monitoring and reporting, conduct entry point monitoring for treatment system, and lack of facilities well beyond what is presently included WQPs ‘‘no less frequently than every to house treatment apparatus. Some in the LCR, and would also require more two weeks (biweekly).’’ commenters believe that flushing and/or State oversight. States would be EPA is sensitive to the burden bottled water is a more affordable, required to review and approve system biweekly entry point monitoring may practical solution, and may be more proposals, and review periodic pose for some systems and is making a protective of public health since it submittals by the system to determine change to help alleviate this burden. As eliminates the addition of chemicals compliance with the flushing and/or discussed in section C.6.b., EPA is into the water supply by untrained bottled water program. Systems would revising the LCR, as proposed, to allow personnel. Commenters suggested that have to prepare and submit proposals to some ground water systems to collect automatic flushing devices are readily the States, perform plumbing WQP samples at representative points available and inexpensive, and one inspections and in most cases, install instead of requiring samples to be commenter suggested that public automatic flushing devices or make collected at every entry point. education could be part of regular other plumbing modifications, which As discussed in section C.2.b., today’s mandatory safety meetings. could be costly. In addition, the State action also revises the definition of what Other commenters favored the use of would need to include provisions for constitutes compliance with State- flushing and/or bottled water for inspection of the automatic flushing designated OWQPs. For entry point operational reasons. One commenter devices to ensure proper operation.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Additional tap monitoring would need reporting requirements imposed on and copper to assess the effectiveness of to be conducted by the systems before these water systems by § 141.90(c)(3) are corrosion control. The Agency noted and after flushing, to determine how that the systems must report the that it did not have data to develop quickly lead and/or copper levels rise information required by § 141.82(c). alternative sampling methods that after flushing, and to determine an This means that a water system must would provide information with as appropriate flushing frequency. Systems report on its evaluation of each of the much certainty as direct sampling at utilizing flushing could waste a three treatment categories specified and taps. EPA invited the public to submit significant amount of water on a daily then make a recommendation to the suggestions, and especially technical basis which adds to cost and may be State regarding which treatment it data, that could be used in developing counter to conservation measures thinks will provide optimal corrosion reliable monitoring methods that do not needed during periods when the water control for that system. In the April involve household tap water sampling, supply is low. These additional 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment that could be used to measure and monitoring, reporting and program on a burden reduction suggestion to predict actual and/or relative exposures activities could increase the cost and eliminate the requirement that the of the public to lead and copper, and burden on States and systems, which is system report on those treatment that could measure compliance with, the opposite of what States and systems technologies which it does not identify and the efficacy of, CCT requirements. desire and EPA intended. as providing OCCT. The effect of such b. Comments and analysis. Many EPA recognizes that there are some a change would mean that a system States, water utilities, municipalities, systems that may already be providing would only need to provide the and water industry associations bottled water for aesthetic or other justification for its recommended provided comments on this issue in reasons, and the only piped water in use treatment to the State. 1996; several of these reiterated their is utilized for washing hands and b. Comments and analysis. EPA comments on the need for an alternative flushing toilets. These systems feel that received comments on both sides of this to tap lead/copper monitoring in the installation of CCT provides no issue. States overwhelmingly opposed response to the April 1998 Notice. Most added health protection from lead and the suggestion, pointing out that it commenters favor an alternative to copper. EPA also recognizes that there would greatly increase the burden on residential sampling. Commenters cited are systems which have unique them in designating OCCT and in major problems with the current circumstances which make compliance dealing with problems that might arise monitoring requirements such as lack of with some requirements seem later with some systems’ corrosion control over sample collection, unnecessary or very difficult. This is control. EPA agrees and believes that accessibility problems, insufficient sites, especially the case for small systems. In those supporting the suggestion and disagreement with the the SDWA Amendments of 1996, EPA generally overlooked the requirement appropriateness of triggering CCT was directed to develop alternative that CCT be optimal treatment, not just requirements based on residential compliance technologies to help any treatment that might reduce monitoring. Although EPA agrees that systems comply with the drinking water corrosion in the distribution system. many of the problems cited are valid regulations. EPA has published a list of The State is responsible for issues for some systems, the Agency has compliance technologies for certain designating OCCT for the system. In not been able to identify an acceptable system sizes that allows the use of order to determine what is optimal for alternative to tap water monitoring. point-of-use devices for compliance a given water system, the State needs While many commenters suggested with the LCR (63 FR 42032, August 6, the complete picture in the form of all conceptual alternative approaches to 1998). EPA feels that these changes will the information developed by the water assess the effectiveness of corrosion offer systems a wider range of system in the course of its evaluation of control in lieu of residential lead and compliance options, and should the three treatment categories. The copper tap water monitoring, none eliminate the problems that systems suggestion, if implemented, would not provided specific technical data that have expressed regarding the relieve the water system of the effort to would assist the Agency to develop installation of CCT. EPA also notes that evaluate the alternative treatments. It acceptable alternative(s) to residential there are numerous burden reduction would only have relieved the system of sampling. Some commenters, for features already incorporated in this the need to provide the results of that example, felt that when pipe rigs, pipe rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has evaluation to the State. The burden on loops, or corrosion test coupons were decided not to incorporate the use of water systems to report the results of used, many of these ‘‘surrogate’’ systems flushing and/or bottled water as an their evaluations to the State is more could be set up and operated in option for NTNCWSs under the LCR. than offset by the States’ need to make locations where there would be easy informed decisions regarding OCCT for and controllable access to utility 3. Requirement for Water Systems to those systems. Having all the personnel. Other commenters suggested Justify Corrosion Control Methods Not information from a water system up that pipe loops placed in easily- Recommended front allows the State to make the right accessible and controllable public a. Burden reduction suggestion and decision the first time (which is actually buildings or other structures could be background. The LCR requires the State a form of burden reduction) and ensures directly substituted for the residential to designate OCCT for each system that better public health protection. sampling sites. None of these reaches the applicable step as outlined Therefore, EPA has decided not to commenters provided any new data or in §§ 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this implement the suggestion. proposals on exactly how the designation, most large systems must alternatives would be employed, and perform corrosion control studies, and 4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to how the standards for performance of small and medium systems exceeding Assess Corrosion Control Effectiveness such systems would be developed and the lead or copper action level must a. Burden reduction suggestion and implemented to determine OCCT. perform corrosion control studies if the background. In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA’s basic rationale for tap State specifically requires them to do so. EPA requested comment on a burden monitoring is simply that no surrogate The studies must fulfill the reduction suggestion to allow technique has been identified that can requirements in § 141.82(c). The alternatives to tap water testing for lead allow extrapolation to tap results with

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1995 either accuracy, precision, or both. The used. In addition, EPA believes such an explained in the April 1998 Notice, the Agency agrees that pipe loops, corrosion approach could result in an overall Agency needs to have available in the coupons, electrochemical rate burden increase, especially for those national data base sufficient up-to-date measurements, and other kinds of test small and medium-size systems that information to provide a degree of systems may be useful for many utilities currently are not required to perform oversight and to answer some basic to screen CCT strategies. In some studies this type of process control monitoring questions. The Agency therefore for individual water systems, tap water and for the States who would need to believes it is appropriate for States to concentrations were also predicted designate OWQPs and determine report quarterly information for those reasonably well, especially for copper. compliance for these systems. water systems that have achieved one or Establishing a regulatory standard based Such changes are outside the scope of more of the three milestones. on corrosion rate or loop testing, the current rulemaking. While EPA has however, would introduce additional no immediate plans to pursue this F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments complexity to the regulations. The alternative, the Agency may choose to 1. Request for comments and concentrations or values obtained from evaluate it at some point in the future background. The April 1998 Notice these surrogate systems cannot be if new data become available that referenced comments that had been precisely and accurately related to the suggest that a reliable and cost-effective received on the Notice of Data lead and copper levels at the tap since approach could be developed and Availability pertaining to the proposed tap water levels also may be affected implemented effectively through a rule for Disinfection/Disinfection By- significantly by building-specific national regulation. Products (DDBP) (62 FR 59388, factors. 5. Reduced Frequency for State November 3, 1997). Commenters to the After carefully evaluating information Reporting of 90th Percentile and DDBP Notice had suggested that from many sources, EPA believes that Milestone Data compliance with the proposed the published research data at this point enhanced coagulation requirements indicate that predicting tap water 90th a. Burden reduction suggestion and could have an adverse effect on a water percentile levels using surrogate background. In addition to reporting system’s ability to maintain compliance systems (as described above) would be violations and follow-up enforcement with State-designated optimal water inherently imprecise on a national basis, actions to EPA quarterly, States are quality parameters under the LCR. In required to report exceedances of lead and implementation of such an light of these concerns, in the April and copper action levels and other LCR approach would be an expensive and 1998 Notice, EPA requested further implementation milestones quarterly. impractical regulatory burden imposed public comment on the following issues: Through guidance, the Agency also has on States, who would have to oversee • How lowering pH and alkalinity requested that 90th percentile values for the establishment and justification of during enhanced coagulation may cause surrogate systems on virtually a utility- lead be reported for all large and medium-size systems. In the April 1996 LCR compliance problems, given that by-utility basis. Additionally, EPA both pH and alkalinity levels can be believes that the frequency and extent of Proposal, EPA requested comment on a burden reduction suggestion to reduce adjusted to meet OWQPs prior to entry sampling and analyses required to use to the distribution system. the surrogate systems would not the frequency of reporting 90th • Whether decreasing the pH and substantively reduce monitoring burden percentile data (including action level alkalinity during enhanced coagulation but would introduce greater uncertainty exceedances where appropriate) and and then increasing them prior to about the extent to which systems were LCR implementation milestone data to distribution system entry may increase reducing the lead and copper levels at once or twice a year. exceedances of lead and copper action consumers’ taps. b. Comments and analysis. The Agency received mixed comments on levels. Several commenters, including some • of the trade organizations and States, this suggestion. While some What issues should be addressed in suggested a different approach which commenters supported it, a number of guidance that EPA is developing to EPA considers to be more promising States noted that it does not matter what mitigate concerns about simultaneous because it should be easier to the frequency of reporting is—quarterly compliance with enhanced coagulation implement and should still provide or less frequent—as long as they could and LCR requirements. • sufficient public health protection. continue to submit their data to EPA Whether additional regulatory Although expressed slightly differently quarterly. Finally, one State wanted to provisions are necessary to address the in each comment, the common theme is retain the current requirement. simultaneous compliance issues that once the physical and chemical After considering the comments pertaining to enhanced coagulation and nature of a distribution system is well- received and the changes to the State LCR requirements, or whether guidance characterized through the current reporting requirements discussed in would be sufficient to mitigate potential monitoring requirements, reliance could section D.2. of this preamble, EPA has compliance problems. be placed on the continued maintenance decided to retain the requirement to 2. Comments and analysis. Although of the optimized CCT. report 90th percentile and milestone a few commenters indicated that they EPA believes that this might represent data quarterly. In the Drinking Water did not anticipate simultaneous a scientifically-valid and feasible Program, EPA reviews violations compliance problems, several others approach. However, to make this a quarterly to ensure that timely and expressed concern about the ability of viable regulatory option, additional appropriate follow-up action is water systems to simultaneously comply research and several rule changes would occurring. The Agency considers a with the enhanced coagulation be needed. For example, such an water system’s most recently reported requirements of the DDBP rule and the approach would require additional 90th percentile lead value in assessing LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to WQP monitoring both at the treatment the severity of many LCR violations. whether the issue of simultaneous plant and within the distribution Moreover, as discussed in section D.2., compliance could be addressed system. It might also be necessary to EPA has eliminated the reporting adequately in guidance or whether make changes in the site targeting for requirements for all but three additional regulatory language was copper and in the analytical methods implementation milestones. As needed.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Several commenters recommended different WQPs may need to be set to arising from the need to simultaneously that EPA establish a hierarchy of define optimal corrosion control comply with other drinking water regulatory concerns. EPA does not depending upon the type of treatment regulations. The Agency, therefore, does believe that a hierarchy of regulatory change. For example, a lower pH and not plan to further revise the LCR to concerns needs to be developed to deal the addition of inhibitors may be the address these issues. The Agency has with simultaneous compliance issues. solution to resolving the conflict developed guidance that addresses the EPA believes that the LCR is flexible between pH and disinfection by-product issue of simultaneous compliance with enough that systems can comply with formation. Systems may change their enhanced coagulation and LCR other rules that have conflicting corrosion control approach from a high requirements (EPA, 1999c). treatment objectives without violating pH passivation to an inhibitor the LCR. passivation process. A new set of G. Administrative Requirements EPA also received comments about optimal corrosion control parameters 1. Executive Order 12866 providing flexibility to deal with would need to be established by the Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR regulatory conflicts related to different State under this scenario. The system 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must treatment objectives. The structure of would then need to meet those OWQPs. the LCR provides flexibility to deal with EPA received several comments that a determine whether the regulatory action the issue of simultaneous compliance comprehensive corrosion/corrosion by- is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to with multiple rules. Section 141.2 product regulation should be developed Office of Management and Budget defines optimal corrosion control that addresses other substances that (OMB) review and the requirements of treatment, for purposes of complying come into contact with drinking water the Executive Order. The Order defines with the LCR, as ‘‘the corrosion control that could have a corrosive and/or ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: treatment that minimizes the lead and dissolving effect. EPA agrees that • copper concentration at users’ taps control of corrosion of various materials Have an annual effect on the while insuring that the treatment does not directly related to health effects can economy of $100 million or more, or not cause the water system to violate be a concern of water suppliers. EPA adversely affect in a material way the any national primary drinking water believes that the corrosion control economy, a sector of the economy, regulations.’’ Section 141.82(c)(5) states treatment considerations discussed productivity, competition, jobs, the that ‘‘The water system shall evaluate above provide sufficient flexibility for environment, public health or safety, or the effect of the chemicals used for water systems to address water quality State, local or tribal governments or corrosion control treatment on other aesthetic considerations. EPA is also communities; • water quality treatment processes.’’ very conscious of the regulatory burden Create a serious inconsistency or Section 141.82(d)(1) states that ‘‘When imposed by the current SDWA otherwise interfere with an action taken designating optimal treatment the State regulations, and believes that or planned by another agency; • shall consider the effects that additional promulgating corrosion-related Materially alter the budgetary corrosion control treatment will have on regulations to require utilities to meet impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, water quality parameters and on other aesthetic performance standards is not or loan programs or the right and water quality treatment processes.’’ warranted. EPA does not have exposure obligations of the recipients thereof; or • Treatment changes to comply with or health effects data that show that the Raise novel legal or policy issues another rule can affect the performance other corrosion by-products merit a arising out of legal mandates, the of corrosion control processes. NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe President’s priorities, or the principles As discussed previously, today’s that the scope of the corrosion control set forth in the Executive Order. action adds provisions to the LCR regulations should be expanded beyond Pursuant to the terms of Executive requiring systems monitoring for lead lead, copper and asbestos. Asbestos was Order 12866, it has been determined and copper at the tap annually or less included in the Phase II rulemaking (56 that this rule is not a ‘‘significant frequently to notify the State when FR 3526, Jan. 30, 1991). regulatory action’’ and is therefore not treatment changes occur. EPA added EPA also received comments related subject to OMB review. this requirement because of concerns to the cost of simultaneous compliance. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as that changes in treatment may impact EPA recognizes that water chemistry Amended by the Small Business CCT. While the LCR does not require changes might result from either Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of that this notification occur before the optimization of corrosion control or 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq. treatment change is implemented coagulation (or other treatment (unless required by the State or other processes). In order to meet all finished The RFA generally requires an agency Federal drinking water regulations), the water quality objectives, systems may to prepare a regulatory flexibility Agency encourages water systems to need to modify an existing process or analysis for any rule subject to notice consult with the State before install additional process equipment. and comment rulemaking requirements implementing a treatment change so as EPA considers these to be necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act to minimize the risk that the treatment changes and costs to achieve the best or any other statute unless the agency change will have unanticipated adverse overall treatment and risk reduction. certifies that the rule will not have a impacts on corrosion control. The State EPA does not consider the cost of significant economic impact on a can require additional monitoring or the chemical feed equipment to be substantial number of small entities. State can require the system to re- significant, especially when compared Small entities include small businesses, evaluate its CCT given the potentially to other types of drinking water small organizations, and small different water quality considerations. treatment technology. government jurisdictions. One option may be to readjust the water 3. Today’s action. After considering The RFA provides default definitions quality to produce a finished water that the comments received, EPA has for each type of small entity. It also meets the existing OWQPs. For concluded that the LCR, as modified by authorizes an agency to use alternative example, pH and alkalinity can be the revisions previously discussed in definitions for each category of small raised to counter the effect of enhanced today’s action, provides water systems entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the coagulation. Another option is that sufficient flexibility to address issues activities of the agency’’ after proposing

