[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4198-4312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28691]



[[Page 4197]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 10

January 15, 2021

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Parts 141 and 142





National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions; Final Rule

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

[[Page 4198]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10019-23-OW]
RIN 2040-AF15


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing final 
regulatory revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 
(NPDWR) for lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (SDWA). These revised requirements provide greater and more 
effective protection of public health by reducing exposure to lead and 
copper in drinking water. The rule will better identify high levels of 
lead, improve the reliability of lead tap sampling results, strengthen 
corrosion control treatment requirements, expand consumer awareness and 
improve risk communication. This final rule requires, for the first 
time, community water systems to conduct lead-in-drinking-water testing 
and public education in schools and child care facilities. In addition, 
the rule will accelerate lead service line replacements by closing 
existing regulatory loopholes, propelling early action, and 
strengthening replacement requirements.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This final rule is effective as of March 16, 2021. 
For judicial review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 
January 15, 2021.
    Compliance dates: The compliance date for the revisions to 40 CFR 
part 141, subpart I, is set forth in Sec.  141.80(a). The compliance 
date for the revisions to 40 CFR 141.2 is January 16, 2024, and the 
compliance date for 40 CFR 141.31 is January 16, 2024. The compliance 
date for changes made to 40 CFR part 141, subpart O (40 CFR 
141.153(d)(4)(vi) and (xi) and 141.154(d)(1)), is January 16, 2024. The 
compliance date for changes made to 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q (Sec.  
141.202 and appendices A and B), is January 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kempic, Standards and Risk 
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 
4607M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4880 (TTY 800-
877-8339); email address: Kempic.Jeffrey@EPA.gov. For more information 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information
    A. What are EPA's final revisions?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
    A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper
    B. Statutory Authority
    C. Regulatory History
III. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I, Control of Lead and 
Copper
    A. Lead Trigger Level
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    B. Corrosion Control Treatment
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    C. Lead Service Line Inventory
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    D. Lead Service Line Replacement
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance 
for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community 
Water Systems
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    F. Public Education
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    G. Tap Water Sampling
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    I. Source Water Monitoring
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care 
Facilities
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    K. Find-and-Fix
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    L. Water System Reporting Requirements
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
IV. Other Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
    A. Consumer Confidence Report
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    B. Public Notification
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    C. Definitions
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
    A. What are State recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
    B. What are the special primacy requirements?
    1. Proposed Revisions
    2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    3. Final Rule Requirements
VI. Economic Analysis
    A. Public Comments on the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule 
and EPA Response
    B. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize 
the Sample Universe
    C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
    D. Cost Analysis
    1. Drinking Water System Implementation and Administrative Costs
    2. Sampling Costs
    3. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
    4. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Costs
    5. Point-of-Use Costs
    6. Public Education and Outreach Costs
    7. Annualized Per Household Costs
    8. Primacy Agency Costs
    9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated With Additional 
Phosphate Usage
    10. Summary of Rule Costs
    E. Benefits Analysis
    1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
    2. Impacts on Childhood IQ
    3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
    4. Total Monetized Benefits
    F. Cost-Benefit Comparison
    1. Non-Monetized Costs
    2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    G. Other Regulatory Options Considered
    1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care 
Facilities
    2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead 
Service Lines
    3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information
    4. Small System Flexibility
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

[[Page 4199]]

    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Cost
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the Office of Mission Support's 
Information Collection Request Center) (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA)
    E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board and the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
    M. Consultation With the Department of Health and Human Services 
Under SDWA Section 1412(d)
    N. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VIII. References

I. General Information

    The United States has made tremendous progress in lowering 
children's blood lead levels. As a result of multiple Federal laws and 
regulations, including the 1973 phase-out of lead in automobile 
gasoline (40 CFR part 80, subpart B), the 1978 Federal regulation 
banning lead paint for residential and consumer use (16 CFR part 1303), 
the 1991 LCR (40 CFR part 141, subpart I), and the 1995 ban on lead in 
solder in food cans (21 CFR 189.240), the median concentration of lead 
in the blood of children aged 1 to 5 years dropped from 15 micrograms 
([micro]g) per deciliter in 1976-1980 to 0.7 [micro]g per deciliter in 
2015-2016, a decrease of 95 percent (USEPA, 2019a).
    Although childhood blood lead levels have been substantially 
reduced as a result of these actions, exposure to lead in the 
environment continues to be a concern, especially for vulnerable 
populations such as children and pregnant women. Data evaluated by the 
National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2012) demonstrates that there is 
sufficient evidence to conclude that there are adverse health effects 
associated with low-level lead exposure. Moreover, no safe blood lead 
level in children has been identified (https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/default.htm). Sources of lead include lead-based paint, 
drinking water, and soil contaminated by historical sources. The 
Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures 
and Associated Health Impacts, issued in December 2018, provides a 
blueprint for reducing further lead exposure and associated harm 
through collaboration among Federal agencies and with a range of 
stakeholders, including states, tribes, and local communities, along 
with businesses, property owners, and parents. The Action Plan is the 
product of the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks to Children (Task Force). The Task Force is comprised of 
17 Federal departments and offices including the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, which co-chaired the development of the Action Plan 
with EPA.
    Through this plan, EPA committed to reducing lead exposures from 
multiple sources including paint, ambient air, and soil and dust 
contamination, especially to children who are among the most vulnerable 
to the effects of lead.
    On June 21, 2019, EPA announced new, tighter standards for lead in 
dust on floors and windowsills to protect children from the harmful 
effects of lead exposure. The standards were lowered from 40 [micro]g 
of lead in dust per square foot (ft\2\) on floors and 250 [micro]g of 
lead in dust per ft\2\ on interior windowsills, to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ 
and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\, respectively. The lead hazard standards help 
property owners, lead paint professionals, and government agencies 
identify lead hazards in residential paint, dust and soil. On June 19, 
2020 EPA released a proposal to lower the clearance levels for lead in 
dust on floors and windowsills after lead removal activities from 40 
[micro]g/ft\2\ to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floor dust and from 250 
[micro]g/ft\2\ to 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for windowsill dust (85 FR 37810). 
The dust lead clearance levels are used to demonstrate that abatement 
activities effectively and permanently eliminate those hazards. They 
apply in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. The 
proposed, tighter standards would increase the effectiveness of 
abatement in pre-1978 homes and child care facilities.
    To address lead in soil, EPA will continue to remove, remediate, 
and take corrective actions at contaminated sites, including Superfund, 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action, and 
other cleanup sites. EPA will also continue to work with state and 
tribal air agencies to help nonattainment areas meet the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA is also focused on conducting 
critical research and improving public awareness by consolidating and 
streamlining Federal messaging.
    Lead and copper enter drinking water mainly from the corrosion of 
plumbing materials containing lead and copper. Lead was widely used in 
plumbing materials until Congress prohibited the use or introduction 
into commerce of pipes and pipe fittings and fixtures that contained 
more than eight percent lead and solder or flux that contained more 
than 0.2 percent lead in 1986. On September 1, 2020, EPA published the 
final rule: Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and 
Flux for Drinking Water. The Lead-Free final rule significantly limits 
the lead content allowed in plumbing materials (e.g., pipes, fittings, 
and fixtures) used in new construction and replacement of existing 
plumbing. Specifically, the Lead-Free rule reduces the percentage of 
lead content allowed in these materials from eight percent to 0.25 
percent in accordance with the 2011 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water 
Act.
    Many buildings were constructed prior to the restrictions on the 
use of plumbing materials that contained lead. There are currently an 
estimated 6.3 to 9.3 million homes served by lead service lines (LSLs) 
in thousands of communities nationwide, in addition to millions of 
older buildings with lead solder and faucets that contain lead. To 
reduce exposure to lead through drinking water, the Action Plan 
highlights several key actions, including EPA's commitment to making 
regulatory changes to implement the statutory definition of lead-free 
plumbing products and assisting schools and child care centers with the 
3Ts approach (Training, Testing, and Taking Action) for lead in 
drinking water. The Action Plan also highlights EPA's support to states 
and communities by identifying funding opportunities through the 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Water Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act loan program for updating and replacing 
drinking water infrastructure. In addition, the Action Plan highlights 
three newly authorized grant programs under the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, for which Congress appropriated 
$50 million in fiscal year (FY) 2018, to fund grants to small and 
disadvantaged communities for developing and maintaining 
infrastructure, for lead reduction projects, and to support the 
voluntary testing of drinking water in schools and child care centers. 
The Action Plan also highlights the importance of preventing lead 
exposure from drinking water by working with states, tribes, and local

[[Page 4200]]

stakeholders to share best practices and tools to better implement the 
NPDWR for Lead and Copper. For more information about the Federal Lead 
Action Plan see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_final.pdf.
    Since the implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), 
drinking water exposures have declined significantly, resulting in 
major improvements in public health. For example, the number of the 
nation's large drinking water systems that have exceeded the LCR action 
level of 15 parts per billion has decreased by over 90 percent. Between 
2017 and 2019, fewer than 5 percent of all water systems reported an 
action level exceedance (EPA-815-F-19-007). Despite this progress, 
there is a compelling need to modernize and improve the rule by 
strengthening its public health protections and clarifying its 
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily 
enforceable.
    The LCR is a complicated rule due, in part, to the need to control 
corrosivity of drinking water as it travels through often antiquated 
distribution and plumbing systems on the way to the consumer's tap. 
States and public water systems need expertise and resources to 
identify the sampling locations and to work with customers to collect 
samples for analysis. Even greater expertise is needed for systems and 
states to identify the optimal corrosion control treatment and water 
quality parameter monitoring to assure that lead and copper levels are 
reduced to the extent feasible. The determination of the optimal 
corrosion control treatment is specific to each water system because it 
is based on the specific chemistry of the system's source water, and 
must be designed and implemented to take into account treatments used 
to comply with other applicable drinking water standards (56 FR 26487).
    Water systems cannot unilaterally implement all of the actions that 
are needed to reduce levels of lead in drinking water. Homeowners must 
also be engaged to assure successful LSL replacement because, in most 
communities, a portion of the LSL is owned by the water system and the 
remaining portion is the property of the homeowner. Water systems must 
also engage with consumers to encourage actions such as flushing of 
taps before use to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water, 
where necessary. The ability of water systems to successfully engage 
with consumers is critical to reducing drinking water lead exposure.
    EPA sought input over an extended period on ways in which the 
Agency could address the challenges to further reducing drinking water 
lead exposure. Section VII of this preamble describes the engagements 
the Agency has had with small water systems, state and local officials, 
the Science Advisory Board, and the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council (NDWAC). The Science Advisory Board provided recommendations in 
2012 (SAB, 2012) and provided recommendations on the proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule revisions (LCRR) in 2020 (SAB, 2020). The NDWAC also 
provided recommendations on potential LCR revisions to EPA. The NDWAC 
provided written recommendations in December 2015 (NDWAC, 2015) and 
provided input to the Agency as part of consultation on the proposed 
LCRR in December 2019.
    This final rule includes a suite of actions to address lead 
contamination in drinking water that, taken together, will improve the 
LCR and further reduce lead exposure from the previous LCR, resulting 
in an enduring positive public health impact. This approach focuses on 
six key areas:
    a. Identifying areas most impacted. To help identify areas with the 
greatest potential for lead contamination of drinking water and most in 
need of remediation, EPA's final rule requires that all water systems 
complete and maintain a LSL inventory and collect tap samples from 
homes with LSLs if lead is present in the distribution system. To 
reduce elevated levels of lead in certain locations, EPA's final rule 
also requires water systems to engage in a ``find-and-fix'' process to 
identify the causes of these elevated levels as well as take potential 
actions to reduce lead levels.
    b. Strengthening treatment requirements. EPA is finalizing expanded 
requirements for corrosion control treatment (CCT) based on tap 
sampling results. The final rule also establishes a new trigger level 
of 10 [micro]g/L. At this trigger level, systems that currently treat 
for corrosion are required to re-optimize their existing treatment. 
Systems that do not currently treat for corrosion will be required to 
conduct a corrosion control study so that the system is prepared to 
respond quickly if necessary. Flexibility is important for small 
systems so that they can protect public health by taking the treatment 
actions that make sense for their communities. The LCRR provides new 
alternatives to CCT for small systems including Point-of-Use (POU) 
treatment and replacement of lead bearing plumbing materials.
    c. Systematically replacing lead service lines. The final LCRR 
requires water systems with high lead levels to initiate LSL removal, 
permanently reducing a significant source of lead in many communities. 
All water systems with LSLs or lead status unknown service lines must 
create an LSLR plan by the rule compliance date. The more stringent 
sampling requirements in the final rule will better identify elevated 
lead levels, which will result in more systems replacing LSLs. Systems 
that are above the trigger level but at or below the lead action level 
must conduct replacements at a goal rate approved by the state, and, 
systems that are above the action level, must annually replace a 
minimum of three percent per year, based upon a 2 year rolling average 
of the number of known or potential LSLs in the inventory at the time 
the action level exceedance occurs. Systems cannot end their 
replacement program until they demonstrate lead levels less than the 
action level for two years. Only full LSL replacements will be counted 
towards the required rate, not partials and not ``in lieu of'' samples. 
The final rule requires water systems to provide awareness to homes 
with LSLs annually, and replace the water system-owned portion of an 
LSL when a customer chooses to replace their customer-owned portion of 
the line within 45 days with the ability to have up to 180 days with 
notification to the state.
    d. Increasing sampling reliability. EPA is changing the criteria 
for selecting homes at which to collect tap samples and the way in 
which those samples are collected. EPA is requiring tap sample site 
selection to focus on sites with LSLs (where present) and is requiring 
a new way to collect tap samples at these sites. Systems must collect 
fifth liter samples that are representative of water that has been in 
the LSL for several hours, which will provide better information on the 
highest concentration of lead in drinking water. The final LCR 
revisions prohibit tap sampling instructions that call for pre-
stagnation flushing or, the cleaning or removing of faucet aerators, 
and include a requirement that tap samples be collected in bottles with 
a wide-mouth configuration. Collectively, these new, more stringent 
sampling requirements will better identify elevated lead levels and 
result in more water systems taking required lead mitigation actions.
    e. Improving risk communication. EPA is requiring systems to notify 
consumers of a system-wide action level exceedance within 24 hours. For 
individual tap samples that exceed 15 [micro]g/L, EPA is requiring 
systems to notify