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1997 the alternative definition(s) in the differing compliance or reporting help evaluate whether changes in Federal Register and taking comment. 5 requirements for smaller systems that national policy or regulations are U.S.C secs. 601 (3)–(5). In addition to take into account the resources available necessary to protect public health. the above, to establish an alternative to smaller water systems. In addition, Reporting of all other LCR-related small business definition, agencies must the final regulation clarifies and milestones has been eliminated. consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for simplifies the current compliance and The information collection in this rule advocacy. reporting requirements and eliminates is mandatory and is authorized under For purposes of assessing the impacts unnecessary or redundant requirements. the Safe Drinking Water Act. The of today’s rule on small entities, EPA The Agency has incorporated provisions information collected is not confidential considered small entities to be those into the rule that specifically benefit and is considered public information. public water systems serving 10,000 or many small entities. These include Many of the additional recordkeeping fewer customers. Public water systems monitoring waiver provisions where the and reporting requirements in this rule include both publicly and privately risk of high levels of lead or copper at are offset by other provisions of the rule owned water systems. In accordance the tap are low and greater flexibility in that will reduce monitoring burden and with the RFA requirements, EPA the delivery of required public eliminate some system and State proposed using this alternative education materials. In addition, other reporting requirements. definition for governmental provisions, while not specifically EPA is required to estimate the jurisdictions, small businesses and targeted for small entities, should burden on water systems and States for small not-for-profit enterprises in the further reduce burden for many small complying with the final rule. Burden Federal Register (63 FR 7620–7621, entities. These provisions include means the total time, effort, or financial February 13, 1998), requested public accelerated reduced monitoring, sample resources expended by persons to comment, consulted with small invalidation, elimination of sample site generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or Business administration (SBA) on the justifications and sample collection provide information to or for a Federal alternative definition as it relates to certifications, and flexibility for the agency. This includes the time needed small businesses, and finalized the State to calculate 90th percentile levels to review instructions; develop, acquire, alternative definition in the final for the system. install, and utilize technology and Consumer Confidence Report regulation systems for the purpose of collecting, (63 FR 44512, Aug 19, 1998). As stated 3. Paperwork Reduction Act validating, and verifying information, in that Final Rule, the alternative The Office of Management and Budget processing and maintaining definition would be applied to all future (OMB) has approved the information information, and disclosing and drinking water regulations. collection requirements contained in providing information; adjust the After considering the economic this rule under the provisions of the existing ways to comply with any impacts of today’s final rule on small Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. previously applicable instructions and entities, I certify that this action will not 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB requirements; train personnel to be able have significant economic impact on a control number 2040–0210. to respond to a collection of substantial number of small entities. This rule changes recordkeeping and information; search data sources; The Lead and Copper Rule affects each reporting requirements for some water complete and review the collection of water system in the the defined universe systems and the States in the following information; and transmit or otherwise of small entities (drinking water systems categories: lead and copper tap water disclose the information. serving 10,000 or fewer customers) in a monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes For the first three years of different way. For many small entities, in treatment and addition of a new implementation of this rule, EPA the rule will result in a reduced source; and LSL replacement. This rule estimates that the annual burden on economic impact. It will have a positive also requires more frequent reporting of systems for reporting and recordkeeping effect on the revenues of all systems but the completion of public education will be 225,419 hours. This is based on the very smallest systems—those tasks for CWSs serving more than 3,300. an estimate that there are 75,945 serving fewer then 500 customers. Even This information collection is necessary respondents per year who will each, on for these systems, however, the to evaluate system-specific needs, average, need to provide 58,813 economic impact will not exceed one including determining compliance, responses and that the average time per percent of their revenues during the first examining treatment effectiveness; response will be 3.8 hours. The total three years; beyond the first three years adjusting monitoring frequencies and annual cost burden for systems is these systems also will experience schedules to address possible public estimated to be $3,380,500. This burden and cost savings. In these health concerns; and determining includes total annual labor costs of circumstances, EPA has concluded that whether the public is receiving timely $3,349,000 and non-labor costs of the Rule will not have a significant notification of possible health risks $31,500 for the purchase of laboratory impact on a substantial number of small associated with high levels of lead at the supplies, pre-printed public education entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of tap. materials, and postage. EPA also this rule on small entities are contained In addition, this rule includes estimates that the annual burden on in Chapter 5 of the Information requirements for States to report to EPA States for reporting and recordkeeping Collection Request (EPA, 1999a). 90th percentile lead and copper values will be 69,296 hours. The total annual Although this final rule will not have for specified water systems; all systems average cost for States is estimated to be a significant economic impact on a that have optimized, or are deemed to $2,655,900. This is based on an estimate substantial number of small entities, have optimized CCT, and the basis of that each of 56 State respondents will, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the that optimization determination; all on average, need to provide 77,523 impact of this rule on small entities. systems that are triggered into LSL responses and that the average response Today’s rule amends EPA’s 1991 Lead replacement; and all systems that have will take 0.9 hours. This includes total and Copper Rule to reduce the burden completed the applicable CCT, source annual labor costs of $1,755,900 and on PWSs, especially smaller systems. water treatment, and LSL replacement non-labor costs of $900,000 for These revisions make a number of requirements. This information will be contractor support for the modification changes including the establishment of used to develop national trends and to of State data systems.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This action also contains a number of offset much of the burden and cost effect on burden and cost for the first provisions intended to reduce burden associated with today’s action. Table 5 three years of implementation. and costs associated with implementing shows the estimated average annual the 1991 requirements. These savings burden and cost savings and the net

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

New/revised requirements Reductions Net impact of LCRMR Number of respondents Burden Total cost Burden Total cost Burden Total cost hours ($M) hours ($M) hours ($M)

Systems ...... 75,945 225,419 3,380.5 ¥262,192 ¥6,204.4 ¥36,773 ¥2,823.9 States ...... 56 69,296 2,655.9 ¥19,241 ¥487.5 50,055 2,168.4