[[Page 4201]]

the individual consumer within three days. EPA is also requiring the 
consistent use of clear and concise language in public notifications 
and all public education materials including the LCR Public Education 
(PE) and Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) on the health effects of 
exposure to lead in drinking water. The final rule increases the 
number, forms, and comprehensiveness of public education materials on 
lead in drinking water that are provided to the public. It also 
requires systems to conduct regular outreach to customers with LSLs. 
Systems must make their LSL inventory publicly available and must 
notify occupants of homes with LSL every year about their LSL, drinking 
water exposure risks, and mitigation options, including removal. The 
final rule's requirements to provide understandable and consistent 
information about the levels of lead in drinking water, the sources of 
lead in a system, and the risks of lead in drinking water, will 
increase public actions to limit exposure to lead in drinking water.
    f. Protecting children in schools. Since children are at most risk 
of significant harm from lead exposure, EPA is requiring that community 
water systems (CWS) test for lead in drinking water in schools and 
child care facilities. Systems must conduct drinking water sampling at 
each elementary school and each child care facility they serve over no 
more than five years, testing 20 percent of the facilities they serve 
each year. The system will be required to provide sampling results to 
the school or child care facility and information on actions that can 
be taken by the school or child care facility to reduce lead in the 
drinking water. The system will also be required to provide information 
to the school or child care facility on methods to communicate results 
to users of the facility and parents. CWSs are also required to provide 
testing to secondary schools on request during the 5 years of mandatory 
elementary and child care facility testing, and also to elementary 
schools and child care facilities on request after the first round of 
mandatory testing. These requirements will provide schools and child 
care facilities with an understanding of how to create and manage a 
drinking water testing program that is customizable to their needs and 
an appreciation of the benefits of such a program.
    Through strengthened treatment procedures, expanded sampling, and 
improved protocols for identifying lead in drinking water, EPA's LCR 
revisions will require more water systems to progressively take more 
actions to reduce lead levels at the tap. Additionally, by improving 
transparency and communication, the rule is expected to increase 
community awareness and accelerate the replacement of LSLs. By taking 
these collective actions EPA, states, and water systems will implement 
a proactive, holistic approach to more aggressively manage lead in 
drinking water.

A. What are EPA's final revisions?

    EPA is promulgating revisions to the LCR that strengthen public 
health protection and improve implementation of the regulation in the 
following areas: Lead tap sampling; CCT; LSLR; consumer awareness; and 
public education (PE). This final rule adopts a regulatory framework 
recommended, in part, by state co-regulators through the Association of 
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and incorporates many 
recommendations provided to EPA by the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council (NDWAC). NDWAC is a Federal Advisory Committee established 
pursuant to section 1446 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that 
provides EPA with advice and recommendations related to the national 
drinking water program. EPA is finalizing revisions to the LCR that 
will require water systems to take actions at lower lead tap water 
levels than previously required; this will reduce lead in drinking 
water and better protect public health. The Agency is establishing a 
new lead ``trigger level'' of 10 [micro]g/L in addition to the 15 
[micro]g/L lead action level. Public health improvements will be 
achieved as water systems are required to take a progressive set of 
actions to reduce lead levels at the tap. These actions are designed to 
reduce lead and copper exposure by ensuring effective CCT and re-
optimization of CCT when the lead trigger level or action level is 
exceeded; enhancing water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring; establish 
a ``find-and-fix'' process to evaluate and remediate elevated lead at a 
site where the individual tap sample exceeds 15 [micro]g/L; require 
water systems to create an LSL inventory to identify the full extent of 
LSLs in the system; ensure tap sampling pools are targeted to the sites 
with elevated lead; and make consumers aware of the presence of a LSL, 
if applicable, to facilitate replacement of LSLs. The LCR revisions 
will improve tap sampling by improving the tap sampling protocol, 
taking samples that are more representative of the highest levels of 
lead in drinking water taps and better targeting higher risk sites for 
lead contamination, i.e., sites with LSLs or lead containing plumbing 
materials. EPA's revisions to the LCR Public Education (PE) and 
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requirements will improve 
communication with consumers. In addition, this final rule includes 
requirements for CWSs to conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE 
in schools and child care facilities.
    Together, these revisions to the existing framework and new 
requirements will result in greater public health protection at all 
sizes of CWSs and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). 
Implementation of the revisions will better identify when and where 
lead contamination occurs, or has the potential to occur, and require 
systems to take actions to address it more effectively and sooner than 
under the previous rule.
    The following table compares the major differences between the 
previous Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) (promulgated in 1991 and last 
revised in 2007), the 2019 proposed Lead and Copper Rule revisions 
(LCRR), and the final rule requirements. In general, requirements that 
are unchanged are not listed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Previous LCR                          Proposed LCRR                          Final LCRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Action Level (AL) and Trigger Level (TL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] 90th percentile (P90) level     [cir] 90th percentile (P90) level     [cir] 90th percentile (P90) level
 above lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L or     above lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L or     above lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L or
 copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires        copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires more   copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires more
 additional actions.                   actions than the current rule.        actions than the previous rule.
                                      [cir] Defines lead trigger level      [cir] Defines lead trigger level
                                       (TL) of 10  <=15 [micro]g/L      (TL) of 10 15 [mu]g/L:      [cir] P90 15 [mu]g/L:
 number of consecutive years meeting   Semi-annually at the standard         Semi-annually at the standard
 the following criteria:               number of sites.                      number of sites.
[cir] Serves <=50,000 people and <=   [cir] P90 10 to 15 [mu]g/  [cir] P90 10 to 15 [mu]g/
 lead & copper ALs.                    L: Annually at the standard number    L: Annually at the standard number
[cir] Serves any population size,      of sites.                             of sites.
 meets state-specified optimal water  [cir] P90 <=10 [mu]g/L:               [cir] P90 <=10 [mu]g/L:
 quality parameters (OWQPs), and <=   [ssquf] Annually and triennially at   [ssquf] Annually at the standard
 lead AL.                              reduced number of sites using same    number of sites and triennially at
                                       criteria as current rule except for   reduced number of sites using same
                                       large systems and the copper 90th     criteria as previous rule except
                                       percentile level is not considered.   copper 90th percentile level is not
                                      [ssquf] Every 9 years based on         considered.
                                       current rule requirements for a 9-   [ssquf] Every 9 years based on
                                       year monitoring waiver.               current rule requirements for a 9-
                                                                             year monitoring waiver.
    [cir] Triennial monitoring also
     applies to any system with lead
     and copper 90th percentile
     levels <=0.005 mg/L and <=0.65
     mg/L, respectively, for 2
     consecutive 6-month monitoring
     periods.
    [cir] 9-year monitoring waiver
     available to systems serving
     <=3,300.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT:                                  CCT:                                  CCT:
[cir] Systems serving >50,000 people  [cir] Specifies CCT requirements for  [cir] Specifies CCT requirements for
 were required to install treatment    systems with 10 15      [cir] Systems with P90 level >15
 CCT steps if no longer exceed both    [mu]g/L:                              [mu]g/L:
 ALs for two consecutive 6-month      [cir] No CCT: must complete CCT       [cir] No CCT: must complete CCT
 monitoring periods.                   installation regardless of their      installation regardless of their
[cir] Systems must operate CCT to      subsequent P90 levels.                subsequent P90 levels.
 meet any primacy agency-designated   [cir] With CCT: must re-optimize      [cir] With CCT: must re-optimize
 OWQPs that define optimal CCT.        CCT.                                  CCT.
[cir] There is no requirement for     [cir] CWSs serving <=10,000 people    [cir] CWSs serving <=10,000 people
 systems to re-optimize.               and non-transient water systems       and non-transient water systems
                                       (NTNCWSs) can select an option        (NTNCWSs) can select an option
                                       other than CCT to address lead. See   other than CCT to address lead. See
                                       Small System Flexibility.             Small System Flexibility.
CCT Options: Includes alkalinity and  CCT Options: Removes calcium          CCT Options: Removes calcium
 pH adjustment, calcium hardness       hardness as an option and specifies   hardness as an option and specifies
 adjustment, and phosphate or          any phosphate inhibitor must be       any phosphate inhibitor must be
 silicate-based corrosion inhibitor.   orthophosphate.                       orthophosphate.
Regulated WQPs:                       Regulated WQPs:                       Regulated WQPs:
[cir] No CCT: pH, alkalinity,         [cir] Eliminates WQPs related to      [cir] Eliminates WQPs related to
 calcium, conductivity, temperature,   calcium hardness (i.e., calcium,      calcium hardness (i.e., calcium,
 orthophosphate (if phosphate-based    conductivity, and temperature).       conductivity, and temperature).
 inhibitor is used), silica (if
 silica-based inhibitor is used).
    [cir] With CCT: pH, alkalinity,
     and based on type of CCT either
     orthophosphate, silica, or
     calcium.

[[Page 4203]]

 
WQP Monitoring:                       WQP Monitoring:                       WQP Monitoring:
[cir] Systems serving >=50,000        [cir] Systems serving >=50,000        [cir] Systems serving >=50,000
 people must conduct regular WQP       people must conduct regular WQP       people must conduct regular WQP
 monitoring at entry points and        monitoring at entry points and        monitoring at entry points and
 within the distribution system.       within the distribution system.       within the distribution system.
[cir] Systems serving <=50,000        [cir] Systems serving <=50,000        [cir] Systems serving <=50,000
 people conduct monitoring only in     people must continue WQP monitoring   people must continue WQP monitoring
 those periods > lead or copper AL.    until they no longer > lead and/or    until they no longer > lead and/or
[cir] Contains provisions to sample    copper AL for two consecutive 6-      copper AL for two consecutive 6-
 at reduced number of sites in         month monitoring periods.             month monitoring periods.
 distribution system less frequency   [cir] To qualify for reduced WQP      [cir] To qualify for reduced WQP
 for all systems meeting their         distribution monitoring, P90 must     distribution monitoring, P90 must
 OWQPs.                                be <=10 [micro]g/L and the system     be <=10 [micro]g/L and the system
                                       must meet its OWQPs.                  must meet its OWQPs.
Sanitary Survey Review:               Sanitary Survey Review:               Sanitary Survey Review:
[cir] Treatment must be reviewed      [cir] CCT and WQP data must be        [cir] CCT and WQP data must be
 during sanitary surveys; no           reviewed during sanitary surveys      reviewed during sanitary surveys
 specific requirement to assess CCT    against most recent CCT guidance      against most recent CCT guidance
 or WQPs.                              issued by EPA.                        issued by EPA.
Find-and-Fix: No required follow-up   Find-and-Fix: If individual tap       Find-and-Fix: If individual tap
 samples or additional actions if an   sample >15 [mu]g/L, systems must:     samples >15 [micro]g/L.
 individual sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/  [cir] Collect a follow-up sample at   [cir] Find-and-fix steps:
 L.                                    each location >15 [mu]g/L.           [cir] Collect tap sample at the same
                                      [cir] Conduct WQP monitoring at or     tap sample site within 30 days.
                                       near the site >15 [mu]g/L.           [cir] For LSL, collect any liter or
                                      [cir] Perform needed corrective        sample volume.
                                       action.                              [cir] If LSL is not present, collect
                                                                             1 liter first draw after
                                                                             stagnation.
                                                                            [cir] For systems with CCT.
                                                                            [cir] Conduct WQP monitoring at or
                                                                             near the site >15 [mu]g/L.
                                                                            [cir] Perform needed corrective
                                                                             action.
                                                                            [cir] Document customer refusal or
                                                                             nonresponse after 2 attempts.
                                                                            [cir] Provide information to local
                                                                             public health officials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           LSL Inventory and LSLR Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial LSL Program Activities:       Initial LSL Program Activities:       Initial LSL Program Activities:
[cir] Systems were required to        [cir] All systems must develop an     [cir] All systems must develop an
 complete a materials evaluation by    LSL inventory or demonstrate          LSL inventory or demonstrate
 the time of initial sampling. No      absence of LSLs within first 3        absence of LSLs within 3 years of
 requirement to update materials       years of final rule publication.      final rule publication.
 evaluation.                          [cir] LSL inventory must be updated   [cir] LSL inventory must be updated
[cir] No LSLR plan is required.        annually.                             annually or triennially, based on
                                      [cir] All systems with known or        their tap sampling frequency.
                                       possible LSLs must develop an LSLR   [cir] All systems with known or
                                       plan.                                 possible LSLs must develop an LSLR
                                                                             plan.
LSLR:                                 LSLR:                                 LSLR:
[cir] Systems with LSLs with P90 >15  [cir] Rule specifies replacement      [cir] Rule specifies replacement
 [micro]g/L after CCT installation     programs based on P90 level for       programs based on P90 level for
 must annually replace >=7% of         CWSs serving >10,000 people:          CWSs serving >3,300 people:
 number of LSLs in their              [cir] If P90 >15 [micro]g/L: Must     [cir] If P90 >15 [micro]g/L: Must
 distribution system when the lead     fully replace 3% of LSLs per year     fully replace 3% of LSLs per year
 action level is first exceeded.       (mandatory replacement) for 4         based upon a 2 year rolling average
[cir] Systems must replace the LSL     consecutive 6-month monitoring        (mandatory replacement) for at
 portion they own and offer to         periods.                              least 4 consecutive 6-month
 replace the private portion at the   [cir] If P90 >10 to 15 [micro]g/L:     monitoring periods.
 owner's expense.                      Implement an LSLR program with       [cir] If P90 >10 to 15 [micro]g/L:
[cir] Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and     replacement goals in consultation     Implement an LSLR program with
 LSLs with lead sample results <=15    with the primacy agency for 2         replacement goals in consultation
 [micro]g/L (``test-outs'') count      consecutive 1-year monitoring         with the primacy agency for 2
 toward the 7% replacement rate.       periods.                              consecutive 1-year monitoring
[cir] Systems can discontinue LSLR    [cir] Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that      periods.
 after 2 consecutive 6-month           select LSLR as their compliance      [cir] Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that
 monitoring periods <= lead AL.        option must complete LSLR within 15   select LSLR as their compliance
                                       years if P90 >15 [micro]g/L See       option must complete LSLR within 15
                                       Small System Flexibility.             years if P90 >15 [micro]g/L See
                                      [cir] Annual LSLR rate is based on     Small System Flexibility.
                                       number of LSLs when the system       [cir] Annual LSLR rate is based on
                                       first exceeds the action level plus   number of LSLs and galvanized
                                       the current number of lead status     requiring replacement when the
                                       unknown service lines.                system first exceeds the action
                                      [cir] Only full LSLR (both customer-   level plus the current number of
                                       owned and system-owned portion)       lead status unknown service lines.
                                       count toward mandatory rate or goal- [cir] Only full LSLR (both customer-
                                       based rate.                           owned and system-owned portion)
                                                                             count toward mandatory rate or goal-
                                                                             based rate.

[[Page 4204]]

 
                                         [cir] All systems must replace        [cir] All systems replace their
                                          their portion of an LSL if            portion of an LSL if notified by
                                          notified by consumer of private       consumer of private side
                                          side replacement within 45 days       replacement within 45 days of
                                          of notification of the private        notification of the private
                                          replacement.                          replacement. If the system
                                      [cir] Following each LSLR, systems        cannot replace the system's
                                       must:                                    portion within 45 days, it must
                                      [cir] Provide pitcher filters/            notify the state and replace the
                                       cartridges to each customer for 3        system's portion within 180
                                       months after replacement. Must be        days.
                                       provided within 24 hours for full    [cir] Following each LSLR, systems
                                       and partial LSLRs.                    must:
                                      [cir] Collect a lead tap sample at    [cir] Provide pitcher filters/
                                       locations served by replaced line     cartridges to each customer for 6
                                       within 3 to 6 months after            months after replacement. Provide
                                       replacement.                          pitcher filters/cartridges within
                                      [cir] Requires replacement of          24 hours for full and partial
                                       galvanized service lines that are     LSLRs.
                                       or ever were downstream of an LSL.   [cir] Collect a lead tap sample at
                                                                             locations served by replaced line
                                                                             within 3 to 6 months after
                                                                             replacement.
                                                                            [cir] Requires replacement of
                                                                             galvanized service lines that are
                                                                             or ever were downstream of an LSL.
LSL-Related Outreach:                 LSL-Related Outreach:                 LSL-Related Outreach:
[cir] When water system plans to      [cir] Inform consumers annually that  [cir] Inform consumers annually that
 replace the portion it owns, it       they are served by LSL or service     they are served by LSL or lead
 must offer to replace customer-       line of unknown lead status.          status unknown service line.
 owned portion at owner's expense.    [cir] Systems subject to goal-based   [cir] Systems subject to goal-based
[cir] If system replaces its portion   program must:                         program must:
 only:                                [cir] Conduct targeted outreach that  [cir] Conduct targeted outreach that
[cir] Provide notification to          encourages consumers with LSLs to     encourages consumers with LSLs to
 affected residences within 45 days    participate in the LSLR program.      participate in the LSLR program.
 prior to replacement on possible     [cir] Conduct an additional outreach  [cir] Conduct an additional outreach
 elevated short-term lead levels and   activity if they fail to meet their   activity if they fail to meet their
 measures to minimize exposure.        goal.                                 goal.
                                      [cir] Systems subject to mandatory    [cir] Systems subject to mandatory
                                       LSLR include information on LSLR      LSLR include information on LSLR
                                       program in public education (PE)      program in public education (PE)
                                       materials that are provided in        materials that are provided in
                                       response to P90 > AL.                 response to P90 > AL.
     [cir] Include offer to collect
      lead tap sample within 72
      hours of replacement.
     [cir] Provide test results
      within 3 business days after
      receiving results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Small System Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No provisions for systems to elect    Allows CWSs serving <=10,000 people   Allows CWSs serving <=10,000 people
 an alternative treatment approach     and all NTNCWSs with P90 >10          and all NTNCWSs with P90 >10
 but sets specific requirements for    [micro]g/L to elect their approach    [micro]g/L to select their approach
 CCT and LSLR.                         to address lead with primacy agency   to address lead with primacy agency
                                       approval:                             approval:
                                      [cir] Systems can choose CCT, LSLR,   [cir] Systems can choose CCT, LSLR,
                                       or provision and maintenance of       provision and maintenance of point-
                                       point-of-use devices.                 of-use devices; or replace all lead-
                                      [cir] NTNCWSs can also elect to        bearing plumbing materials.
                                       replace all lead-bearing materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Public Education and Outreach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] All CWSs must provide           [cir] CWSs must provide updated       [cir] CWSs must provide updated
 education material in the annual      health effects language in all PE     health effects language in all PE
 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).     materials and the CCR.                materials and the CCR.
[cir] Systems with P90 >AL must       [cir] If P90 > AL:                    [cir] Customers can contact the CWS
 provide PE to customers about lead   [cir] Current PE requirements apply.   to get PE materials translated in
 sources, health effects, measures    [cir] Systems must notify consumers    other languages.
 to reduce lead exposure, and          of P90 > AL within 24 hours.         [cir] All CWSs are required to
 additional information sources.      [cir] In addition, CWSs must:          include information on how to
[cir] Systems must provide lead       [cir] Improve public access to lead    access the LSL inventory and how to
 consumer notice to individuals        information including LSL locations   access the results of all tap
 served at tested taps within 30       and respond to requests for LSL       sampling in the CCR.
 days of learning results.             information.                         [cir] Revises the mandatory health
[cir] Customers can contact the CWS   [cir] Deliver notice and educational   effects language to improve
 to get PE materials translated in     materials to consumers during water-  accuracy and clarity.
 other languages.                      related work that could disturb      [cir] If P90 > AL:
                                       LSLs.                                [cir] Current PE requirements apply.
                                      [cir] Provide increased information   [cir] Systems must notify consumers
                                       to local and state health agencies.   of P90 > AL within 24 hours.
                                      [cir] Provide lead consumer notice    [cir] In addition, CWSs must:
                                       to consumers whose individual tap    [cir] Deliver notice and educational
                                       sample is >15 [micro]g/L within 24    materials to consumers during water-
                                       hours.                                related work that could disturb
                                      [cir] Also see LSL-Related Outreach    LSLs.
                                       in LSLR section of table.            [cir] Provide information to local
                                                                             and state health agencies.
                                                                            [cir] Provide lead consumer notice
                                                                             to consumers whose individual tap
                                                                             sample is >15 [micro]g/L as soon as
                                                                             practicable but no later than 3
                                                                             days.
                                                                            Also see LSL-Related Outreach
                                                                             section of table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Change in Source or Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems on a reduced tap monitoring   Systems on any tap monitoring         Systems on any tap monitoring
 schedule must obtain prior primacy    schedule must obtain prior primacy    schedule must obtain prior primacy
 agency approval before changing       agency approval before changing       agency approval before changing
 their source or treatment.            their source or treatment.            their source or treatment. These
                                                                             systems must also conduct tap
                                                                             monitoring biannually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4205]]