After the first three years, systems and Administrator publishes with the final and local officials in the development of States are expected to complete such rule an explanation why that alternative regulatory policies that have federalism activities as training, reading the was not adopted. Before EPA establishes implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have regulations, and regulatory adoption. any regulatory requirements that may federalism implications’’ is defined in EPA estimates that the average annual significantly or uniquely affect small the Executive Order to include burden and cost associated with today’s governments, including tribal regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct action will decrease significantly at that governments, it must have developed effects on the States, on the relationship time. under section 203 of the UMRA a small between the national government and An Agency may not conduct or government agency plan. The plan must the States, or on the distribution of sponsor, and a person is not required to provide for notifying potentially power and responsibilities among the respond to a collection of information affected small governments, enabling various levels of government.’’ unless it displays a currently valid OMB officials of affected small governments Under Section 6 of Executive Order control number. The OMB control to have meaningful and timely input in 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed the development of EPA regulatory that has federalism implications, that in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter proposals with significant Federal imposes substantial direct compliance 15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR intergovernmental mandates and costs, and that is not required by statute, Part 9 of currently approved ICR control informing, educating and advising small unless the Federal government provides numbers issued by OMB for various governments on compliance with the the funds necessary to pay the direct regulations to list the information regulatory requirements. compliance costs incurred by State and requirements contained in this final EPA has determined that this rule local governments, or EPA consults with rule. does not contain a Federal mandate that State and local officials early in the may result in expenditures of $100 process of developing the proposed 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act million or more for State, local, and regulation. EPA also may not issue a tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Title II of the Unfunded Mandates regulation that has federalism the private sector, in any one year. The Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public implications and that preempts State overall effect of this rule is estimated to Law 104–4, establishes requirements for law unless the Agency consults with decrease overall expenditures to public Federal agencies to assess the effects of State and local officials early in the water systems (which include State, their regulatory actions on State, local, process of developing the proposed local, and tribal governments as well as and tribal governments and the private regulation. the private sector) to comply with the This final rule does not have sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus, EPA generally must prepare a written today’s rule is not subject to the federalism implications. It will not have statement, including a cost-benefit requirements of sections 202 and 205 of substantial direct effects on the States, analysis, for proposed and final rules the UMRA. on the relationship between the national with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may This rule will establish requirements government and the states, or on the result in expenditures to State, local, that affect small water systems. EPA has distribution of power and and tribal governments, in the aggregate, determined that this rule contains no responsibilities among the various or to the private sector, of $100 million regulatory requirements that might levels of government, as specified in or more in any one year. Before significantly or uniquely affect small Executive Order 13132, because the rule promulgating an EPA rule for which a governments because the regulation is consistent with, and only makes written statement is needed, section 205 requires minimal expenditure of minor changes to, the requirements of the UMRA generally requires EPA to resources and applies to all owners/ under the current national primary identify and consider a reasonable operators of public water systems, and drinking water regulations for lead and number of regulatory alternatives and not uniquely to those owners/operators copper. The existing rule imposes adopt the least costly, most cost- that are small entities. Thus, this rule is requirements on public water systems to effective, or least burdensome not subject to the requirements of ensure that water delivered to users is alternative that achieves the objectives section 203 of UMRA. minimally corrosive, to treat source of the rule. The provisions of section water, remove lead service lines and 205 do not apply when they are 5. Executive Order 13132 deliver public education where inconsistent with applicable law. Executive Order 13132, entitled necessary to ensure public health Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, protection. Today’s rule does not make adopt an alternative other than the least 1999), requires EPA to develop an any significant changes to these costly, most cost-effective or least accountable process to ensure treatment requirements but, as burdensome alternative if the ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State explained elsewhere in today’s notice,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1999 makes minor adjustments to the rule’s changes in State reporting requirements, revised the way in which compliance requirements to enhance the efficiency EPA worked with States through the with OWQPs is determined and and effectiveness of current Office of Ground Water and Drinking substantially revised State reporting requirements. In general, these changes Water’s Data Sharing Committee (DSC) requirements primarily as a result of should result in slight burden to substantially revise these these comments. Another concern reductions for public water systems requirements. Several States and the raised by these commenters, the (some of which are owned and operated Association of State Drinking Water continuing requirement to collect tap by local governmental entities). States Administrators (ASDWA) participated water lead and copper samples, is not may, if they choose, maintain primary actively in this effort. The DSC revised by today’s rule because the goal enforcement authority for this rule by recommended the elimination of most of the rule is to reduce the levels of lead adopting the revisions that are more of the milestones required by the 1991 and copper at the tap to as close to the stringent than the existing rule (see Rule, modifications to remaining MCLGs as possible and the Agency does Table 2 in the section, ‘‘Primacy State milestones including the reporting of not know of any alternatives that will Program Revisions,’’ in the beginning of 90th percentile data, and the addition of predict tap water lead and copper levels the preamble). EPA projects that States two new milestones that the DSC with accuracy, precision, or both.19 choosing to maintain primacy for this believes will provide more meaningful Although the burden reductions are not rule may incur a slight increase in data regarding the implementation as extensive as some State and local administrative costs due to the adoption status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The governments would like, EPA believes of these revisions, additional training, DSC’s recommendations have been that today’s rule is necessary to effect as and the modifications to the State incorporated into today’s rule.17 many burden reductions as possible, reporting requirements. However, the In April 1998 and August 1998, prior without jeopardizing the level of public actual burdens incurred will vary from to publishing additional Notices for health protection, and to address a State to State and, EPA projects that the comment, EPA again provided national, number of implementation issues, increased burden will not be significant local, and tribal organizations with brief including lead service line replacement. (see discussion of State impacts in articles for inclusion in their newsletters section G.3. of this preamble). In announcing upcoming plans to publish 6. Consultation With Indian Tribal addition, these revisions provide States the Notices and encouraging readers to Governments increased flexibility to make system- provide EPA comment on the additional Under Executive Order 13084, EPA specific decisions in some instances regulatory options described in those may not issue a regulation that is not (e.g., sample invalidation [Section notices. In addition, EPA coordinated required by statute, that significantly or C.5.k.], small system waivers [Section closely with several national uniquely affects the communities of C.5.l.], alternative timing of sample organizations and the States to provide Indian tribal governments, and that collection under reduced monitoring copies of the August 18, 1998 Notice imposes substantial direct compliance [Section C.5.g.] and representative directly to those water systems most costs on those communities, unless the locations for entry point water quality likely to be affected by the regulatory Federal Government provides the funds parameter monitoring at ground water option discussed in that notice, necessary to pay the direct compliance systems [Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly, including all water systems serving costs incurred by the tribal this rule will not have a substantial more than 50,000 people and any governments, or EPA consults with direct effect on the States or on smaller-size water system that is likely those governments. If EPA complies by intergovernmental relationships or to continue to exceed an action level consulting, Executive Order 13084 responsibilities. Thus, the requirements after the installation of CCT. EPA also requires EPA to provide the Office of of section 6 of the Executive Order do requested review by a panel of State Management and Budget, in a separately not apply to this rule. Drinking Water Program Directors of the identified section of the preamble to the Although section 6 of Executive Order Agency’s estimated impacts on water rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA systems and States. prior consultation with representatives consulted with State and local In February 1999, EPA requested a of affected tribal governments, a 18 governments to enable them to provide panel of six State Directors to review summary of the nature of their concerns, meaningful and timely input in the the EPA’s revised estimate of Paperwork and a statement supporting the need to development of this rule. Prior to the Reduction Act-related burden and costs issue the regulation. In addition, April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a associated with the LCR and the Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to number of activities to gain meaningful LCRMR. EPA incorporated the develop an effective process permitting input from State and local governments. comments received from that review elected officials and other These activities included: Distribution (EPA, 1999d) in the final estimates representatives of Indian tribal of a strawman proposal in August 1993; (EPA, 1999a). governments ‘‘to provide meaningful In general, State and local State involvement in the development and timely input in the development of governments support the provisions of of the April 1996 Proposal; and regulatory policies on matters that today’s rule although many wanted EPA distribution of newsletter articles significantly or uniquely affect their to adopt more burden reduction than is highlighting upcoming Federal Register communities.’’ notices to organizations representing included in today’s action. Many of the Today’s rule does not significantly or these governments. These activities are suggestions made by these commenters uniquely affect the communities of have been incorporated into the final discussed in greater detail in the Indian tribal governments, nor does it rule. In particular, as described in preamble to the April 1996 Proposal (61 impose substantial direct compliance section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12, costs on those communities. The 1996). In addition to continuing these provisions of today’s rule apply to all 17 See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed efforts, EPA has conducted the community and non-transient non- following efforts to actively coordinate discussion of the State reporting requirement changes. with these groups. 18 The panel consisted of the Directors of the 19 See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more In 1997, in response to the comments Drinking Water program from Iowa, Michigan, detailed discussion of EPA’s rationale for not received to the April 1996 proposed Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas. adopting an alternative to tap water monitoring.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations community water systems. Tribal 9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the already are conducting such monitoring governments may be the owners or LCRMR on the Technical, Financial, but, for a few systems, this LCRMR operators of such systems, however, and Managerial Capacity of Public provision represents a new requirement. nothing in today’s provisions uniquely Water Systems The affected systems predominantly affects them. The overall effect of Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as serve more than 50,000 persons and are today’s rule should be to reduce water amended requires that, in promulgating not expected to require significantly system operational costs slightly, a NPDWR, the Administrator shall increased technical, financial, or managerial capacity to comply with depending on system-specific include an analysis of the likely effect these requirements. Certainly some circumstances, with no change in the of compliance with the regulation on individual facilities may have level of public health protection. EPA the technical, financial, and managerial weaknesses in one or more of these therefore concludes that today’s rule capacity of public water systems. The areas but overall these systems with does not significantly or uniquely affect following analysis has been performed minimal corrosion in the distribution the communities of Indian tribal to fulfill this statutory obligation. system should have or be able to easily governments. Accordingly, the Overall water system capacity is obtain the capacity needed for these requirements of section 3(b) of defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a) as the actions. Executive Order 13084 do not apply to ability to plan for, achieve, and • this rule. There are an estimated 762 systems, maintain compliance with applicable 592 of which serve 3,300 or fewer 7. Risk to Children Analysis drinking water standards. Capacity has persons, subject to the LCR’s lead three components: technical, service line replacement requirements. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of managerial, and financial. The LCRMR do not alter these basic Children from Environmental Health Technical capacity is the physical and requirements, and so do not affect the Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, operational ability of a water system to number of systems triggered into these April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: meet SDWA requirements. Technical requirements or significantly affect the (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically capacity refers to the physical amount of lead pipe to be replaced; significant’’ as defined under E.O. infrastructure of the water system, however, the LCRMR do require 12866, and (2) concerns an including the adequacy of source water additional consumer notification and environmental health or safety risk that and the adequacy of treatment, storage, modify post-replacement sampling and EPA has reason to believe may have a and distribution infrastructure. It also reporting requirements when the water disproportionate effect on children. If refers to the ability of system personnel system replaces less than the entire the regulatory action meets both criteria, to adequately operate and maintain the length of the lead service line. These the Agency must evaluate the system and to otherwise implement systems now will be required to provide environmental health or safety effects of requisite technical knowledge. consumers served by the partially- the planned rule on children, and Managerial capacity is the ability of a replaced lead service line(s) 45-day explain why the planned regulation is water system to conduct its affairs in a advance notification of the replacement, preferable to other potentially effective manner enabling the system to achieve guidance about possible short-term and reasonably feasible alternatives and maintain compliance with SDWA increases of lead levels at the tap, and considered by the Agency. This Lead requirements. Managerial capacity refers steps consumers can take to minimize and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final to the system’s institutional and exposure. These systems also must take rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because administrative capabilities. a post-replacement sample within three it is not ‘‘economically significant’’ as Financial capacity is a water system’s days of completing the replacement and defined under E.O. 12866. ability to acquire and manage sufficient provide the results to all affected financial resources to allow the system consumers within three business days of 8. National Technology Transfer and to achieve and maintain compliance receiving the results from the laboratory. Advancement Act with SDWA requirements. These requirements strengthen the Section 12(d) of the National Key Points notification and post-partial replacement monitoring and reporting Technology Transfer and Advancement There are 75,945 water systems Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. No. requirements of the 1991 LCR. The affected by this rule. Overall, these notification requirements may require 104–113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) systems are not expected to require directs EPA to use voluntary consensus an enhancement of technical, significantly increased technical, managerial, and financial capacity. EPA standards in its regulatory activities financial, or managerial capacity as a anticipates, however, that the post unless to do so would be inconsistent result of the LCRMR, as most of the partial-replacement monitoring will with applicable law or otherwise revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR require less capacity than the 1991 LCR impractical. Voluntary consensus requirements. The few exceptions are because systems may now limit this standards are technical standards (e.g., highlighted below. monitoring to one sample per line materials specifications, test methods, • There are an estimated 171 systems (compared to one sample per household sampling procedures, business deemed to have optimized corrosion served by the line) to comply with these practices) that are developed or adopted control treatment after demonstrating requirements. The net effect should by voluntary consensus standard bodies. that little or no lead corrosion is result in an overall decrease of The NTTAA directs EPA to provide occurring in the distribution system. A technical, managerial, and financial Congress, through OMB, explanations few of these systems may be triggered capacity required to comply with these when the Agency decides not to use into the LCR’s corrosion control requirements. available and applicable voluntary treatment requirements because they • All 75,945 water systems consensus standards. exceed the copper action level. The 171 potentially are affected by new LCRMR This action does not involve technical systems also will be required to conduct provisions requiring any water system standards. Therefore, EPA did not monitoring for lead and copper at the subject to reduced monitoring for lead consider the use of any voluntary tap, and in source water, at least once and copper at the tap to notify the State consensus standards. every three years. Some of these systems no later than 60 days after any change