 
                                      Source Water Monitoring and Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Periodic source water           [cir] Primacy Agencies can waive      [cir] Primacy Agencies can waive
 monitoring is required for systems    continued source water monitoring     continued source water monitoring
 with:                                 if the:                               if the:
[cir] Source water treatment; or      [cir] System has already conducted    [cir] System has already conducted
[cir] P90 > AL and no source water     source water monitoring for a         source water monitoring for a
 treatment.                            previous P90 > AL;                    previous P90 > AL;
                                      [cir] primacy agency has determined   [cir] primacy agency has determined
                                       that source water treatment is not    that source water treatment is not
                                       required; and                         required; and
                                      [cir] System has not added any new    [cir] System has not added any new
                                       water sources.                        water sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Does not include separate       [cir] CWSs must conduct lead in       [cir] CWS must conduct sampling at
 testing and education program for     drinking water testing and PE at      20% of elementary schools and 20%
 CWSs at schools and child care        20% of K-12 schools and licensed      of child care facilities per year
 facilities.                           child cares in service area every 5   and conduct sampling at secondary
[cir] Schools and child cares that     years.                                schools on request for 1 testing
 are classified as NTNCWSs must       [cir] Sample results and PE must be    cycle (5 years) and conduct
 sample for lead and copper.           provided to each sampled school/      sampling on request of all schools
                                       child care, primacy agency and        and child care facilities
                                       local or state health department.     thereafter.
                                      [cir] Excludes facilities built       [cir] Sample results and PE must be
                                       after January 1, 2014.                provided to each sampled school/
                                                                             child care, primacy agency and
                                                                             local or state health department.
                                                                            [cir] Excludes facilities built or
                                                                             replaced all plumbing after January
                                                                             1, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Primacy Agency Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primacy Agencies must report          Expands current requirements to       Expands current requirements to
 information to EPA that includes      include:                              include:
 but is not limited to:               [cir] All P90 values for all system   [cir] All P90 values for all system
[cir] All P90 levels for systems       sizes.                                sizes.
 serving >3,300 people, and only      [cir] The current number of LSLs and  [cir] The current number of LSLs and
 levels >15 [micro]g/L for smaller     lead status unknown service lines     lead status unknown service lines
 systems.                              for every water system.               for every water system.
[cir] Systems that are required to    [cir] OCCT status of all systems      [cir] OCCT status of all systems
 initiate LSLR and the date            including primacy agency-specified    including primacy agency-specified
 replacement must begin.               OWQPs.                                OWQPs.
[cir] Systems for which optimal
 corrosion control treatment (OCCT)
 has been designated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities that could potentially be affected include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially affected
             Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public water systems..............  Community water systems (a public
                                     water system that (A) serves at
                                     least 15 service connections used
                                     by year-round residents of the area
                                     served by the system; or (B)
                                     regularly serves at least 25 year-
                                     round residents).
                                    Non-transient, non-community water
                                     systems (a public water system that
                                     is not a community water system and
                                     that regularly serves at least 25
                                     of the same persons over 6 months
                                     per year).
State and tribal agencies.........  Agencies responsible for drinking
                                     water regulatory development and
                                     enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities that could be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility or activities could be 
affected by this action, you should carefully examine this final rule.
    As part of this document for the LCRR, ``state'' refers to the 
agency of the state or tribal government which has jurisdiction over 
public water systems consistent with the definition of ``state'' in 40 
CFR 141.2. During any period when a state or tribal government does not 
have primary enforcement responsibility pursuant to section 1413 of the 
SDWA, the term ``state'' means the applicable Regional Administrator of 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

II. Background

A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper

    Exposure to lead is known to present serious health risks to the 
brain and nervous system of children. Lead exposure causes damage to 
the brain and kidneys and can interfere with the production of red 
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has acute 
and chronic impacts on the body. The most robustly studied and most 
susceptible subpopulations are the developing fetus, infants, and young 
children. Even low level lead exposure is of particular concern to 
children because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults do, 
and their brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging 
effects of lead. EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20 
percent or more of a person's total exposure to lead. Infants who 
consume mostly formula mixed with tap water can, depending on the level 
of lead in the system and other sources of lead in the home, receive 40 
percent to 60 percent of their exposure to lead from drinking water 
used in the formula (USEPA, 1988). Scientists have linked lead's 
effects on the brain with lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) and 
attention disorders in children (USEPA, 2013). Young children and 
infants are particularly vulnerable to lead because the physical and 
behavioral effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children 
than in adults. During

[[Page 4206]]

pregnancy, lead exposure may affect prenatal brain development. Lead is 
stored in the bones and it can be released later in life. Even at low 
levels of lead in blood, there is an increased risk of health effects 
in children (e.g., less than 5 micrograms per deciliter) and adults 
(e.g., less than 10 micrograms per deciliter) (National Toxicology 
Program, 2012).
    The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and 
the HHS National Toxicology Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-
Level Lead (National Toxicology Program, 2012) have both documented the 
association between lead and adverse cardiovascular effects, renal 
effects, reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological 
effects, and cancer. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
Chemical Assessment Summary provides additional health effects 
information on lead (USEPA, 2004a). For a more detailed explanation of 
the health effects associated with lead for children and adults see 
Appendix D of the Economic Analysis.
    Acute copper exposure causes gastrointestinal distress. Chronic 
exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with Wilson's 
disease because they are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, 
which can lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric 
symptoms. For a more detailed explanation of the health effects 
associated with copper see Appendix E of the final rule Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2020). EPA did not propose revisions to the copper 
requirements; thus, the final rule does not revise the copper 
requirements.

B. Statutory Authority

    EPA is publishing revisions to the LCR under the authority of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), including sections 1412, 1413, 1414, 
1417, 1445, and 1450 of the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
    Section 1412(b)(9) provides that ``[T]he Administrator shall, not 
less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate, each 
national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this 
subchapter. Any revision of a national primary drinking water 
regulation shall be promulgated in accordance with this section, except 
that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection 
of the health of persons.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(9). In promulgating 
this revised NPDWR, EPA followed the applicable procedures and 
requirements described in section 1412 of the SDWA, including those 
related to (1) the use of the best available, peer-reviewed science and 
supporting studies; (2) presentation of information on public health 
effects; and (3) a health risk reduction and cost analysis of the rule 
in 1412(b)((3)(A), (B), (C) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A)-(C).
    This rule revises the Lead and Copper Rule which established 
treatment technique requirements instead of a maximum contaminant 
level. Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA authorizes EPA to ``promulgate 
a national primary drinking water regulation that requires the use of a 
treatment technique in lieu of establishing a maximum contaminant 
level, if the Administrator makes a finding that it is not economically 
or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the 
contaminant.'' EPA's decision to promulgate a treatment technique rule 
for lead instead of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in 1991 has been 
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. American Water Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 
1266, 1270-71 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
    In establishing treatment technique requirements, the Administrator 
is required to identify those treatment techniques ``which in the 
Administrator's judgment, would prevent known or anticipated adverse 
effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible.'' 42 U.S.C. 
300g-1(b)(7)(A). ``Feasible'' is defined in Section 1412(b)(4)(D) of 
the SDWA as ``feasible with the use of the best technology, treatment 
techniques and other means which the Administrator finds after 
examination for efficacy under field conditions and not solely under 
laboratory conditions, are available (taking cost into 
consideration).'' The legislative history for this provision makes it 
clear that ``feasibility'' is to be defined relative to ``what may 
reasonably be afforded by large metropolitan or regional public water 
systems.'' A Legislative History of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
Committee Print, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) at 550. See also City of 
Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding EPA's 
treatment technique for Cryptosporidium and the Agency's interpretation 
that ``feasible'' means technically possible and affordable, rather 
than a cost/benefit determination). If the ``feasible'' treatment 
technique requirement would result in an increase in the health risk 
from drinking water by increasing the concentration of other 
contaminants in drinking water, or interfering with the efficacy of 
treatment techniques or processes that are used to comply with other 
national primary drinking water regulations, then the treatment 
techniques ``shall minimize the overall risk of adverse health effects 
by balancing the risk from the contaminant and the risk from other 
contaminants''; however, the resulting requirements may not be more 
stringent than what is ``feasible''. 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(5).
    Section 1414(c) of the SDWA, as amended by the WIIN Act, requires 
public water systems to provide notice to the public if the water 
system exceeds the lead action level. 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c). The SDWA 
section 1414(c)(2) provides that the Administrator ``shall, by 
regulation . . . prescribe the manner, frequency, form, and content for 
giving notice'' under section 1414(c). 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(2). The SDWA 
section 1414(c)(2)(C) specifies additional requirements for those 
regulations related to public notification of a lead action level 
exceedance ``that has the potential to have serious adverse effects on 
human health as a result of short-term exposure.'' The public notice 
must be distributed as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours 
after the water systems learns of the action level exceedance and the 
system must report the exceedance to both the Administrator and the 
primacy agency in that same time period. 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(2)(C)(i) 
and (iii). The requirement in Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) to provide 
notification to EPA as well as the primacy agency was enacted in 2016 
as part of the WIIN Act. One purpose of this requirement is to allow 
EPA to implement Section 1414(c)(2)(D), which was also enacted as part 
of the WIIN Act. It directs EPA to issue the required public notice for 
an exceedance of the lead action level, not later than 24 hours after 
the Administrator is notified of the exceedance, if the water system or 
the primacy agency has not issued the required public notice. EPA may 
receive this information directly from water systems or states. Because 
the Administrator's duty under Section 1414(c)(2)(D) is triggered only 
in the event of an action level exceedance and not any violation of an 
NPDWR, EPA interprets 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) to require systems to report 
only action level exceedances (ALEs) to the Administrator.
    Section 1417(a)(2) of the SDWA provides that public water systems 
``shall identify and provide notice to persons that may be affected by 
lead contamination of their drinking water where such contamination 
results from the lead content of the construction materials of the 
public water distribution system and/or corrosivity of the water supply 
sufficient to cause

[[Page 4207]]

leaching of lead. 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). The notice 
``shall be provided notwithstanding the absence of a violation of any 
national drinking water standard.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2)(A).
    Section 1445(a) of the SDWA authorizes the Administrator to 
establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting regulations, to 
assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under the SDWA, in 
determining compliance with the SDWA, and in administering any program 
of financial assistance under the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a). In 
requiring a public water system to monitor under section 1445(a) of the 
SDWA, the Administrator may take into consideration the water system 
size and the contaminants likely to be found in the system's drinking 
water. 42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a). The SDWA section 1445(a)(1)(C) provides 
that ``every person who is subject to a national primary drinking water 
regulation'' must provide such information as the Administrator may 
reasonably require to assist the Administrator in establishing 
regulations under section 1412. 42 U.S.C 300j-4(a)(1)(C). The 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in today's rule, 
including the inventory requirements, are part of the NPDWR treatment 
technique requirements; in addition, EPA expects to consider the 
information collected in any future revisions to the Lead and Copper 
Rule and in administering financial assistance programs (e.g., grant 
programs for the replacement of LSLs and/or school sampling).
    Under section 1413(a)(1) of the SDWA a state may exercise primary 
enforcement responsibility (``primacy'') for NPDWRs when EPA has 
determined, among other things, that the state has adopted regulations 
that are no less stringent than EPA's. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)(1). To 
obtain primacy for this rule, states must adopt regulations that are at 
least as stringent as this rule within two years of EPA's promulgation, 
unless EPA grants the state a two-year extension. State primacy 
requires, among other things, adequate enforcement (including 
monitoring and inspections) and reporting requirements. EPA must 
approve or deny state primacy applications within 90 days of submission 
to EPA. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(b)(2). In some cases, a state submitting 
revisions to adopt an NPDWR has interim primary enforcement authority 
for the new regulation while EPA's decision on the revision is pending. 
42 U.S.C. 300g-2(c). Section 1413(b)(1) of the SDWA requires EPA to 
establish regulations governing the primacy application and review 
process ``with such modifications as the Administrator deems 
appropriate.'' In addition to the LCR revisions promulgated today which 
are more stringent than the previous LCR, this rule includes changes to 
primacy requirements related to this rule.
    Section 1450 of the SDWA authorizes the Administrator to prescribe 
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out his or 
her functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j-9.