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2001 in treatment or the addition of a new broadcast stations to which the system reduce the amount of supporting source. The State, in response, may provided bi-annual public service documentation that must accompany require the system to conduct some announcements. Moreover, States have tap water monitoring results and an additional monitoring and/or to take the discretion to waive submission of estimated 34,046 systems will be able to other appropriate action to ensure that the supporting documentation in some eliminate 90th percentile calculations. optimal corrosion control is maintained. cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no The 4,256 systems required to conduct Many States already impose comparable longer required to provide public public education will be able to take requirements as a condition of the service announcements and will advantage of the LCRMR provisions operating permit and, thus, this continue to report completion of public allowing greater flexibility in the provision will not represent a new education tasks on an annual basis. delivery of materials to homeowners requirement for many systems. Therefore, water systems are not and others in the community. Consequently, systems generally are not expected to require increased technical, Generally, it is expected that the expected to require significantly financial, or managerial capacity to reductions in regulatory burden will increased technical, managerial, or comply with this increased reporting offset any enhanced technical, financial, financial capacity to deal with this requirement. and managerial capacity requirements requirement. Certainly some individual Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly, facilities may have weaknesses in one or 1991 LCR requirements. These some individual facilities may have more of these areas but overall, water clarifications include: weaknesses in one or more of these • systems should have or be able to easily The requirement to properly areas with respect to the basic LCR obtain the capacity needed for these operate and maintain optimal corrosion requirements, but overall, it is expected activities. control; that the LCRMR will not exacerbate any • • There are an estimated 6,116 The requirement that water systems weaknesses that already may exist. systems, 5,552 of which serve 50,000 or deemed to have optimized corrosion fewer persons, required to monitor for control under § 141.81(b)(2) conduct 10. Submission to Congress and the water quality parameters after the routine water quality parameter General Accounting Office installation of corrosion control monitoring; The Congressional Review Act, 5 treatment under the 1991 LCR. The • The requirements pertaining to the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small LCRMR do not affect the monitoring number and location of tap water lead Business Regulatory Enforcement requirement but makes changes in the and copper sampling sites; Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides • way the results are to be evaluated to The requirements specifying the that before a rule may take effect, the determine compliance with State- conditions under which a system must agency promulgating the rule must designated optimal water quality resume monitoring at the tap every six submit a rule report, which includes a parameters. For some systems this months; and • copy of the rule, to each House of the revised approach for determining The resampling triggers for Congress and to the Comptroller General compliance is expected to require composite source water samples. of the United States. EPA will submit a additional analysis to assess Certainly, there may be some report containing this rule and other compliance, but to result in fewer individual facilities that need to required information to the U.S. Senate, systems incurring violations due to enhance technical, financial, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and temporary short-term fluctuations in managerial capacity to comply with the Comptroller General of the United water quality. Some of these systems these pre-existing requirements; States prior to publication of the rule in may need to enhance their technical, however, most systems are expected to the Federal Register. A major rule managerial, and financial capacity to have or be able to easily obtain the cannot take effect until 60 days after it comply with these requirements; capacity necessary for these activities. is published in the Federal Register. All 75,945 systems may benefit from however, most of the affected systems This rule is not a major rule as defined one or more of the LCRMR provisions should have or easily be able to obtain by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be intended to reduce regulatory burden. the needed capacity because fewer effective on April 11, 2000. resources will be required to address There are an estimated 4,554 systems violations that likely would have that are eligible to reduce the frequency H. References occurred under the 1991 regulations. of tap water monitoring to once every American Water Works Association, et al. v. These violations, in turn, would have three years without first conducting EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.C. Cir. (1994). triggered activities including public several rounds of annual monitoring. An [AWWA v. EPA] notification and loss of eligibility for estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease reduced monitoring that would have or fewer persons may be eligible for Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997. required technical, managerial, and waivers that will reduce the frequency Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for financial capacity to address. of monitoring for lead and/or copper at Public Comment. Prepared by Research • the tap to once every nine years. An Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of There are 4,649 CWSs and Health & Human Services, Public Health NTNCWSs that are estimated to estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27, 104, 132– continue to be required to conduct systems subject to routine water quality 133, 166 [ATSDR, 1997] public education programs after the parameter monitoring will be able to Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November installation of treatment. 387 of these reduce the number of samples by using 1981. Factors Influencing Plumbosolvency systems are CWSs that serve more than representative locations instead of in Scotland. Originally presented as: A 3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these sampling at every entry point. Some potpourri on plumbosolvency. At a 387 systems will need to report systems also will be able to reduce the Scientific Section Symposium on completion of public education tasks to frequency of source water monitoring. Plumbosolvency. [Britton and Richards, An estimated 6,116 systems subject to 1981] the State twice a year, instead of once Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E., per year as required by the 1991 LCR. routine water quality monitoring and Harward, G. June 1992. The required supporting documentation requirements will be able to reduce Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in for this second submission is minimal, paperwork seeking approval for reduced Hard Waters. J IWEM, 6:259–268. [Colling, since it need only include a list of the monitoring. All systems will be able to et al., 1992]

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2002 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M., Chemical Contaminants—Chemical Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis. Zielhuis, R.L. 1976. Biochemical Response Monitoring Reform (CMR) and Permanent [Montgomery, et al., 1990] of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu, Lead for 49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup. of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3, N., McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golut, Environ. Health, 38:129–139. [Cools, et al., 1997), 36100–36136. [62 FR 36100] M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian, 1976] Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163. N., and Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995. Interpretation of New Drinking Water Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility Requirements Relating to Lead Free in Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health, Experience. Journal AWWA, 74–85. Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures; Notice. 8(1–2): 89–102. [Nakhoul, et al., 1992] [Dodrill and Edwards, 1995] (Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684–44685. [62 FR National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982. Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E. 44684] Drinking Water and Health. Washington, March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4, Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal Primary Drinking Water Regulations: pp. 179–183. [NAS, 1982] AWWA, 81–94. [Edwards, et al., 1996] Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule. Household Water Lead: A British National Primary Drinking Water Regulations— (Mon., Nov. 3, 1997), 59388–58484. [62 FR Survey. Arch. of Env. Health, 35(1): 45–51. Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring 59388] [Pocock, 1980] for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996. (Wed., Jul. 8, 1987), 25690–25717. [52 FR Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Copper Corrosion and Iron Removal Plants. 25690] Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Conference Paper. Section of Drinking Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. National (Fri., Feb. 13, 1998), 7605–7633. [63 FR Water Protection, Minnesota Department of Primary Drinking Water Regulations— 7605] Health. [Rezania and Anderl, 1996] Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminant Level Goals and National observation of biochemical effects of lead Contaminants; National Primary Drinking Primary Drinking Water Regulations for in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin. Water Regulations Implementation; Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Wed., Biochem., 17: 225–233. [Schlegel and National Secondary Drinking Water Apr. 22, 1998), 20038–20047. [63 FR Kufner, 1979] Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed., Jan. 30, 20038] Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead 1991), 3526–3614. [56 FR 3526] Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions Intoxication in Infancy. Pediatrics, 89: 87– Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 110. Drinking to State Primary Requirements to 90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992] Water Regulations—Maximum Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of Contaminant Level Goals and National Amendments; Final Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28, male and female volunteers to inorganic Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 1998), 23361–23368. [63 FR 23361] lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83–97. Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri., Jun. 7, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 151. [Struik, 1974] 1991), 26460–26564. [56 FR 26460] Announcement of Small System U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking Compliance Technology Lists for Existing Undated. An Evaluation of the Secondary Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant National Primary Drinking Water Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Regulations and Findings Concerning Effects of Enhanced Coagulation, With Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Variance Technologies. (Thur., Aug. 6, Emphasis on Corrosion Control. Final Rule; Correction. (Mon., Jul. 15, 1998), 42032–42048. [63 FR 42032] Conference Paper prepared by D.A. Lytle, 1991), 32113. [56 FR 32113] Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum M.R. Schock, and R.J. Miltner, Treatment Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking Contaminant Level Goals and National and Technology Evaluation Branch, Water Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Supply and Water Resources Division, Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Tue., National Risk Management Research Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Aug. 18, 1998), 44214–44218. [63 FR Laboratory. [EPA, undated] Final Rule; Correcting Amendments. 44214] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb. (Mon., Jun. 29, 1992), 28785–28789. [57 FR Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National 23, 1988. Memorandum to Arthur Perler, 28785] Primary Drinking Water Regulations— Science and Technology Branch from Jon Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Longtin, Water Supply Technology Branch, Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), 69388– regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic 69476. [62 FR 69388] Results. [EPA, 1988] Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri., Jul. 17, 1992), Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 31776–31849. [57 FR 31776] Primary Drinking Water Regulations— 1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Water; Maximum Contaminant Level Goals Rule; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared and National Primary Drinking Water 69477–69521. [63 FR 69521] by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA, Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe, 1991a] Rule; Technical Corrections. (Thu., Jun. 30, T.L. 1992. Evaluation of Lead Corrosion U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1994), 33860–33864. [59 FR 33860] Control Measures for a Multi-source Water 1991. Summary: Peach Orchard Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232. Analytical Utility. American Water Works Monitoring; Lead Service Line Methods for Regulated Drinking Water Association, 1992 Water Quality Replacement Study. Prepared by Barbara Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon., Dec. 5, Technology Conference Proceedings. Part I: Wysock, Office of Drinking Water 1994), 62456–62471. [59 FR 62456] 777–797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992] Technical Support Division. [EPA, 1991b] Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphrias: Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Advances. Clinical Chemistry, 32(7)a; 1991. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Regulations; Analytical Methods for 1255–1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986] Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants; Kuch, A. and Wagner, I. 1983. A mass by Black & Veatch, ECOS, Inc., and Final Rule. (Thu., Jun. 29, 1995), 34084– transfer model to describe lead Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92–112101). 34086. [60 FR 34084] concentrations in drinking water. Water [EPA, 1991c] Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum Research, 17(10): 1301. [Kuch and Wagner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan. Contaminant Level Goals and National 1983] 10, 1992. Memo from Jeff Cohen, Chief Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Fri., Quantities of Lead Ingested and Health and Drinking Water, to Regional Drinking Apr. 12, 1996), 16348–16371. [60 FR Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics, Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems 16348] 59(3): 448–456. [Mahaffey, 1977] Regulated Under the National Primary Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector, Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Water Monitoring Requirements for Certain A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A Case-Oriented Copper. [EPA 1992a]

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2003

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 1992. Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions Criteria Division, Office of Science and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, and Federal Reporting for Milestones, Technology, Office of Water. [EPA, 1998b] 1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, Violations and SNCs. (ERIC G405, NTIS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, PB–93–156–131). [EPA, 1992b] 28, 1998. Memo to the Record from Jeffrey 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 1992. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Line Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c] 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 11023, 11048. Treatment. Prepared by Black & Veatch and 1999. Information Collection Request for 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended under Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB–93– the National Primary Drinking Water 101583). [EPA, 1992c] Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared the indicated heading by revising entry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May by the Cadmus Group, Inc. [EPA, 1999a] ‘‘141.80–141.91,’’ by removing entries 1994. Methods for Determination of Metals U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June ‘‘142.10–142.15,’’ and by adding new in Environmental Samples—Supplement 1. 19, 1999. Memo from Anne Jaffe Murray, entries in numerical order to read as (NTIS PB–94–184942). [EPA, 1994] the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. Lebowich. Review of Data for Large 4, 1995. Memo from Robert J. Blanco, Community Water Systems (CWSs) that § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Director, Drinking Water Implementation Continue to Exceed the Action Level After Reduction Act. Division, to O. Thomas Love, Chief, Water Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b] * * * * * Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Systems—Compliance with the Lead and August 1999. Microbial Disinfection OMB control Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a] Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance 40 CFR citation No. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct. Manual. EPA 815–R–99–015. [EPA, 1999c] 1995. National Primary Drinking Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug. Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis 2, 1999. Memo to the Record by Judith ***** of Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review National Primary Drinking Lead Levels. (EPA 812–X–95–001; NTIS PB of Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor Water Regulations. 96–129077). [EPA, 1995b] Revisions Burden and Costs under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d] ***** 1995. A Survey Study of Lead in Drinking U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 141.80±141.91 ...... 2040±0210 Water Supplied by Transient Water Systems. Prepared by R.P. Maas, S.C. September 30, 1999. Response to Comment Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown, Document for The Lead and Copper Rule ***** Environmental Quality Institute, The Minor Revisions. [EPA, 1999e] National Primary Drinking University of North Carolina at Ashville. Wagner, I. Jun. 18–22, 1988. Effects of Water Regulations Implemen- Technical Report #95–019. [EPA, 1995c] Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal tation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar. Uptake. Proceedings of American Water 20, 1996. Memo from Jeff Cohen to Connie Works Conference. [Wagner, 1988] ***** 142.10±142.14 ...... 2040±0090 [Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Lead Rule List of Subjects for Transient Systems. [EPA, 1996a] 142.14(d)(8)±(11) ...... 2040±0210 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 40 CFR Part 9 142.15 ...... 2040±0090 19. 1996. Memorandum to Jeffrey B. 142.15(c)(4) ...... 2040±0210 Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Environmental protection, Reporting Drinking Water from Michael R. Shock, and recordkeeping requirements. ***** 142.16(d) ...... 2040±0210 Treatment and Technology Branch, Water 40 CFR Part 141 Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Environmental protection, Chemicals, ***** Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision. Indians—lands, Intergovernmental (Note: References 5, 6, and 7 cited in the relations, Radiation protection, PART 141ÐNATIONAL PRIMARY memorandum are not publically available Reporting and recordkeeping DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS data and the data contained in these requirements, Water supply. studies have not been factored into EPA’s 3. The authority citation for part 141 decision making.) [EPA, 1996b] 40 CFR Part 142 continues to read as follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Administrative practice and March 1997. Manual for the Certification of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking procedure, Chemicals, Indians—lands, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, Water—Criteria and Procedures Quality Radiation protection, Reporting and 300j–9, and 300j–11. recordkeeping requirements, Water Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815–B– 4. Section 141.43 is amended by 97–001. [EPA 1997a] supply. removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dated: December 20, 1999. August 1997. Alternative Monitoring removing the undesignatted paragraph Guidelines. [EPA–816–R–97–011]. [EPA, Carol M. Browner, immediately following paragraph 1997b] Administrator. (a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. For the reasons set forth in the (b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to 26, 1997. The Data Sharing Committee’s preamble, title 40 chapter 1, parts 141 read as follows: Recommendations for the Lead and Copper Rule. Draft Report. Prepared for the Office and 142 of the Code of Federal § 141.43 Prohibition on use of lead pipes, of Ground Water and Drinking Water by Regulations are amended as follows: solder, and flux. the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA, PART 9Ð[AMENDED] * * * * * 1997c] (d) Definition of lead free. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1. The authority citation for part 9 purposes of this section, the term lead 1998. Guidance on Implementing the continues to read as follows: Capacity Development Provisions of the free: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; (1) When used with respect to solders 1996. EPA 816–R–98–006. [EPA 1998a] 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; and flux refers to solders and flux U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 containing not more than 0.2 percent 22, 1998. Health Effects from Short-Term U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, lead;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) When used with respect to pipes conducted in accordance with § 141.86 longer deemed to have optimized and pipe fittings refers to pipes and pipe and source water monitoring conducted corrosion control under this paragraph. fittings containing not more than 8.0 in accordance with § 141.88 that * * * * * percent lead; and demonstrates for two consecutive 6- 6. Section 141.82 is amended by (3) When used with respect to month monitoring periods that the revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: plumbing fittings and fixtures intended difference between the 90th percentile by the manufacturer to dispense water tap water lead level computed under § 141.82 Description of corrosion control treatment requirements. for human ingestion refers to fittings § 141.80(c)(3), and the highest source and fixtures that are in compliance with water lead concentration is less than the * * * * * standards established in accordance Practical Quantitation Level for lead (g) Continued operation and with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e). specified in § 141.89(a)(1)(ii). monitoring. All systems optimizing 5. Section 141.81 is amended by corrosion control shall continue to (i) Those systems whose highest revising paragraph (b) introductory text, operate and maintain optimal corrosion source water lead level is below the paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and control treatment, including Method Detection Limit may also be paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: maintaining water quality parameters at deemed to have optimized corrosion or above minimum values or within § 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control control under this paragraph if the 90th ranges designated by the State under treatment steps to small, medium-size and percentile tap water lead level is less paragraph (f) of this section, in large water systems. than or equal to the Practical accordance with this paragraph for all * * * * * Quantitation Level for lead for two samples collected under § 141.87(d) (b) A system is deemed to have consecutive 6-month monitoring through (f). Compliance with the optimized corrosion control and is not periods. requirements of this paragraph shall be required to complete the applicable (ii) Any water system deemed to have determined every six months, as corrosion control treatment steps optimized corrosion control in specified under § 141.87(d). A water identified in this section if the system accordance with this paragraph shall system is out of compliance with the satisfies one of the criteria specified in continue monitoring for lead and copper requirements of this paragraph for a six- paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this at the tap no less frequently than once month period if it has excursions for section. Any such system deemed to every three calendar years using the any State-specified parameter on more have optimized corrosion control under reduced number of sites specified in than nine days during the period. An this paragraph, and which has treatment § 141.86(c) and collecting the samples at excursion occurs whenever the daily in place, shall continue to operate and times and locations specified in value for one or more of the water maintain optimal corrosion control § 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that quality parameters measured at a treatment and meet any requirements has not conducted a round of sampling location is below the that the State determines appropriate to monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d) since minimum value or outside the range ensure optimal corrosion control September 30, 1997, shall complete a designated by the State. Daily values are treatment is maintained. round of monitoring pursuant to this calculated as follows. States have (1) * * * paragraph no later than September 30, discretion to delete results of obvious (2) Any water system may be deemed 2000. sampling errors from this calculation. by the State to have optimized corrosion (iii) Any water system deemed to have (1) On days when more than one control treatment if the system measurement for the water quality demonstrates to the satisfaction of the optimized corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in parameter is collected at the sampling State that it has conducted activities location, the daily value shall be the writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any equivalent to the corrosion control steps average of all results collected during change in treatment or the addition of applicable to such system under this the day regardless of whether they are a new source. The State may require any section. If the State makes this collected through continuous such system to conduct additional determination, it shall provide the monitoring, grab sampling, or a monitoring or to take other action the system with written notice explaining combination of both. If EPA has State deems appropriate to ensure that the basis for its decision and shall approved an alternative formula under such systems maintain minimal levels specify the water quality control § 142.16 of this chapter in the State’s of corrosion in the distribution system. parameters representing optimal application for a program revision corrosion control in accordance with (iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is submitted pursuant to § 142.12 of this § 141.82(f). Water systems deemed to not deemed to have optimized corrosion chapter, the State’s formula shall be have optimized corrosion control under control under this paragraph, and shall used to aggregate multiple this paragraph shall operate in implement corrosion control treatment measurements taken at a sampling point compliance with the State-designated pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this for the water quality parameter in lieu optimal water quality control section unless it meets the copper action of the formula in this paragraph. parameters in accordance with level. (2) On days when only one § 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead (v) Any system triggered into measurement for the water quality and copper tap and water quality corrosion control because it is no longer parameter is collected at the sampling parameter sampling in accordance with deemed to have optimized corrosion location, the daily value shall be the § 141.86(d)(3) and § 141.87(d), control under this paragraph shall result of that measurement. respectively. A system shall provide the implement corrosion control treatment (3) On days when no measurement is State with the following information in in accordance with the deadlines in collected for the water quality parameter order to support a determination under paragraph (e) of this section. Any such at the sampling location, the daily value this paragraph: large system shall adhere to the shall be the daily value calculated on * * * * * schedule specified in that paragraph for the most recent day on which the water (3) Any water system is deemed to medium-size systems, with the time quality parameter was measured at the have optimized corrosion control if it periods for completing each step being sample site. submits results of tap water monitoring triggered by the date the system is no * * * * *

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2005

7. Section 141.84 is amended by emergency repairs. In addition, the text and (c)(2)(i) through (iii), (c)(4) removing paragraph (e), redesignating water system shall inform the introductory text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through resident(s) served by the line that the as follows: (g), and by revising paragraphs (b) and system will, at the system’s expense, (d) to read as follows: § 141.85 Public education and collect a sample from each partially- supplemental monitoring requirements. replaced lead service line that is § 141.84 Lead service line replacement * * * * * requirements. representative of the water in the service line for analysis of lead content, as (a) Content of written public education materials. (1) Community * * * * * prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3), within (b) A water system shall replace water systems. A community water 72 hours after the completion of the annually at least 7 percent of the initial system shall include the following text partial replacement of the service line. number of lead service lines in its in all of the printed materials it The system shall collect the sample and distribution system. The initial number distributes through its lead public report the results of the analysis to the of lead service lines is the number of education program. Systems may delete owner and the resident(s) served by the lead lines in place at the time the information pertaining to lead service line within three business days of replacement program begins. The lines, upon approval by the State, if no receiving the results. Mailed notices system shall identify the initial number lead service lines exist anywhere in the post-marked within three business days of lead service lines in its distribution water system service area. Public system, including an identification of of receiving the results shall be education language at paragraphs the portion(s) owned by the system, considered ‘‘on time.’’ (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) of this (2) The water system shall provide the based on a materials evaluation, section may be modified regarding information required by paragraph (d)(1) including the evaluation required under building permit record availability and of this section to the residents of § 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities consumer access to these records, if individual dwellings by mail or by other (e.g., contracts, local ordinances) approved by the State. Systems may also methods approved by the State. In regarding the portion owned by the continue to utilize pre-printed materials instances where multi-family dwellings system. The first year of lead service that meet the public education language line replacement shall begin on the date are served by the line, the water system requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective the action level was exceeded in tap shall have the option to post the November 6, 1991, and contained in the sampling referenced in paragraph (a) of information at a conspicuous location. 40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised this section. * * * * * as of July 1, 1991. Any additional 8. Section 141.85 is amended by * * * * * information presented by a system shall (d) A water system shall replace that redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) through be consistent with the information portion of the lead service line that it (a)(4)(v) as follows: below and be in plain English that can owns. In cases where the system does be understood by lay people. Old paragraph New paragraph not own the entire lead service line, the * * * * * system shall notify the owner of the (a) Introductory text ... (a)(1). (iv) * * * line, or the owner’s authorized agent, (a)(1) Introductory (a)(1)(i). (B) * * * that the system will replace the portion text. (5) Determine whether or not the of the service line that it owns and shall (a)(2) ...... (a)(1)(ii). service line that connects your home or offer to replace the owner’s portion of (a)(3) ...... (a)(1)(iii). apartment to the water main is made of the line. A system is not required to bear (a)(3)(i) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(A). lead. The best way to determine if your the cost of replacing the privately- (a)(3)(ii) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(B). service line is made of lead is by either owned portion of the line, nor is it (a)(3)(iii) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(C). hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the (a)(4) ...... (a)(1)(iv). required to replace the privately-owned line or by contacting the plumbing (a)(4)(i) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(A). contractor who installed the line. You portion where the owner chooses not to (a)(4)(ii) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B). pay the cost of replacing the privately- (a)(4)(ii)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(1). can identify the plumbing contractor by owned portion of the line, or where (a)(4)(ii)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(2). checking the city’s record of building replacing the privately-owned portion (a)(4)(ii)(C) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(3). permits which should be maintained in would be precluded by State, local or (a)(4)(ii)(D) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(4). the files of the [insert name of common law. A water system that does (a)(4)(ii)(E) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5). department that issues building not replace the entire length of the (a)(4)(ii)(F) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(6). permits]. A licensed plumber can at the service line also shall complete the (a)(4)(iii) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C). same time check to see if your home’s following tasks. (a)(4)(iii)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C)(1). plumbing contains lead solder, lead (1) At least 45 days prior to (a)(4)(iii)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2). pipes, or pipe fittings that contain lead. (a)(4)(iv) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D). commencing with the partial (a)(4)(iv)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(1). The public water system that delivers replacement of a lead service line, the (a)(4)(iv)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2). water to your home should also water system shall provide notice to the (a)(4)(iv)(C) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3). maintain records of the materials resident(s) of all buildings served by the (a)(4)(v) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(E). located in the distribution system. If the line explaining that they may service line that connects your dwelling experience a temporary increase of lead 8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended to the water main contributes more than levels in their drinking water, along by adding paragraphs (a) introductory 15 ppb to drinking water, after our with guidance on measures consumers text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising comprehensive treatment program is in can take to minimize their exposure to all references to ‘‘each lead service line place, we are required to replace the lead. The State may allow the water that we control’’ in redesignated portion of the line we own. If the line system to provide notice under the paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read ‘‘the portion is only partially owned by the [insert previous sentence less than 45 days of each lead service line that we own’’ the name of the city, county, or water prior to commencing partial lead service and by revising newly designated system that owns the line], we are line replacement where such paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5), and by required to provide the owner of the replacement is in conjunction with revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory privately-owned portion of the line with

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2006 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations information on how to replace the (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is portion of the plumbing system, you privately-owned portion of the service found throughout the environment in still need to flush the water in each line, and offer to replace that portion of lead-based paint, air, soil, household faucet before using it for drinking or the line at the owner’s expense. If we dust, food, certain types of pottery cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple replace only the portion of the line that porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead and inexpensive measure you can take we own, we also are required to notify can pose a significant risk to your health to protect your health. It usually uses you in advance and provide you with if too much of it enters your body. Lead less than one gallon of water. information on the steps you can take to builds up in the body over many years (B) Do not cook with, or drink water minimize exposure to any temporary and can cause damage to the brain, red from the hot water tap. Hot water can increase in lead levels that may result blood cells and kidneys. The greatest dissolve more lead more quickly than from the partial replacement, to take a risk is to young children and pregnant cold water. If you need hot water, draw follow-up sample at our expense from women. Amounts of lead that won’t water from the cold tap and then heat the line within 72 hours after the partial hurt adults can slow down normal it. replacement, and to mail or otherwise mental and physical development of (C) The steps described above will provide you with the results of that growing bodies. In addition, a child at reduce the lead concentrations in your sample within three business days of play often comes into contact with drinking water. However, if you are still receiving the results. Acceptable sources of lead contamination—like dirt concerned, you may wish to use bottled replacement alternatives include and dust—that rarely affect an adult. It water for drinking and cooking. copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes. is important to wash children’s hands (D) You can consult a variety of and toys often, and to try to make sure sources for additional information. Your * * * * * they only put food in their mouths. family doctor or pediatrician can (2) Non-transient non-community (iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead perform a blood test for lead and water systems. A non-transient non- in drinking water, although rarely the provide you with information about the community water system shall either sole cause of lead poisoning, can health effects of lead. State and local include the text specified in paragraph significantly increase a person’s total government agencies that can be (a)(1) of this section or shall include the lead exposure, particularly the exposure contacted include: following text in all of the printed of infants who drink baby formulas and (1) [insert the name or title of facility materials it distributes through its lead concentrated juices that are mixed with official if appropriate] at [insert phone public education program. Water water. The EPA estimates that drinking number] can provide you with systems may delete information water can make up 20 percent or more information about your facility’s water pertaining to lead service lines upon of a person’s total exposure to lead. supply; and approval by the State if no lead service (B) Lead is unusual among drinking (2) [insert the name or title of the water contaminants in that it seldom lines exist anywhere in the water system State Department of Public Health] at occurs naturally in water supplies like service area. Any additional information [insert phone number] or the [insert the rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking presented by a system shall be name of the city or county health water primarily as a result of the consistent with the information below department] at [insert phone number] corrosion, or wearing away, of materials and be in plain English that can be can provide you with information about containing lead in the water distribution understood by lay people. the health effects of lead. system and household plumbing. These (i) Introduction. The United States materials include lead-based solder * * * * * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to join copper pipe, brass and (c) * * * and [insert name of water supplier] are chrome-plated brass faucets, and in (2) A community water system that concerned about lead in your drinking some cases, pipes made of lead that exceeds the lead action level on the water. Some drinking water samples connect houses and buildings to water basis of tap water samples collected in taken from this facility have lead levels mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress accordance with § 141.86, and that is above the EPA action level of 15 parts banned the use of lead solder containing not already repeating public education per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted tasks pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7), lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under the lead content of faucets, pipes and or (c)(8), of this section, shall, within 60 Federal law we are required to have a other plumbing materials to 8.0%. days: program in place to minimize lead in (C) When water stands in lead pipes (i) Insert notices in each customer’s your drinking water by [insert date or plumbing systems containing lead for water utility bill containing the when corrosion control will be several hours or more, the lead may information in paragraph (a)(1) of this completed for your system]. This dissolve into your drinking water. This section, along with the following alert program includes corrosion control means the first water drawn from the on the water bill itself in large print: treatment, source water treatment, and tap in the morning, or later in the ‘‘SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY public education. We are also required afternoon if the water has not been used HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN to replace the portion of each lead all day, can contain fairly high levels of THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN service line that we own if the line lead. POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR contributes lead concentrations of more (iv) Steps you can take to reduce HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE than 15 ppb after we have completed exposure to lead in drinking water. (A) ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER the comprehensive treatment program. Let the water run from the tap before INFORMATION.’’ A community water If you have any questions about how we using it for drinking or cooking any time system having a billing cycle that does are carrying out the requirements of the the water in a faucet has gone unused not include a billing within 60 days of lead regulation please give us a call at for more than six hours. The longer exceeding the action level, or that [insert water system’s phone number]. water resides in plumbing the more lead cannot insert information in the water This brochure explains the simple steps it may contain. Flushing the tap means utility bill without making major you can take to protect yourself by running the cold water faucet for about changes to its billing system, may use a reducing your exposure to lead in 15–30 seconds. Although toilet flushing separate mailing to deliver the drinking water. or showering flushes water through a information in paragraph (a)(1) of this