C. Regulatory History

    EPA published the LCR on June 7, 1991, to control lead and copper 
in drinking water at the consumer's tap. The rule established a NPDWR 
for lead and copper consisting of treatment technique requirements that 
include CCT, source water treatment, lead service line replacement 
(LSLR), and PE. The rule established an action level of 0.015 mg/L or 
15 [micro]g/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L or 1,300 [micro]g/L for copper. The 
action level is a concentration of lead or copper in the water that 
determines, in some cases, whether a water system must install CCT, 
monitor source water, replace LSLs, and undertake a PE program. The 
action level is exceeded if the concentration in more than 10 percent 
of tap samples collected during any monitoring period is greater than 
the action level (i.e., if the 90th percentile level is greater than 
the action level). If the 90th percentile value for tap samples is 
above the action level, it is not a treatment technique violation, but 
rather compels actions, such as WQP monitoring, CCT, source water 
monitoring/treatment, PE, and LSLR. Failure to take these actions 
results in the water system being in violation of the treatment 
technique or monitoring and reporting requirements.
    In 2000, EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions 
or LCRMR, which streamlined requirements, promoted consistent national 
implementation, and in many cases, reduced burden for water systems. 
One of the provisions of the LCRMR required states to report the lead 
90th percentile to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 
database for all water systems serving greater than 3,300 persons. 
States must report the lead 90th percentile value for water systems 
serving 3,300 or fewer persons only if the water system exceeds the 
action level. The new reporting requirements became effective in 2002. 
In 2004, EPA published minor corrections to the LCR to reinstate text 
that was inadvertently dropped from the rule during the previous 
revision.
    In 2004, EPA undertook a national review of the LCR and performed a 
number of activities to help identify needed actions to improve 
implementation of the LCR. EPA collected and analyzed lead 
concentration data and other information required by the LCR, carried 
out review of implementation by states, held four expert workshops to 
further discuss elements of the LCR, and worked to better understand 
local and state efforts to test for lead in school drinking water, 
including a national meeting to discuss challenges and needs. EPA used 
the information collected during the national review to identify needed 
short-term and long-term regulatory revisions to the LCR.
    In 2007, EPA promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions 
and clarifications to strengthen implementation of the LCR in the areas 
of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness, LSLR, and improve 
compliance with the PE requirements to ensure drinking water consumers 
receive meaningful, timely, and useful information needed to help them 
limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. Long-term issues, 
requiring additional research and input, were identified for a 
subsequent set of rule revisions.
    EPA published proposed revisions to the LCR on November 13, 2019 
for public review and comment (84 FR 61684). The proposal included 
provisions to strengthen procedures and requirements related to health 
protection and the implementation of the existing LCR in the following 
areas: Lead tap sampling; corrosion control treatment; LSL replacement; 
consumer awareness; and public education. In addition, the proposal 
included new requirements for CWSs to conduct lead in drinking water 
testing and public education in schools and child care facilities.

III. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I, Control of Lead and 
Copper

A. Lead Trigger Level

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed a lead ``trigger level'' of 10 [micro]g/L in addition 
to the LCR's current 15 [micro]g/L lead action level. The trigger level 
is not a health based standard. EPA proposed 10 [micro]g/L as a 
reasonable concentration that is below the action level and above the 
Practical Quantitation Level of 5 [micro]g/L at which to require water 
systems to take a progressive set of actions to reduce lead levels 
prior to an action level exceedance and to have a plan in place

[[Page 4208]]

to rapidly respond if there is an action level exceedance. For large 
and medium water systems, EPA proposed action that included optimizing 
CCT, a goal based LSLR program, and annual tap sampling (no reduced 
monitoring). EPA proposed that small water systems would be required to 
designate the actions they would take if they exceed the action level.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    A number of commenters supported the trigger level, stating that it 
would be beneficial because it initiates actions by public water 
systems to decrease their lead levels and requires the utility to take 
proactive steps to remove lead from the distribution system, reducing 
exposure to lead from drinking water throughout the utility's 
community. A commenter suggested that the trigger level be lowered to 5 
[micro]g/L (the stakeholder added a reference to ``CDC'' however, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established a blood lead 
reference level of 5 [micro]g/deciliter, that is not a drinking water 
level). Other commenters suggested a trigger level of 1 [micro]g/L 
(recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2016)).
    The use of a trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L in the implementation 
of this treatment technique rule provides a reasonable concentration 
that is below the action level and above the Practical Quantitation 
Level of 5 [micro]g/L at which to require water systems to take a 
progressive set of actions to reduce lead levels prior to an action 
level exceedance and to have a plan in place to rapidly respond if 
there is an action level exceedance. Requiring such actions of systems 
only when a trigger level 10 [micro]g/L is exceeded, rather than all 
systems prioritizes actions at systems with higher lead levels and 
allows states to work proactively with water systems that are a higher 
priority. The actions water systems will be required to undertake if 
their 90th percentile exceeds the trigger level will require review and 
oversight from states to assure that they are effective in reducing 
drinking water lead levels. As shown in Exhibits 4-13 and 4-20 of the 
Economic Analysis, setting a lower trigger level would substantially 
increase the number of water systems required to obtain review and 
input from their primacy agency to comply with the CCT and LSLR 
requirements. EPA has concluded it is not practicable for this 
significant number of water systems to obtain this state review and 
approval.
    The LCR's action level prioritizes systems with the highest lead 
levels for state interaction and mandates actions to reduce drinking 
water lead levels. Similarly, the Agency has determined that 10 
[micro]g/L is a reasonable level to trigger water systems with higher 
(but not the highest) lead levels to have interactions with states to 
prepare for and to undertake actions to reduce drinking water lead 
levels.
    Other commenters expressed concerns about the potential for 
confusion caused by separate trigger level and action level 
requirements. One of these commenters stated that the trigger level 
would be another decision-criterion for the public to mis-construe as a 
level of health concern. EPA does not agree with these commenters. The 
Agency has established a health based maximum contaminant level goal 
(MCLG) of zero for lead. The trigger level is not a health based level, 
rather it is a reasonable level at which to require systems to begin to 
take a progressive set of actions based upon lead levels at the tap 
that are appropriate to assure reduced exposure to lead. The concept of 
including additional thresholds to compel actions before an action 
level exceedance was suggested by the Association of State Drinking 
Water Administrators as a way to focus actions towards the systems with 
the greatest potential concerns (USEPA, 2018). This regulatory 
framework is similar to other NPDWRs, such as the Long-Term 2 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), which requires increasing 
levels of remedial action based on the concentration of the 
contaminant. EPA has revised the regulatory text in the final rule to 
improve its clarity and will work with primacy agencies and water 
systems to assure they understand the different actions that must be 
taken when systems exceed the trigger level or action level.
    Additional commenters suggested EPA lower the action level and 
eliminate the trigger level, stating the trigger level makes the rule 
unnecessarily complicated and needlessly adds to the regulatory burden. 
EPA disagrees that the action level should be lowered. EPA established 
the lead action level in 1991 to require small and medium-sized systems 
exceeding it to install corrosion control treatment and to require 
large systems and other systems with optimal corrosion control 
treatment (OCCT) to conduct LSLR. The action level was based on 
examination of data at 39 medium sized systems; while it was ``limited 
as a basis for making broad-based estimates of treatment efficacy,'' 
EPA concluded that ``the data are useful as general indictors of the 
range of levels systems have achieved with various treatment measures 
in place.'' (56 FR 26490). EPA acknowledged in 1991 that the selection 
of the action level ``is not based on a precise statistical analysis of 
the effectiveness of treatment'' but it ``reflects EPA's assessment of 
a level that is generally representative of effective corrosion control 
treatment, and that is, therefore, useful as a tool for simplifying the 
implementation of the treatment technique'' at those systems. (56 FR 
26490). EPA decided to use the same action level as a screen to 
determine which systems with CCT must also replace LSLs (56 FR 26491). 
While EPA is not lowering the action level, the Agency is strengthening 
the public health protections of the treatment technique by improving 
the sampling procedures to better identify elevated levels of lead. 
This will result in more systems exceeding the action level and more 
actions to reduce drinking water exposure to lead.
    EPA disagrees with commenters that the trigger level results in 
unnecessary complexity and regulatory burden. While there is burden 
associated with the actions that systems must take when they exceed the 
trigger level, EPA determined that a progressive set of actions based 
upon lead levels at the tap are feasible to assure reduced exposure to 
lead. EPA in its Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis (HRRCA) has found 
that a significant number of benefits accrue from systems being 
required to take mitigation activities as a result of trigger level 
exceedances. EPA also examined the costs and found that it is feasible 
for systems to take the actions required when there is a trigger level 
exceedance. Requiring these actions when a system's lead levels are 
high, but not exceeding the action level, will help both systems and 
states to engage in a manageable and orderly process to reduce lead 
levels in drinking water so that they remain below the lead action 
level. Accordingly, inclusion of the trigger level in the final rule 
will provide for ``greater protection of the health of persons'' 
consistent with the statutory authority in Section 1412(b)(9) of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for revising existing drinking water 
standards. Additionally, this proactive approach to lead contamination 
in response to a trigger level will allow systems to quickly take 
action if there is a ALE, while reducing the likelihood that a water 
system will exceed the action level in the future or be faced with the 
need to implement emergency measures such as the distribution of water 
filters or bottled water in response to a lead crisis.

[[Page 4209]]

3. Final Revisions
    EPA is finalizing the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L and 
maintaining the lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L. In the event of a 
trigger level exceedance, the actions water systems are required to 
take vary based on characteristics of the system. Each of the 
requirements brought about by a trigger level exceedance is discussed 
in detail elsewhere in this document. However, in summary, small CWSs 
serving populations of 10,000 or fewer persons and all sizes of NTNCWS 
that exceed the lead trigger level, but not the lead action level, must 
evaluate the small system flexibilities described in Section III.E of 
this preamble and identify the action they will take if they exceed the 
action level. Medium and large CWSs that exceed the trigger level, but 
do not exceed the action level, must implement requirements based on 
their CCT and LSL status as described below.
    Water systems with CCT in place and with no LSLs or service lines 
of unknown lead status are required to re-optimize CCT (see Section 
III.B); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see 
Section III.G)).
    Water systems without CCT in place and with no LSLs or service 
lines of unknown lead status are required to: conduct a CCT study and 
obtain state approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B.); and 
conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section 
III.G)).
    Water systems with CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines of 
unknown lead status are required to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section 
III.B); notify customers with LSLs or unknowns (see Section III.F); 
implement a goal-based LSLR program (see Section III.D); and conduct 
annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G)).
    Water systems without CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines 
(i.e., the pipe that connects the water main to the building) of 
unknown lead status are required to: Conduct a CCT study and obtain 
state approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B) notify customers 
with an LSL or unknowns (see Section III.F); implement a goal based 
LSLR program (see Section III.D); and conduct annual tap sampling (no 
reduced monitoring (see Section III.G).

B. Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements Based on Lead 90th 
Percentile

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed revised CCT requirements based on the water system's 
lead 90th percentile level and CCT status. The proposed rule required 
all water systems with CCT that have a lead trigger level exceedance 
(>10 [mu]g/L but <=15 [mu]g/L) or a lead action level exceedance (>15 
[mu]g/L) to re-optimize their CCT. The proposed rule would require 
water systems to evaluate other corrosion control treatments, make a 
re-optimization recommendation, and receive state approval of any 
changes to CCT or water quality parameters (WQPs). The state could 
require the water system to conduct a CCT study under the proposed 
rule.
    The proposal required water systems without CCT that exceed the 
lead trigger level (10 [micro]g/L) to conduct a CCT study and make a 
CCT recommendation to the state. Once approved by the state, the CCT 
recommendation would be implemented if the water system exceeds the 
lead action level in subsequent tap sampling. Water systems without CCT 
that have previously conducted a CCT study and made CCT recommendations 
would not be required to prepare a new CCT study if they exceed the 
trigger level again unless the state determines that a new study is 
required due to changed circumstances, such as addition of a new water 
source or changes in treatment or if revised CCT guidance has been 
issued by EPA since the study was conducted. Under the proposed rule 
the state could also determine that a new CCT study is needed due to 
other significant information becoming available.
    EPA proposed changes to the CCT options that water systems must 
consider and the methods by which water systems would evaluate those 
options. EPA proposed removing calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT 
option. EPA also proposed requiring water systems to evaluate two 
additional options for orthophosphate-based corrosion control: 
Maintaining a 1 mg/L orthophosphate residual concentration and 
maintaining a 3 mg/L orthophosphate residual concentration.
    EPA also proposed changes to the methodologies by which systems 
evaluate CCT options. EPA proposed that metal coupon tests could only 
be used as a screen to reduce the number of options that are evaluated 
using pipe rig/loops and would no longer be able to be used as the 
basis for determining the OCCT.
    EPA proposed that when systems choose to conduct coupon studies to 
screen potential options and/or pipe rig/loop studies, these systems 
cannot exclude a treatment option from the study based upon potential 
effects on other water quality treatment processes. Systems that are 
conducting coupon screening studies and/or pipe loop/rig studies should 
identify potential constraints, such as the impact that CCT options or 
treatment chemicals may have on other water quality treatment 
processes. Those impacts should be noted and considered as part of the 
CCT study design.
    EPA proposed that a medium or small water system that exceeds the 
lead action level (15 [micro]g/L), that has previously not exceeded the 
lead trigger level and does not have CCT installed, would be required 
to conduct a CCT study, make a treatment recommendation, and obtain 
state approval of the OCCT determination. EPA proposed that systems be 
required to complete these steps even if the system meets the lead 
action level in two subsequent, consecutive 6-month monitoring periods 
over the course of this process. Water systems that meet the action 
level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods before installing 
the state-approved treatment would be required to install that CCT upon 
any subsequent action level exceedance. EPA proposed to retain the 
current LCR provision that allows a state to waive the requirement for 
a CCT study.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Commenters generally supported the evaluation or re-evaluation of 
corrosion control treatment based on a trigger level or action level 
exceedance because it would increase public health protection by 
prioritizing systems with the highest 90th percentiles. Many commenters 
had objections to the proposed re-optimization process. Some commented 
that the re-optimization process was too prescriptive, and that more 
flexibility was needed. Commenters wrote that the steps needed to 
optimize or reoptimize treatment varied based on factors including the 
presence/absence of LSLs, system size, 90th percentile lead 
concentration, and existing corrosion control treatment. Several 
commenters suggested a toolbox or ``bin approach'' that allows 
consideration of these factors by systems and states to determine which 
optimization/re-optimization process or ``bin'' is most appropriate. 
For example, water systems with LSLs and OCCT would be in a different 
``bin'' than water systems with LSLs and no OCCT. Many commenters 
suggested that systems be allowed to modify the existing corrosion 
control treatment before considering alternate treatments. Commenters 
stated that the proposed re-optimization process might limit a system's 
ability to quickly and efficiently reduce lead levels. EPA agrees that 
optimization and re-optimization processes should

[[Page 4210]]

provide more flexibility. EPA agrees that for some systems, lead 
reductions can be achieved quickly with slight modifications of the 
existing CCT and should not be delayed potentially by two years for the 
results of the corrosion control study. EPA agrees it is appropriate 
for states to approve modifications of the system's existing CCT for 
the ``bin'' of systems that are between the trigger level and action 
level without a corrosion control study.
    EPA agrees that the process to optimize/reoptimize CCT should be 
determined based on system characteristics such as system size, the 
presence of LSLs and 90th percentile value. EPA agrees that a ``bin 
approach'' in which the steps of the optimization/re-optimization 
process depend upon system characteristics can provide flexibility for 
some systems to more effectively establish optimal CCT. EPA agrees that 
requirements to conduct harvested pipe loop studies and coupon studies 
are best delineated through such a bin approach. Harvested pipe loop 
studies are only required for systems with LSLs that exceed the lead 
action level. To the extent that there are any large systems without 
corrosion control treatment that have LSLs and exceed the lead 
practical quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L, those systems would also 
need to conduct a harvested pipe loop study. EPA believes that the CCT 
changes needed for systems of any size above the action level merit a 
thorough investigation of the impacts of the options on the existing 
LSL pipe scale. Commenters noted that some small systems may not have 
the technical capacity to construct and operate a harvested pipe loop 
study. EPA notes that in these cases the final rule provides 
flexibility to these small systems to implement a LSLR program or POU 
program. Coupon studies can serve as a screen to reduce the number of 
options for the harvested pipe loop study. Commenters noted that the 
construction of harvested flow-through pipe loops and the stabilization 
of those loops can take six months to one year before options can be 
evaluated. EPA agrees that more time is needed to construct pipe loops 
from harvested pipes and therefore is removing the requirement for 
initial treatment recommendations in the final rule for large and 
medium systems. For these systems, the final rule directs them to start 
constructing and operating the flow-through pipe loops after the action 
level exceedance in place of the initial treatment recommendation step, 
since the pipe loop study will be the basis for their treatment 
recommendation. Commenters indicated that for some systems, coupon 
studies rather than pipe loop studies may be an appropriate treatment 
recommendation tool. EPA agrees that coupon studies can be used for 
systems that do not have LSLs. The final rule only requires harvested 
pipe loop studies for systems that have LSLs.
    Many commenters had concerns with orthophosphate impacts on 
wastewater treatment. The use of orthophosphate for corrosion control 
can increase the phosphorus loading to wastewater treatment facilities. 
However, water systems conducting corrosion control studies cannot rule 
out orthophosphate simply based on the increase in loading to 
wastewater treatment facilities. The definition of optimal corrosion 
control treatment means the corrosion control treatment that minimizes 
lead and copper concentrations at users' taps while ensuring that the 
system does not violate any national primary drinking water 
regulations. SDWA Section 1412(b)(7)(A) requires that a treatment 
technique prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of 
persons to the extent feasible. EPA has determined that orthophosphate 
treatment is a feasible corrosion control technology in accordance with 
SDWA Section 1412(b)(4)(E). Therefore, eliminating orthophosphate as an 
option because of concerns unrelated to compliance with national 
primary drinking water regulations may prevent a system from installing 
the treatment technique that reduces to the extent feasible the risks 
of adverse health effects from lead in drinking water. In designing the 
CCT studies, water systems should evaluate the orthophosphate treatment 
options in the coupon screening and/or pipe loop/rig studies. EPA has 
examined the potential costs of additional phosphorus usage on 
wastewater treatment systems and has included this in the Economic 
Analysis for the final rule. Many commenters objected to the required 
evaluations of orthophosphate addition at 1 mg/L and 3 mg/L. Some 
commenters characterized these as high orthophosphate doses. EPA 
disagrees that these orthophosphate doses are too high to be considered 
in the corrosion control study. The commenters may have assumed that 
the dose was measured as P which would be three times greater than the 
dose measured as PO4. EPA is clarifying that the 
orthophosphate doses to be studied are measured as PO4. The 
high-end dose in the corrosion control study of 3 mg/L as 
PO4 is at the low end of the typical range used in the 
United Kingdom where 95 percent of public water supplies are dosed with 
orthophosphate (Hayes and Hydes, 2010). EPA also notes that the 2018 
edition of Recommended Standards for Water Works published by the Great 
Lakes--Upper Mississippi Board of State and Provincial Public Health 
and Environmental Managers includes a requirement that total phosphate 
not exceed 10 mg/L as phosphate sequestering iron and manganese, which 
are aesthetic concerns and not a health concern. There are also 
standards in the document for orthophosphate and blended phosphates for 
corrosion control noting that the system shall have a chemical feed 
system capable of maintaining an orthophosphate residual of at least 
1.0 mg/L as P (3.0 mg/L as PO4) throughout the distribution 
system. The member states for this document are Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin (Great Lakes, 2018).
    Some commenters supported the elimination of calcium carbonate 
stabilization as a corrosion control treatment alternative because they 
agreed with EPA's rationale that it is not an effective CCT option, but 
others did not, stating that it worked in some specific circumstances. 
EPA does not agree that calcium carbonate stabilization should remain 
as a CCT option. Based upon the available peer reviewed science, EPA 
has determined that calcium carbonate stabilization treatment does not 
form a consistent scale on lead and copper pipes to a level that makes 
it effective as a CCT option (AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum 
Wasser, 1996; Schock and Lytle, 2011; Hill and Cantor, 2011). 
Therefore, EPA has determined it is not appropriate to require water 
systems to evaluate it as an option as part of a corrosion control 
study. Some commenters noted that some water systems have already been 
deemed optimized using this technique. EPA notes that states will still 
have the authority to designate the necessary water quality parameters 
to allow these systems to maintain this treatment as optimal corrosion 
control unless the system exceeds the lead trigger level or action 
level.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA has included a provision in the final LCRR to identify ``bins'' 
of systems for specific corrosion control treatment optimization 
requirements. The first bin is to provide flexibility regarding 
corrosion control studies for systems that are reoptimizing existing 
corrosion control treatment following a trigger level exceedance. In 
the final rule, states are allowed to approve existing

[[Page 4211]]

corrosion control treatment modifications without a corrosion control 
study for systems with lead levels between the trigger level and the 
action level. To clarify the systems that are not eligible for this 
flexibility, EPA added a definition of ``systems without corrosion 
control treatment'' that includes a public water system that does not 
have, or purchases all of its water from a system that does not have: 
(1) An optimal corrosion control treatment approved by the State; or 
(2) any pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, and or corrosion 
inhibitor addition resulting from other water quality adjustments as 
part of its treatment train infrastructure. Another bin created in the 
final rule identifies the subset of systems that must do a harvested 
pipe loop study. This bin includes large and medium systems with LSLs 
that exceed the lead action levels and any small system with LSLs that 
selected corrosion control treatment option. For the systems in this 
bin, Step 1 of the optimization or re-optimization process is the 
construction and operation of the flow-through pipe loops after the 
action level exceedance, which must be completed within one year of the 
exceedance. EPA retained the requirement that coupon studies can only 
be used as a screening tool for these systems. The final rule includes 
requirements to allow coupon studies to be the basis for a treatment 
recommendation tool for other systems that do not have a lead action 
level exceedance and LSLs.
    In the final rule, EPA has also clarified that the orthophosphate 
doses and benchmarks are orthophosphate measured as PO4. EPA 
removed calcium carbonate stabilization as a corrosion control 
treatment alternative in the final rule.

C. Lead Service Line Inventory

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed to improve the available information regarding LSL 
numbers and locations by requiring an inventory of service line 
materials to be prepared by CWSs and NTNCWSs. EPA proposed to require 
these systems to submit an initial inventory within three years of 
publication of the rule, and for the water systems to update the 
inventory annually as they gather more information through the course 
of their normal activities. EPA proposed requiring the inventory to 
identify not only LSLs but also galvanized service lines that are or 
were downstream of an LSL, service lines whose material composition is 
unknown, and service lines known not to be LSLs. The proposed rule 
required each LSL to be associated with a locational identifier. EPA 
proposed that the inventory be made publicly available and proposed 
that water systems serving greater than 100,000 people would be 
required to make their inventory available electronically.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Several commenters supported requiring systems to make the LSL 
inventory publicly accessible because transparency is a critical step 
for building trust, informing and educating consumers about the sources 
of lead in drinking water, and reducing risk. Some commenters did not 
support a requirement to make the inventory publicly accessible, 
raising concerns that it could infringe on customer privacy and add to 
confusion, panic, and distrust of the water system, especially if the 
inventory identifies a high number of LSLs or service lines where the 
lead status is unknown. Commenters also raised concerns that the 
requirement could result in unintended impacts to economic development 
for a community and property values for individual locations with LSLs 
or lead status unknown service lines. Some commenters raised concerns 
with the requirement because there are alternatives to allowing open 
access to the general public (e.g., the requirement for the PWS to 
provide annual disclosure to customers with LSLs; a requirement to 
release the information after account verification; or other non-
binding measures such as pre-purchase residential inspections).
    Many commenters supported the inclusion of specific street 
addresses in the inventory, citing the increased transparency and the 
potential to drive proactive LSLR. Some commenters noted that an 
inventory without addresses would be of limited utility to consumers, 
given that LSLs impact the individual locations where they are found. 
Some commenters did not support a requirement to include addresses in 
the inventory, citing local or state privacy laws that they claim would 
prohibit the publication of address-level information in their 
inventory.
    EPA agrees with commenters who support a requirement for water 
systems to make the inventory publicly accessible. Informed customers 
are better able to take actions to limit exposure to lead in drinking 
water and make decisions regarding replacement of their portion of a 
LSL, and to better understand the prevalence of lead sources in 
drinking water. A Federal requirement for a publicly accessible 
inventory that uses specific addresses is not necessary, and could 
complicate implementation of the inventory requirements for those 
systems that may have concerns about potential conflicts with state or 
local privacy laws or constitutional protections; therefore, the final 
rule only requires systems to provide a general location identifier in 
the publicly accessible inventory. An address is not the only means by 
which water systems can convey the location of LSLs, other location 
identifiers could be used such as blocks, streets, landmarks, or other 
geographic markers that are associated with an individual service line. 
An inventory that is publicly available with location information 
provides communities with updated information regarding the total 
number of LSLs, galvanized requiring replacement lines, lead status 
unknown lines, and non-LSLs, as well as the general areas where LSLs 
and galvanized requiring replacement service lines are located. Making 
this information publicly available also allows the community to track 
LSLR and material composition verification progress over time. In 
addition, prospective homebuyers could use the publicly accessible 
inventory to determine whether and how to work with the homeowner, real 
estate agent, or home inspector to identify a service line's material 
composition. For publicly available inventories that do not include 
addresses as location identifiers, consumers will be individually 
notified of their service line material classification under 40 CFR 
141.85(e), after the water system conducts its initial inventory and 
annually thereafter. Finally, even though EPA has determined not to 
establish a Federal requirement to provide specific addresses in the 
inventory, this does not preclude water systems from doing so. Nor are 
states precluded by the SDWA from requiring water systems to do so.
    EPA received a comment suggesting the final rule strengthen 
inventory public accessibility requirements, making the inventory 
available online and extending this requirement to systems serving less 
than the proposed benchmark of 100,000 people. Requiring more 
inventories to be available online, commenters said, would allow 
consumers to more easily access the inventories. EPA agrees with these 
commenters and is requiring online publishing in the final rule for 
water systems serving over 50,000 persons, given that websites, social 
media platforms, and cloud-based file sharing applications are widely 
available and

[[Page 4212]]

can host information for free or low-cost.
    EPA received comments on other aspects of the inventory 
requirements such as the feasibility of creating initial inventories 
within three years after publication of the final rule. Some commenters 
believed an inventory could be created within three years, while others 
claimed that such an effort is not feasible. Some commenters noted the 
absence of a deadline to verify all service line materials, as is 
required in Michigan's LCR, and suggested that the final rule include a 
deadline. Some commenters needed clarification regarding methods for 
identifying LSLs.
    The Agency determined it is practicable and feasible for water 
systems to prepare the initial inventory by the rule compliance date, 
as the rule does not require a deadline to verify each service line's 
composition, allowing unidentified materials to be classified as lead 
status unknown. It is important that water systems complete the initial 
LSL inventory within three years of publication of the final rule to 
facilitate, for example, selection of tap sampling sites under new 
tiering criteria and to inform consumers about the presence of a known 
or potential LSL by the compliance date, which is based on Section 
1412(b)(10) of the SDWA. The inventory is also critical to determining 
the number of LSLs to be applied to the LSLR rate under a lead trigger 
level exceedance and action level exceedance.
    EPA disagrees that an end date by which all LSLs and lead status 
unknown service lines must be verified is warranted or appropriate. The 
LCR is a national rule which applies to over 60,000 water systems with 
very different circumstances, including but not limited to the number 
of service connections, system size, the proportion of LSLs to total 
service lines, the age of the system, and the accessibility or 
existence of service line materials records. Water systems with limited 
or nonexistent records will be more reliant on physical inspection of 
service line materials, which will require more time and resources than 
systems with robust records. Additionally, some service line material 
investigations may require access to private property, but the customer 
may deny access or not respond to water system outreach, which could 
challenge a water system's ability to comply with a verification 
deadline. Some records used for the initial inventory may be outdated 
or inaccurate, requiring the inventory to be updated over time as new 
information becomes available. For other systems (such as those with 
very few lead status unknown service lines), a Federal deadline may 
discourage or unnecessarily prolong the water system's inventorying 
efforts. Therefore, EPA determined it is impractical to impose a single 
deadline for completing an accurate inventory; it is more appropriately 
treated as an ongoing effort that systems must engage in, while clearly 
communicating to the public and the state the progress towards 
completion. The final rule facilitates timely development and 
verification of the inventory by requiring service line materials to be 
tracked as they are encountered and through incentives to verify 
unknowns. By requiring water systems to issue annual notification to 
consumers served by unknowns, to include unknowns in the replacement 
rate if the water system exceeds the lead trigger or action level, and 
to implement risk mitigation measures after disturbance of an unknown, 
EPA has created incentives for water systems to reduce the number of 
unknown service lines in their inventory. EPA also requires that water 
systems include in their LSLR plan a strategy for verifying the 
material composition of lead status unknown service lines. An inventory 
verification strategy can improve efficiency by allowing the water 
system to integrate material composition investigations into its 
existing standard operating procedures for other activities. For 
example, if water system personnel are already deployed on a street for 
a main replacement, they may visually inspect system-owned lead status 
unknown service lines on that street or engage with affected customers 
to determine the material composition of the service line entering the 
home. Water systems may also create a strategy that involves proactive 
investigation of service line material compositions which is 
independent of other water system activities, such as the use of 
predictive models to evaluate the probability a service line is lead 
and other methods provided or required by the state. Such predictive 
models could also inform water systems in how they can approach LSLR in 
a more efficient manner. EPA encourages but does not require this 
practice as it allows consumers with lead status unknown service lines 
to be informed sooner about their service line material.
    EPA requested comment on the scope of the inventory, including 
whether it should be required to include customer-owned service lines, 
galvanized service lines, and lead status unknown service lines. Some 
commenters believed that the water system should only be responsible 
for inventorying the service lines under its control, which would 
exclude all customer-owned service lines. Some commenters suggested 
that lead status unknown service lines should not be included because 
inventories with large numbers of unknowns could cause public alarm. 
Other commenters did not object to inclusion of unknowns but sought for 
water systems to have the ability to make a judgment about the 
probability of an unknown being an LSL (for example, a new 
classification such as ``Unknown but likely non-lead''). Some 
commenters suggested lead connectors be inventoried.
    EPA disagrees with comments suggesting that the inventory 
requirement in the rule should only apply to service lines if they are 
owned by the system. Customer owned service lines are connected to 
either a system-owned service line or main and therefore, they are 
accessible to the system and historically, the LCR has not been limited 
to system-owned portions of the distribution system. The LCR has 
required systems to take actions with respect to portions of the 
distribution system that are not owned by the water system, including 
actions related to the materials evaluation and the determination of 
the number of LSLs in the distribution system for calculating the 
number of service lines required to be replaced. For example, the LCR 
has required that ``[t]he system shall identify the initial number of 
LSLs in its distribution system, including an identification of the 
portion(s) owned by the system. . . .'' Similarly, the previous LCR has 
provided that ``where the system does not own the entire LSL, the 
system shall notify the owner of the line that the system will replace 
the portion of the line that it owns and shall offer to replace the 
owner's portion of the line.'' Moreover, where service line ownership 
is divided between the system and the customer, water system actions 
can release lead from customer-owned pipes and cause subsequent 
customer lead exposure. For example, partial LSLR of the system-owned 
portion can result in a lead spike on the customer-owned portion from 
physical disturbance as well as lead release from galvanic corrosion. 
Regarding inventory development, EPA notes that customer-owned service 
lines are connected to either a system-owned service line or system-
owned water main and are therefore accessible to the system. Accounting 
for locations of customer-owned LSLs will continue to be an integral 
part of the rule; without it, water systems would not be able to

[[Page 4213]]

coordinate replacement of customer-owned LSLs simultaneously with 
system-owned LSL, take required risk mitigation actions after 
replacement of a partial LSLR, or provide notice to persons served by 
LSLs.
    EPA disagrees that lead status unknown service lines should be 
excluded from the inventory. As EPA explained in the proposal, 
``[b]ecause water systems may not have complete records to enable them 
to identify the material for every service line'' the proposed rule 
would require water systems to identify those lines as unknown, and 
then update the inventory on an annual basis to reflect more precise 
information about those lines. (84 FR 61695). EPA determined that such 
an approach strikes an appropriate balance between a voluntary and 
mandatory requirement to conduct an accurate and complete inventory of 
the service line materials in the distribution system. It provides 
significant flexibility that would not be available if the rule 
required an accurate and complete inventory by a fixed date; on the 
other hand, by structuring the replacement requirements so as to 
incentivize systems to verify the materials of unknown service lines, 
completion of an accurate inventory is more than an aspirational goal. 
Including unknown service lines in the inventory will demonstrate 
transparency, build trust, and present an opportunity for customer 
engagement, all of which should mitigate commenter concerns about 
potential customer alarm about the presence of lead status unknown 
service lines. Exclusion of lead status unknown service lines from the 
inventory would likely cause significantly more confusion and alarm to 
the consumers at locations that are excluded from the inventory 
entirely. Some commenters asked that multiple classifications be 
introduced for unknowns, for example ``unknown but likely non-lead'' or 
``unknown--not lead,'' where records do not exist, but the water system 
believes the service line is likely not an LSL. A requirement to 
distinguish the categories of unknown service lines is not necessary 
for the portions of the rule that use the inventory, and therefore, EPA 
concluded it would not be appropriate to require in the final rule. 
Water systems may elect to provide more information in the inventory 
regarding their unknown lines as long as it clearly distinguishes 
service lines classified as ``Lead status unknown'' from those whose 
material has been verified through records or inspection. The 
distinction between unknown and verified service lines is critical to 
implementation of the LSLR requirements and will also help to avoid 
confusion. EPA adjusted the terminology for unknowns from ``service 
line of unknown material'' in the proposal to ``lead status unknown 
service line'' in the final rule. This change clarifies that water 
systems may classify a service line as ``non-lead'' rather than 
``service line of unknown material'' where it knows that the service 
line is not an LSL but does not know the precise material, such as 
copper or plastic.
    EPA disagrees that the final rule should require lead connectors to 
be included in the inventory. In many cases, records on lead connectors 
are often extremely limited or may not exist at all. Unlike an 
inventory of service lines, whose material can be visually inspected 
often without excavation from inside the home or in the meter box, a 
complete and accurate inventory of connectors would require excavation 
that disturbs road pavement and repaving post-inspection--an 
undertaking that EPA expects would not be feasible or practical for 
most systems. Instead, EPA addresses the presence of lead connectors by 
requiring that water systems replace system-owned lead connectors 
whenever they are encountered during water system activities, such as 
emergency repairs or planned infrastructure work, and to offer to 
replace a customer-owned connector at no cost to the system. EPA 
encourages water systems to voluntarily include information about lead 
connectors in the inventory where such records exist.
    Commenters suggested that annual submission of the inventory to the 
state would create burden for the water system to submit its inventory 
and for the state to review it. EPA agrees that for some water systems, 
annual inventory updates may not be necessary. For example, water 
systems below the lead trigger level are not required to execute a 
system-wide LSLR program, meaning they will have fewer inventory 
changes to report. EPA agrees that linking inventory update frequency 
with the tap sampling monitoring period would be efficient for water 
systems and states because tap sampling must be conducted at LSL sites. 
Changes in the inventory and any resulting changes to the tap sampling 
plan made to ensure samples are collected at LSL sites can be reviewed 
by states concurrently. EPA also agrees that for water systems on 6-
month monitoring, annual inventory updates are more appropriate given 
that LSLR rates apply annually.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule requires all water systems to create a publicly 
accessible LSL inventory. The initial inventory must be available 
within three years and updated over time to reflect changes, such as 
verification of lead status unknown service line material compositions 
or LSLs that have been replaced. All water systems must create an 
inventory, regardless of size or other water system characteristics, 
and the inventory must include all service lines in the distribution 
system, without exclusions. Water systems with only non-LSLs are 
required to conduct an initial inventory, but they are not required to 
provide inventory updates to the state or the public and they may 
fulfill the requirement to make the inventory publicly accessible with 
a statement that there are no LSLs, along with a general description of 
the methods used to make that determination. For example, water systems 
where the entire distribution system (including customer-owned portions 
of the service line) was constructed after a state or Federal lead ban 
may designate applicable service lines as ``Non-lead.'' There is no 
deadline to investigate the material composition of all lead status 
unknown service lines. Water systems must create a strategy in their 
LSLR plan for investigating lead status unknown service lines in their 
inventory. This strategy, coupled with the incentive to investigate 
unknowns to ease future LSLR burden, will encourage water systems to 
verify all unknown service line materials in a timely manner. Other 
rule provisions ensure that customers served by lead status unknown 
service lines receive protections while inventory development is in 
progress, such as the requirement to receive targeted information that 
their service line material is unknown but may be an LSL.
    While EPA retained the proposed inventory classifications, the 
final rule modifies some terminology. To avoid potential customer 
confusion, galvanized service lines that are or were downstream of an 
LSL are no longer required to be classified as an LSL. Instead, they 
must be labeled ``Galvanized requiring replacement'' which allows their 
correct material composition to be listed while maintaining they are 
not to be classified as ``Non-lead'' because they must be replaced as 
part of the system's LSLR program. As previously described, the 
proposed ``Service lines of unknown material'' are referred to as 
``Lead status unknown service lines'' in the final rule.