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2007 section as long as the information is served by the system, such systems may paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall delivered to each customer within 60 further limit their public education complete its sampling pool with days of exceeding the action level. Such programs as follows: sampling sites that contain copper pipes water systems shall also include the (A) Systems serving 500 or fewer with lead solder installed before 1983. ‘‘alert’’ language specified in this people may forego the task contained in If additional sites are needed to paragraph. paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such complete the sampling pool, the non- (ii) Submit the information in a system may limit the distribution of transient non-community water system paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the the public education materials required shall use representative sites throughout editorial departments of the major daily under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section the distribution system. For the purpose and weekly newspapers circulated to facilities and organizations served by of this paragraph, a representative site is throughout the community. the system that are most likely to be a site in which the plumbing materials (iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or visited regularly by pregnant women used at that site would be commonly brochures that contain the public and children, unless it is notified by the found at other sites served by the water education materials in paragraphs State in writing that it must make a system. (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section to broader distribution. (8) Any water system whose facilities and organizations, including (B) If approved by the State in writing, distribution system contains lead the following: a system serving 501 to 3,300 people service lines shall draw 50 percent of may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) * * * * * the samples it collects during each (4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the of this section and/or limit the monitoring period from sites that distribution of the public education lead action level (unless it already is contain lead pipes, or copper pipes with materials required under paragraph repeating public education tasks lead solder, and 50 percent of the (c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this samples from sites served by a lead organizations served by the system that section), a non-transient non- service line. A water system that cannot are most likely to be visited regularly by community water system shall deliver identify a sufficient number of sampling pregnant women and children. sites served by a lead service line shall the public education materials specified (ii) A community water system by paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the collect first-draw samples from all of the serving 3,300 or fewer people that sites identified as being served by such public education materials specified by delivers public education in accordance lines. paragraph (a)(2) of this section as with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section (b) Sample collection methods. (1) All follows: shall repeat the required public tap samples for lead and copper (i) * * * education tasks at least once during collected in accordance with this (ii) Distribute informational each calendar year in which the system subpart, with the exception of lead pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in exceeds the lead action level. service line samples collected under drinking water to each person served by § 141.84(c) and samples collected under the non-transient non-community water * * * * * 9. Section 141.86 is amended by paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be system. The State may allow the system removing paragraph (a)(8), by first-draw samples. to utilize electronic transmission in lieu redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as (2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead of or combined with printed materials paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by and copper shall be one liter in volume as long as it achieves at least the same redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as and have stood motionless in the coverage. paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising it, by plumbing system of each sampling site * * * * * adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v), for at least six hours. First-draw samples (7) A community water system may (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising from residential housing shall be apply to the State, in writing, (unless paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), collected from the cold water kitchen the State has waived the requirement for and (d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw prior State approval) to use the text as follows: samples from a nonresidential building specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this shall be one liter in volume and shall be section in lieu of the text in paragraph § 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead collected at an interior tap from which (a)(1) of this section and to perform the and copper in tap water. water is typically drawn for tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and (a) * * * consumption. Non-first-draw samples (c)(5) of this section in lieu of the tasks (5) Any community water system with collected in lieu of first-draw samples in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this insufficient tier 1 and tier 2 sampling pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section if: sites shall complete its sampling pool section shall be one liter in volume and (i) The system is a facility, such as a with ‘‘tier 3 sampling sites’’, consisting shall be collected at an interior tap from prison or a hospital, where the of single family structures that contain which water is typically drawn for population served is not capable of or is copper pipes with lead solder installed consumption. First-draw samples may prevented from making improvements before 1983. A community water system be collected by the system or the system to plumbing or installing point of use with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier may allow residents to collect first-draw treatment devices; and 3 sampling sites shall complete its samples after instructing the residents of (ii) The system provides water as part sampling pool with representative sites the sampling procedures specified in of the cost of services provided and does throughout the distribution system. For this paragraph. To avoid problems of not separately charge for water the purpose of this paragraph, a residents handling nitric acid, consumption. representative site is a site in which the acidification of first-draw samples may (8)(i) A community water system plumbing materials used at that site be done up to 14 days after the sample serving 3,300 or fewer people may omit would be commonly found at other sites is collected. After acidification to the task contained in paragraph served by the water system. resolubilize the metals, the sample must (c)(2)(iv) of this section. As long as it * * * * * stand in the original container for the distributes notices containing the (7) A non-transient non-community time specified in the approved EPA information contained in paragraph water system with insufficient tier 1 method before the sample can be (a)(1) of this section to every household sites that meet the targeting criteria in analyzed. If a system allows residents to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations perform sampling, the system may not year and reduce the number of lead and highest levels of lead are most likely to challenge, based on alleged errors in copper samples in accordance with occur. For a non-transient non- sample collection, the accuracy of paragraph (c) of this section if it receives community water system that does not sampling results. written approval from the State. The operate during the months of June * * * * * State shall review monitoring, through September, and for which the (5) A non-transient non-community treatment, and other relevant period of normal operation where the water system, or a community water information submitted by the water highest levels of lead are most likely to system that meets the criteria of system in accordance with § 141.90, and occur is not known, the State shall §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that does not shall notify the system in writing when designate a period that represents a time have enough taps that can supply first- it determines the system is eligible to of normal operation for the system. draw samples, as defined in § 141.2, commence reduced monitoring (B) Systems monitoring annually, that may apply to the State in writing to pursuant to this paragraph. The State have been collecting samples during the substitute non-first-draw samples. Such shall review, and where appropriate, months of June through September and systems must collect as many first-draw revise its determination when the that receive State approval to alter their samples from appropriate taps as system submits new monitoring or sample collection period under possible and identify sampling times treatment data, or when other data paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section, and locations that would likely result in relevant to the number and frequency of must collect their next round of samples the longest standing time for the tap sampling becomes available. during a time period that ends no later remaining sites. The State has the (iii) A small or medium-size water than 21 months after the previous round discretion to waive the requirement for system that meets the lead and copper of sampling. Systems monitoring prior State approval of non-first-draw action levels during three consecutive triennially that have been collecting samples during the months of June sample sites selected by the system, years of monitoring may reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and through September, and receive State either through State regulation or copper from annually to once every approval to alter the sampling collection written notification to the system. period as per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of (c) Number of samples. Water systems three years. Any water system that maintains the range of values for the this section, must collect their next shall collect at least one sample during water quality control parameters round of samples during a time period each monitoring period specified in reflecting optimal corrosion control that ends no later than 45 months after paragraph (d) of this section from the treatment specified by the State under the previous round of sampling. number of sites listed in the first § 141.82(f) during three consecutive Subsequent rounds of sampling must be column (‘‘standard monitoring’’) of the years of monitoring may reduce the collected annually or triennially, as table in this paragraph. A system frequency of monitoring from annually required by this section. Small systems conducting reduced monitoring under to once every three years if it receives with waivers, granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall written approval from the State. The paragraph (g) of this section, that have collect at least one sample from the State shall review monitoring, been collecting samples during the number of sites specified in the second treatment, and other relevant months of June through September and column (‘‘reduced monitoring’’) of the information submitted by the water receive State approval to alter their table in this paragraph during each system in accordance with § 141.90, and sample collection period under monitoring period specified in shall notify the system in writing when paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Such it determines the system is eligible to must collect their next round of samples reduced monitoring sites shall be reduce the frequency of monitoring to before the end of the 9-year period. representative of the sites required for once every three years. The State shall (v) Any water system that standard monitoring. States may specify review, and where appropriate, revise demonstrates for two consecutive 6- sampling locations when a system is its determination when the system month monitoring periods that the tap conducting reduced monitoring. The submits new monitoring or treatment water lead level computed under table is as follows: data, or when other data relevant to the § 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to number and frequency of tap sampling 0.005 mg/L and the tap water copper Number of sites Number becomes available. level computed under § 141.80(c)(3) is of sites (iv) A water system that reduces the less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may System size (number of (stand- (reduced people served) ard moni- number and frequency of sampling shall reduce the number of samples in monitoring) collect these samples from accordance with paragraph (c) of this toring) representative sites included in the pool section and reduce the frequency of >100,000 ...... 100 50 of targeted sampling sites identified in sampling to once every three calendar 10,001 to 100,000 ...... 60 30 paragraph (a) of this section. Systems years. 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 40 20 sampling annually or less frequently (vi)(A) A small or medium-size water 501 to 3,300 ...... 20 10 shall conduct the lead and copper tap system subject to reduced monitoring 101 to 500 ...... 10 5 sampling during the months of June, that exceeds the lead or copper action ≤100 ...... 5 5 July, August, or September unless the level shall resume sampling in State has approved a different sampling accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this (d) * * * period in accordance with paragraph section and collect the number of (4) * * * (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section. samples specified for standard (ii) Any water system that maintains (A) The State, at its discretion, may monitoring under paragraph (c) of this the range of values for the water quality approve a different period for section. Such a system shall also control parameters reflecting optimal conducting the lead and copper tap conduct water quality parameter corrosion control treatment specified by sampling for systems collecting a monitoring in accordance with the State under § 141.82(f) during each reduced number of samples. Such a § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) of two consecutive six-month period shall be no longer than four during the monitoring period in which monitoring periods may reduce the consecutive months and must represent it exceeded the action level. Any such frequency of monitoring to once per a time of normal operation where the system may resume annual monitoring

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2009 for lead and copper at the tap at the paragraph (d)(4) of this section that also be used to meet the monitoring reduced number of sites specified in either adds a new source of water or requirements of a subsequent paragraph (c) of this section after it has changes any water treatment shall monitoring period. The replacement completed two subsequent consecutive inform the State in writing in samples shall be taken at the same six-month rounds of monitoring that accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The locations as the invalidated samples or, meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of State may require the system to resume if that is not possible, at locations other this section and/or may resume triennial sampling in accordance with paragraph than those already used for sampling monitoring for lead and copper at the (d)(3) of this section and collect the during the monitoring period. reduced number of sites after it number of samples specified for (g) Monitoring waivers for small demonstrates through subsequent standard monitoring under paragraph systems. Any small system that meets rounds of monitoring that it meets the (c) of this section or take other the criteria of this paragraph may apply criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or appropriate steps such as increased to the State to reduce the frequency of (d)(4)(v) of this section. water quality parameter monitoring or monitoring for lead and copper under (B) Any water system subject to the re-evaluation of its corrosion control this section to once every nine years reduced monitoring frequency that fails treatment given the potentially different (i.e., a ‘‘full waiver’’) if it meets all of the to operate at or above the minimum water quality considerations. materials criteria specified in paragraph value or within the range of values for * * * * * (g)(1) of this section and all of the the water quality parameters specified (f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap monitoring criteria specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If State by the State under § 141.82(f) for more water samples. A sample invalidated than nine days in any six-month period regulations permit, any small system under this paragraph does not count specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct that meets the criteria in paragraphs toward determining lead or copper 90th tap water sampling for lead and copper (g)(1) and (2) of this section only for percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(3) or at the frequency specified in paragraph lead, or only for copper, may apply to toward meeting the minimum (d)(3) of this section, collect the number the State for a waiver to reduce the monitoring requirements of paragraph of samples specified for standard frequency of tap water monitoring to (c) of this section. monitoring under paragraph (c) of this once every nine years for that (1) The State may invalidate a lead or section, and shall resume monitoring for contaminant only (i.e., a ‘‘partial copper tap water sample at least if one water quality parameters within the waiver’’). of the following conditions is met. distribution system in accordance with (1) Materials criteria. The system § 141.87(d). Such a system may resume (i) The laboratory establishes that must demonstrate that its distribution reduced monitoring for lead and copper improper sample analysis caused system and service lines and all at the tap and for water quality erroneous results. drinking water supply plumbing, parameters within the distribution (ii) The State determines that the including plumbing conveying drinking system under the following conditions: sample was taken from a site that did water within all residences and (1) The system may resume annual not meet the site selection criteria of buildings connected to the system, are monitoring for lead and copper at the this section. free of lead-containing materials and/or tap at the reduced number of sites (iii) The sample container was copper-containing materials, as those specified in paragraph (c) of this section damaged in transit. terms are defined in this paragraph, as after it has completed two subsequent (iv) There is substantial reason to follows: six-month rounds of monitoring that believe that the sample was subject to (i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver, meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) tampering. or a waiver of the tap water monitoring of this section and the system has (2) The system must report the results requirements for lead (i.e., a ‘‘lead received written approval from the State of all samples to the State and all waiver’’), the water system must provide that it is appropriate to resume reduced supporting documentation for samples certification and supporting monitoring on an annual frequency. the system believes should be documentation to the State that the (2) The system may resume triennial invalidated. system is free of all lead-containing monitoring for lead and copper at the (3) To invalidate a sample under materials, as follows: tap at the reduced number of sites after paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the (A) It contains no plastic pipes which it demonstrates through subsequent decision and the rationale for the contain lead plasticizers, or plastic rounds of monitoring that it meets the decision must be documented in service lines which contain lead criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or writing. States may not invalidate a plasticizers; and (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system sample solely on the grounds that a (B) It is free of lead service lines, lead has received written approval from the follow-up sample result is higher or pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and State that it is appropriate to resume lower than that of the original sample. leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and triennial monitoring. (4) The water system must collect fixtures, unless such fittings and (3) The system may reduce the replacement samples for any samples fixtures meet the specifications of any number of water quality parameter tap invalidated under this section if, after standard established pursuant to 42 water samples required in accordance the invalidation of one or more samples, U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency the system has too few samples to meet 1417(e)). with which it collects such samples in the minimum requirements of paragraph (ii) Copper. To qualify for a full accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a (c) of this section. Any such waiver, or a waiver of the tap water system may not resume triennial replacement samples must be taken as monitoring requirements for copper monitoring for water quality parameters soon as possible, but no later than 20 (i.e., a ‘‘copper waiver’’), the water at the tap until it demonstrates, in days after the date the State invalidates system must provide certification and accordance with the requirements of the sample or by the end of the supporting documentation to the State § 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for applicable monitoring period, that the system contains no copper triennial monitoring. whichever occurs later. Replacement pipes or copper service lines. (vii) Any water system subject to a samples taken after the end of the (2) Monitoring criteria for waiver reduced monitoring frequency under applicable monitoring period shall not issuance. The system must have

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations completed at least one 6-month round of through (d)(4) of this section, as sample sites specified in paragraph (c) standard tap water monitoring for lead appropriate. of this section. and copper at sites approved by the (iii) If a system with a full or partial (7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system State and from the number of sites waiver adds a new source of water or waivers approved by the State in writing required by paragraph (c) of this section changes any water treatment, the system prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in and demonstrate that the 90th percentile must notify the State in writing in effect under the following conditions: levels for any and all rounds of accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The (i) If the system has demonstrated that monitoring conducted since the system State has the authority to require the it is both free of lead-containing and became free of all lead-containing and/ system to add or modify waiver copper-containing materials, as required or copper-containing materials, as conditions (e.g., require recertification by paragraph (g)(1) of this section and appropriate, meet the following criteria. that the system is free of lead-containing that its 90th percentile lead levels and (i) Lead levels. To qualify for a full and/or copper-containing materials, 90th percentile copper levels meet the waiver, or a lead waiver, the system require additional round(s) of criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this must demonstrate that the 90th monitoring), if it deems such section, the waiver remains in effect so percentile lead level does not exceed modifications are necessary to address long as the system continues to meet the 0.005 mg/L. treatment or source water changes at the waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph (ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full system. (g)(5) of this section. The first round of waiver, or a copper waiver, the system (iv) If a system with a full or partial tap water monitoring conducted must demonstrate that the 90th waiver becomes aware that it is no pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this percentile copper level does not exceed longer free of lead-containing or copper- section shall be completed no later than 0.65 mg/L. containing materials, as appropriate, nine years after the last time the system (3) State approval of waiver (e.g., as a result of new construction or has monitored for lead and copper at the application. The State shall notify the repairs), the system shall notify the tap. system of its waiver determination, in State in writing no later than 60 days (ii) If the system has met the materials writing, setting forth the basis of its after becoming aware of such a change. criteria of paragraph (g)(1) of this decision and any condition of the (5) Continued eligibility. If the system section but has not met the monitoring waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the continues to satisfy the requirements of criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this State may require the system to perform section, the system shall conduct a specific activities (e.g., limited paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the waiver will be renewed automatically, round of monitoring for lead and copper monitoring, periodic outreach to at the tap demonstrating that it meets customers to remind them to avoid unless any of the conditions listed in paragraph (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this installation of materials that might void section no later than September 30, the waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or this section occurs. A system whose waiver has been revoked may re-apply 2000. Thereafter, the waiver shall copper concentration of concern in tap remain in effect as long as the system water. The small system must continue for a waiver at such time as it again meets the appropriate materials and meets the continued eligibility criteria monitoring for lead and copper at the of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The tap as required by paragraphs (d)(1) monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section. first round of tap water monitoring through (d)(4) of this section, as conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) appropriate, until it receives written (i) A system with a full waiver or a lead waiver no longer satisfies the of this section shall be completed no notification from the State that the later than nine years after the round of waiver has been approved. materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section or has a 90th percentile lead monitoring conducted pursuant to (4) Monitoring frequency for systems paragraph (g)(2) of this section. with waivers. (i) A system with a full level greater than 0.005 mg/L. * * * * * waiver must conduct tap water (ii) A system with a full waiver or a 10. Section 141.87 is amended by monitoring for lead and copper in copper waiver no longer satisfies the redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) (e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and this section at the reduced number of of this section or has a 90th percentile (e)(2)(ii), and by revising the first sampling sites identified in paragraph copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L. sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by (c) of this section at least once every (iii) The State notifies the system, in revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory nine years and provide the materials writing, that the waiver has been text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end certification specified in paragraph revoked, setting forth the basis of its of § 141.87 following paragraph (f), to (g)(1) of this section for both lead and decision. read as follows: copper to the State along with the (6) Requirements following waiver monitoring results. revocation. A system whose full or § 141.87 Monitoring requirements for (ii) A system with a partial waiver partial waiver has been revoked by the water quality parameters. must conduct tap water monitoring for State is subject to the corrosion control * * * * * the waived contaminant in accordance treatment and lead and copper tap water (a) * * * with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section monitoring requirements, as follows: (2) * * * at the reduced number of sampling sites (i) If the system exceeds the lead and/ (ii) Except as provided in paragraph specified in paragraph (c) of this section or copper action level, the system must (c)(3) of this section, systems shall at least once every nine years and implement corrosion control treatment collect two samples for each applicable provide the materials certification in accordance with the deadlines water quality parameter at each entry specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this specified in § 141.81(e), and any other point to the distribution system during section pertaining to the waived applicable requirements of this subpart. each monitoring period specified in contaminant along with the monitoring (ii) If the system meets both the lead paragraph (b) of this section. * * * results. Such a system also must and the copper action level, the system * * * * * continue to monitor for the non-waived must monitor for lead and copper at the (c) * * * contaminant in accordance with tap no less frequently than once every (2) Except as provided in paragraph requirements of paragraph (d)(1) three years using the reduced number of (c)(3) of this section, at each entry point

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2011 to the distribution system, at least one with paragraph (c) of this section and percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 sample no less frequently than every determine compliance with the mg/L for copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and two weeks (biweekly) for: * * * requirements of § 141.82(g) every six that it also has maintained the range of (3) Any ground water system can limit months with the first six-month period values for the water quality parameters entry point sampling described in to begin on the date the State specifies reflecting optimal corrosion control paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those the optimal values under § 141.82(f). treatment specified by the State under entry points that are representative of Any small or medium-size system shall § 141.82(f). water quality and treatment conditions conduct such monitoring during each * * * * * throughout the system. If water from six-month period specified in this (4) Any water system subject to the untreated ground water sources mixes paragraph in which the system exceeds reduced monitoring frequency that fails with water from treated ground water the lead or copper action level. For any to operate at or above the minimum sources, the system must monitor for such small and medium-size system that value or within the range of values for water quality parameters both at is subject to a reduced monitoring the water quality parameters specified representative entry points receiving frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than treatment and representative entry the time of the action level exceedance, nine days in any six-month period points receiving no treatment. Prior to the end of the applicable six-month specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume period under this paragraph shall the start of any monitoring under this distribution system tap water sampling coincide with the end of the applicable paragraph, the system shall provide to in accordance with the number and monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4). the State written information identifying frequency requirements in paragraph (d) Compliance with State-designated the selected entry points and of this section. Such a system may optimal water quality parameter values documentation, including information resume annual monitoring for water shall be determined as specified under on seasonal variability, sufficient to quality parameters at the tap at the § 141.82(g). demonstrate that the sites are (e) * * * reduced number of sites specified in representative of water quality and (2) * * * paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it treatment conditions throughout the (ii) A water system may reduce the has completed two subsequent system. frequency with which it collects tap consecutive six-month rounds of (d) Monitoring after State specifies samples for applicable water quality monitoring that meet the criteria of that water quality parameter values for parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) paragraph and/or may resume triennial optimal corrosion control. After the of this section to every three years if it monitoring for water quality parameters State specifies the values for applicable demonstrates during two consecutive at the tap at the reduced number of sites water quality control parameters monitoring periods that its tap water after it demonstrates through reflecting optimal corrosion control lead level at the 90th percentile is less subsequent rounds of monitoring that it treatment under § 141.82(f), all large than or equal to the PQL for lead meets the criteria of either paragraph systems shall measure the applicable specified in § 141.89 (a)(1)(ii), that its (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section. water quality parameters in accordance tap water copper level at the 90th * * * * *

SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial monitoring...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps and at entry point(s) to dis- Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium, conductivity, tem- tribution system. perature. After installation of corrosion control .. pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. After State specifies parameter values pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. for optimal corrosion control. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. Reduced monitoring...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months, annually 7 silica 3, calcium 4. or every 3 years 8; reduced number of sites. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. 1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements. 2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level. 3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system. 7 Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8 Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality parameters designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

11. Section 141.88 is amended by concentration is greater than or equal to water was less than or equal to 0.005 revising paragraphs (a)(1), (e)(1), and 0.160 mg/L, then either: mg/L and the concentration of copper in (e)(2) to read as follows: (A) A follow-up sample shall be taken source water was less than or equal to and analyzed within 14 days at each 0.65 mg/L. § 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source water. sampling point included in the * * * * * composite; or 12. Section 141.89 is amended by (a) * * * (B) If duplicates of or sufficient (1) A water system that fails to meet revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as quantities from the original samples the lead or copper action level on the follows: from each sampling point used in the basis of tap samples collected in composite are available, the system may § 141.89 Analytical methods. accordance with § 141.86 shall collect use these instead of resampling. lead and copper source water samples (a) * * * in accordance with the following * * * * * (1) * * * requirements regarding sample location, (e) * * * (iii) Achieve the method detection number of samples, and collection (1) A water system using only ground limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L according methods: water may reduce the monitoring to the procedures in appendix B of part (i) Groundwater systems shall take a frequency for lead and copper in source 136 of this title. This need only be minimum of one sample at every entry water to once during each nine-year accomplished if the laboratory will be point to the distribution system which compliance cycle (as that term is processing source water composite is representative of each well after defined in § 141.2) if the system meets samples under § 141.88(a)(1)(iii). treatment (hereafter called a sampling one of the following criteria: * * * * * point). The system shall take one (i) The system demonstrates that 13. Section 141.90 is amended by sample at the same sampling point finished drinking water entering the removing and reserving paragraph unless conditions make another distribution system has been maintained (a)(1)(iii), by revising all references to sampling point more representative of below the maximum permissible lead ‘‘§ 141.84(f)’’ in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and each source or treatment plant. and copper concentrations specified by (ii) to read ‘‘§ 141.84(e)’’, by revising (ii) Surface water systems shall take a the State in § 141.83(b)(4) during at least paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, minimum of one sample at every entry three consecutive compliance periods (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2) through (a)(5), point to the distribution system after under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or (e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from any application of treatment or in the (ii) The State has determined that (a)(1)(vii) and adding a semicolon, and distribution system at a point which is source water treatment is not needed by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (h) representative of each source after and the system demonstrates that, to read as follows: treatment (hereafter called a sampling during at least three consecutive point). The system shall take each compliance periods in which sampling § 141.90 Reporting requirements. sample at the same sampling point was conducted under paragraph (d)(1) * * * * * unless conditions make another of this section, the concentration of lead (a) * * * sampling point more representative of in source water was less than or equal (1) Except as provided in paragraph each source or treatment plant. to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a water system Note to paragraph (a)(1)(ii): For the copper in source water was less than or shall report the information specified purposes of this paragraph, surface water equal to 0.65 mg/L. below for all tap water samples systems include systems with a combination (2) A water system using surface specified in § 141.86 and for all water of surface and ground sources. water (or a combination of surface water quality parameter samples specified in (iii) If a system draws water from and ground water) may reduce the § 141.87 within the first 10 days more than one source and the sources monitoring frequency in paragraph following the end of each applicable are combined before distribution, the (d)(1) of this section to once during each monitoring period specified in § 141.86 system must sample at an entry point to nine-year compliance cycle (as that term and § 141.87 (i.e., every six months, the distribution system during periods is defined in § 141.2) if the system meets annually, every 3 years, or every 9 of normal operating conditions (i.e., one of the following criteria: years): when water is representative of all (i) The system demonstrates that * * * * * sources being used). finished drinking water entering the (ii) Documentation for each tap water (iv) The State may reduce the total distribution system has been maintained lead or copper sample for which the number of samples which must be below the maximum permissible lead water system requests invalidation analyzed by allowing the use of and copper concentrations specified by pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2); compositing. Compositing of samples the State in § 141.83(b)(4) for at least (iii) [Reserved]; must be done by certified laboratory three consecutive years; or (iv) The 90th percentile lead and personnel. Composite samples from a (ii) The State has determined that copper concentrations measured from maximum of five samples are allowed, source water treatment is not needed among all lead and copper tap water provided that if the lead concentration and the system demonstrates that, samples collected during each in the composite sample is greater than during at least three consecutive years, monitoring period (calculated in or equal to 0.001 mg/L or the copper the concentration of lead in source accordance with § 141.80(c)(3)), unless

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2013 the State calculates the system’s 90th following information to the State in education requirements in § 141.85 percentile lead and copper levels under writing by the specified deadline: shall, within ten days after the end of paragraph (h) of this section; (i) By the start of the first applicable each period in which the system is * * * * * monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any required to perform public education (viii) A water system shall report the small water system applying for a tasks in accordance with § 141.85(c), results of all water quality parameter monitoring waiver shall provide the send written documentation to the State samples collected under § 141.87(c) documentation required to demonstrate that contains: through (f) during each six-month that it meets the waiver criteria of (i) A demonstration that the system monitoring period specified in §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2). has delivered the public education § 141.87(d) within the first 10 days (ii) No later than nine years after the materials that meet the content following the end of the monitoring monitoring previously conducted requirements in § 141.85(a) and (b) and period unless the State has specified a pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or the delivery requirements in § 141.85(c); more frequent reporting requirement. § 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small system and * * * * * desiring to maintain its monitoring (ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio (2) For a non-transient non- waiver shall provide the information stations, television stations, and community water system, or a required by §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii). facilities and organizations to which the community water system meeting the (iii) No later than 60 days after it system delivered public education criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that becomes aware that it is no longer free materials during the period in which the does not have enough taps that can of lead-containing and/or copper- system was required to perform public provide first-draw samples, the system containing material, as appropriate, education tasks. must either: each small system with a monitoring (2) Unless required by the State, a (i) Provide written documentation to waiver shall provide written notification system that previously has submitted the State identifying standing times and to the State, setting forth the the information required by paragraph locations for enough non-first-draw circumstances resulting in the lead- (f)(1)(ii) of this section need not samples to make up its sampling pool containing and/or copper-containing resubmit the information required by under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the materials being introduced into the paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, as first applicable monitoring period under system and what corrective action, if long as there have been no changes in § 141.86(d) that commences after April any, the system plans to remove these the distribution list and the system 11, 2000, unless the State has waived materials. certifies that the public education prior State approval of non-first-draw (iv) By October 10, 2000, any small materials were distributed to the same sample sites selected by the system system with a waiver granted prior to list submitted previously. pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or April 11, 2000 and that has not * * * * * (ii) If the State has waived prior previously met the requirements of (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead approval of non-first-draw sample sites § 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the and copper concentrations where the selected by the system, identify, in information required by that paragraph. State calculates a system’s 90th writing, each site that did not meet the (5) Each ground water system that percentile concentrations. A water six-hour minimum standing time and limits water quality parameter system is not required to report the 90th the length of standing time for that monitoring to a subset of entry points percentile lead and copper particular substitute sample collected under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by concentrations measured from among pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and include the commencement of such monitoring, all lead and copper tap water samples this information with the lead and written correspondence to the State that collected during each monitoring copper tap sample results required to be identifies the selected entry points and period, as required by paragraph submitted pursuant to paragraph includes information sufficient to (a)(1)(iv) of this section if: (a)(1)(i) of this section. demonstrate that the sites are (1) The State has previously notified (3) No later than 60 days after the representative of water quality and the water system that it will calculate addition of a new source or any change treatment conditions throughout the the water system’s 90th percentile lead in water treatment, unless the State system. and copper concentrations, based on the requires earlier notification, a water * * * * * lead and copper tap results submitted system deemed to have optimized (e) * * * pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a (4) Any system which collects lead section, and has specified a date before water system subject to reduced service line samples following partial the end of the applicable monitoring monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4), lead service line replacement required period by which the system must or a water system subject to a by § 141.84 shall report the results to the provide the results of lead and copper monitoring waiver pursuant to State within the first ten days of the tap water samples; § 141.86(g), shall send written month following the month in which (2) The system has provided the documentation to the State describing the system receives the laboratory following information to the State by the the change. In those instances where results, or as specified by the State. date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this prior State approval of the treatment States, at their discretion may eliminate section: change or new source is not required, this requirement to report these (i) The results of all tap samples for water systems are encouraged to provide monitoring results. Systems shall also lead and copper including the location the notification to the State beforehand report any additional information as of each site and the criteria under to minimize the risk the treatment specified by the State, and in a time and § 141.86(a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and/or (7) change or new source will adversely manner prescribed by the State, to verify under which the site was selected for affect optimal corrosion control. that all partial lead service line the system’s sampling pool, pursuant to (4) Any small system applying for a replacement activities have taken place. paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section; and monitoring waiver under § 141.86(g), or (f) Public education program (ii) An identification of sampling sites subject to a waiver granted pursuant to reporting requirements. (1) Any water utilized during the current monitoring § 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the system that is subject to the public period that were not sampled during

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations previous monitoring periods, and an non-community water systems, and 16. Section 142.15 is amended by explanation why sampling sites have community water systems meeting the redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i) changed; and criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through (3) The State has provided the results this chapter, that operate 24 hours a (c)(4)(i)(G) respectively, by adding of the 90th percentile lead and copper day; paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text, calculations, in writing, to the water (xii) Section 141.86(c)—system- (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(4)(iii), and by revising system before the end of the monitoring specific designations of sampling paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to period. locations for systems subject to reduced read as follows: monitoring; § 142.15 Reports by States. PART 142ÐNATIONAL PRIMARY (xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)— DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS system-specific determinations * * * * * IMPLEMENTATION pertaining to alternative sample (c) * * * collection periods for systems subject to (4) States shall report quarterly, in a 14. The authority citation for part 142 format and on a schedule prescribed by continues to read as follows: reduced monitoring; (xiv) Section 141.86(g)— the Administrator, the following Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, determinations of small system information related to each system’s 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, compliance with the treatment 300j–9, and 300j–11. monitoring waivers, waiver recertifications, and waiver revocations; techniques for lead and copper under 40 15. Section 142.14 is amended by (xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)— CFR part 141, subpart I during the removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by determinations regarding representative preceding calendar quarter. Specifically, redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i) entry point locations at ground water States shall report as follows: (i) For any reports provided prior to through (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii) through systems; May 15, 2000, States shall report the (d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new (xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)—system- name and PWS identification number: paragraphs (d)(8)(i), and (d)(8)(ix) specific determinations regarding the through (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising submission of information to * * * * * newly designated paragraphs (d)(8)(vi) demonstrate compliance with partial (ii) For any reports provided after May and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs lead service line replacement 14, 2000 and before January 14, 2002, (d)(8)(viii), (d)(9), (d)(10), and (d)(11) to requirements; and States may report in accordance with read as follows: (xvii) Section 141.90(f)—system- either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of specific decisions regarding the this section. § 142.14 Records kept by States. (iii) For all reports submitted on or resubmission of detailed documentation * * * * * after January 14, 2002, States shall demonstrating completion of public (d) * * * report the PWS identification number of education requirements. (8) * * * each public water system identified in (9) Records of reports and any other (i) Section 141.81(b)—for any water paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of information submitted by PWSs under system deemed to be optimized under this section. § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter, § 141.90 of this chapter, including (A) For each large and medium-size any conditions imposed by the State on records of any 90th percentile values public water system, all 90th percentile specific water systems to ensure the calculated by the State under lead levels calculated during each continued operation and maintenance of § 141.90(h) of this chapter. monitoring period specified in § 141.86 corrosion control treatment in place; (10) Records of State activities, and of this chapter, and the first and last day the results thereof, to: * * * * * of the monitoring period for which the (i) Verify compliance with State (vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)— 90th percentile lead level was determinations issued under determinations of source water calculated; §§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of treatment; (B) For each small public water (vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)— this chapter, 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter, system, the 90th percentile lead level designations of maximum permissible and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter; calculated during each monitoring concentrations of lead and copper in (ii) Verify compliance with the period in which the system exceeds the source water; requirements related to partial lead lead action level, and the first and last (viii) Section 141.84(e)— service line replacement under day of each monitoring period in which determinations establishing shorter lead § 141.84(d) of this chapter and an exceedance occurred; service line service line replacement compliance with lead service line (C) For each public water system schedules under § 141.84; replacement schedules under (regardless of size), the 90th percentile (ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii), § 141.84(e) of this chapter; and copper level calculated during each 141.86(d)(4)(vii), and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)— (iii) Invalidate tap water lead and monitoring period in which the system determinations of additional monitoring copper samples under § 141.86(f) of this exceeds the copper action level, and the requirements and/or other actions chapter. first and last day of each monitoring required to maintain optimal corrosion (11) Records of each system’s period in which an exceedance control by systems monitoring for lead currently applicable or most recently occurred; and copper at the tap less frequently designated monitoring requirements. If, (D) For each public water system for than once every six months that change for the records identified in paragraphs which the State has designated optimal treatment or add a new source of water; (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this water quality parameters under (x) Section 141.85—system-specific section, no change is made to State § 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the decisions regarding the content of determinations during a 12-year State has deemed to have optimized written public education materials and/ retention period, the State shall retain corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(1) or or the distribution of these materials; the record until a new decision, (b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the (xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—system- determination, or designation has been determination and the paragraph(s) specific determinations regarding use of issued. under which the State made its non-first-draw samples at non-transient * * * * * determination;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2015

(E) For each public water system designates maximum permissible source optimal water quality parameters, and required to begin replacing lead service water levels under § 141.83(b)(4) of this modifications thereto. lines as specified in § 141.84 of this chapter or determines pursuant to (ii) Section 141.82(g)—Designating an chapter and the date each system must § 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source alternative approach for aggregating begin replacement; and water treatment is not required; or multiple measurements collected during (F) For each public water system that (3) For systems triggered into lead the same day for a water quality has implemented optimal corrosion service line replacement, the date the parameter at a sampling location, if the control, completed applicable source system completes lead service line State elects to adopt a formula other water treatment requirements pursuant replacement or becomes eligible to cease than the one specified in § 141.82(g)(1) to § 141.83 of this chapter and/or lead service line replacement pursuant of this chapter. to § 141.84(f) of this chapter. completed lead service line replacement * * * * * requirements pursuant to § 141.84 of * * * * * this chapter, and the date of the State’s 17. Section 142.16 is amended by (3) Section 141.90(e)—Verifying determination that these requirements adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by compliance with lead service line have been met. The date reported shall revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) to replacement schedules and completion be the latest of the following events: read as follows: of all partial lead service line replacement activities. (1) The date the State designates § 142.16 Special primacy requirements. (4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)— optimal water quality parameters under * * * * * § 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the Designating an alternative period for (d) * * * sample collection for community water system to have optimized corrosion (1) Section 141.82—State designation systems subject to reduced monitoring. control pursuant to § 141.81(b)(1) or of optimal corrosion control. (b)(3) of this chapter; (i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and * * * * * (2) For systems triggered into source 141.82(h)—Designating optimal [FR Doc. 00–3 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] water treatment, the date the State corrosion control treatment methods, BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2