[[Page 4214]]

The classification of ``non-lead'' means that, as in the proposed rule, 
the water system does not need to identify the exact material of a 
service line, such as plastic or copper, if it is not an LSL or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line.
    The final rule does not include a requirement to investigate or 
inventory lead connectors for the reasons discussed above. EPA 
recommends reviewing records on connector material composition during 
the records search for the initial inventory. EPA also recommends but 
is not requiring that water systems inventory connector materials where 
records exist to provide additional information to consumers about 
additional lead sources that could contribute to lead in drinking water 
serving the residence.
    The final rule incorporates commenter suggestions to link the 
inventory update submission frequency with the system's compliance 
monitoring period or annually, whichever is greater. Because tap 
sampling must be conducted at LSL sites, changes in the inventory and 
any resulting changes to the tap sampling plan, to ensure samples are 
collected at LSL sites, can be reviewed by states concurrently. Water 
systems on triennial monitoring will be required to provide LSL 
inventory updates every three years. Water systems that exceed the lead 
trigger level must conduct tap sampling annually, and therefore, these 
systems must provide LSL inventory updates annually. Water systems that 
exceed the lead action level will conduct tap sampling every six 
months; however, they are required to update the inventory annually.
    The final rule requires the LSL inventory to be publicly 
accessible. The threshold required for water systems to publish their 
inventory online was reduced to 50,000 persons from the threshold of 
100,000 as proposed. Internet platforms, such as websites, cloud-based 
file sharing applications, and social media, are widely available and 
can host information for free or low-cost.
    These provisions will strengthen the public accessibility to 
information in the inventory. EPA also added a requirement for the 
Consumer Confidence Report to include a statement that a service line 
inventory has been prepared and is available for review either online 
or at the water system offices.
    The final rule requires the publicly accessible inventory to 
provide a location identifier for lead service lines. The location 
identifier could be a general location such as a street, block, 
intersection, or landmark, or other geographic marker associated with 
the service line. An inventory created and maintained internally by 
water systems to track service line materials may use the specific 
address of each service line in order for the water system to provide 
the required notification under Sec.  141.85(e), but the final rule 
does not require that the system make the exact street addresses 
publicly available. Instead, the final rule gives the water system 
flexibility to determine which location identifier best meets the needs 
of its own community.

D. Lead Service Line Replacement

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed to accelerate lead service line replacement (LSLR) by 
proposing LSLR requirements target systems with higher lead levels and 
that address weaknesses in the current rule to achieve full LSLR in the 
communities where they are needed most. EPA proposed to require all 
water systems to replace the system-owned portion of an LSL after they 
were notified of a customer-initiated replacement of their portion. EPA 
proposed that water systems above the lead trigger level but at or 
below the lead action level would be required to implement a ``goal-
based'' LSLR program at a rate approved by the state primacy agency. 
Water systems that exceeded the lead action level would be required to 
conduct mandatory, full LSLR at a minimum rate of three percent 
annually. While the proposal did not include a prohibition on partial 
replacements, it did not incentivize them and included required 
notification and risk mitigation actions. The proposal promoted full 
LSLR by allowing only full replacements to count towards the LSLR rate. 
Partial LSLR and ``test-outs'' would no longer count as a replacement 
as they do in the current LCR. EPA proposed a provision for water 
systems to create an LSLR plan by the rule compliance date, which would 
ensure operating procedures are in place that would ready the water 
system to perform the technical, financial, and other aspects of LSLR.
    EPA proposed that galvanized service lines that are currently or 
were formerly downstream of an LSL be replaced as part of a water 
system's LSLR program. These galvanized lines would be included when 
calculating the annual number of replacements applicable under goal-
based or mandatory LSLR. Lead status unknown service lines (called 
``service lines of unknown material'' in the proposal) were also 
proposed to be included in the LSLR rate calculation until the system 
determines that it is non-lead.
    EPA proposed requirements to address elevated lead levels that can 
result from disturbance of an LSL, such as after a meter replacement or 
lead connector replacement. EPA proposed risk mitigation steps required 
after an LSL disturbance, including flushing and delivery of a pitcher 
filter. EPA also proposed to require systems to replace the lead 
connectors (including goosenecks, pigtails that have been used to 
connect service lines to water mains) whenever encountered by the water 
system in the course of conducting maintenance or replacement of the 
water mains or adjacent infrastructure.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA requested comment on the proposed requirements for water 
systems to create a LSLR plan. Specifically, EPA asked whether small 
water systems should be exempt from the requirement to prepare a LSLR 
plan concurrent with their inventory. Some commenters expressed that 
small water systems should not be required to create a LSLR plan, 
claiming that the requirement is too burdensome and potentially 
unnecessary, given that a small system may not choose LSLR as its 
compliance option following a lead action level exceedance. EPA agrees 
that small water systems should not have to recommend a goal LSLR rate 
within the LSLR plan because small systems would not conduct goal-based 
LSLR program under the small system compliance path. EPA disagrees, 
however, that small systems should be exempt from preparing a LSLR 
plan, as its other components are still relevant to small systems. For 
example, given that small systems must respond to customer-initiated 
LSLR, the requirement to develop procedures to conduct LSLR in their 
plan still applies. Additionally, given that small water systems may 
still replace LSLs at any time (i.e., after planned infrastructure work 
or an emergency repair), they must develop a strategy to inform 
customers before a full or partial LSLR. Furthermore, flushing 
procedures in the LSLR plan apply after an LSL is disturbed or 
replaced, which could apply, for example, to small systems replacing 
water mains or water meters. While there is some upfront burden 
associated with creating an LSLR plan, the plan could significantly 
reduce future burden for water systems and will reduce the response 
time if LSLR is needed. Plan components like the strategy to 
investigate the material of lead status unknown service lines, identify 
potential LSLR funding and have

[[Page 4215]]

procedures established for LSLR have the potential to significantly 
reduce the investigation burden that small systems choosing a LSLR 
compliance path would face after exceeding the action level and will 
ensure faster implementation. Investigating unknowns will also benefit 
public health by providing consumers with information about their 
service line material.
    EPA also requested comment on how water systems could identify and 
prioritize LSLR. Many commenters supported the concept and provided 
several examples of how LSLR could be prioritized. Commenter 
recommendations include prioritizing LSLR where large numbers of LSLs 
are present, tap sampling data indicates high lead levels, construction 
work is already scheduled, susceptible populations are served (such as 
child care facilities), areas with older infrastructure, or where 
disadvantaged populations are located. EPA agrees that water systems 
should include a prioritization strategy in the LSLR plan, as these and 
other factors could inform systems' LSLR efforts. Water systems could 
give specific consideration to, for example, prioritizing locations 
where susceptible populations are concentrated (such as child care 
facilities) and where disadvantaged populations live because these 
populations may be more susceptible to the impacts of lead exposure, or 
may be more likely to live in environments with other lead exposure 
sources. Data from the 2005 American Housing Survey suggest that non-
Hispanic black individuals are more than twice as likely as non-
Hispanic whites to live in moderately or severely substandard housing 
(Leech et al., 2016). Substandard housing is more likely to present 
risks from deteriorating lead-based paint (White et al., 2016). 
Additionally, minority and low-income children are more likely to live 
in proximity to lead-emitting industries and to live in urban areas, 
which are more likely to have contaminated soils (Leech et al., 2016). 
In addition, a water system could identify in its LSLR plan the factors 
that will guide the prioritization of the LSLRs and how the system will 
facilitate full LSLR where the customer is unable to pay for 
replacement of the customer-owned portion of the service line.
    EPA requested comment on the proposed requirement that water 
systems complete the replacement of the water system-owned portion of 
the LSL within 45 days of a customer-initiated replacement. Many 
commenters supported this requirement but suggested that water systems 
should be allowed more time to complete the replacement. Several cities 
in northern states, commenters noted, have construction moratoriums 
during winter months. EPA agrees that it may not be possible for water 
systems to obtain permits and complete LSLR within 45 days, therefore 
the final rule includes a provision to allow up to 180 days after 
notification to the state. EPA recommends water systems to establish a 
process for customer-initiated LSLRs that would allow for up front 
coordination on timing and would avoid the need for a reactionary 
replacement, where possible.
    EPA sought comment on how the number of replacements under a goal-
based or mandatory LSLR program should be calculated. Some commenters 
pointed out that customer-owned LSLs are outside of the water system's 
control and they should not be included in the water system's LSLR rate 
calculation. EPA disagrees that customer-owned LSLR should be excluded 
from the LSLR program requirements. Under the currently applicable LCR, 
customer owned service lines are included in the LSLR calculations. 
Customer-owned service lines must be accounted for in determining the 
number of initial service lines in section 141.84(b)(1) The initial 
number of LSLs is the number of LSLs in place at the time the 
replacement program begins. The system shall identify the initial 
number of LSLs in its distribution system, including an identification 
of the portion(s) owned by the system. Excluding customer owned LSLs 
would continue to promote partial LSLR, which have not been shown to 
reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the short-term, ranging 
from days to months, and potentially even longer. Partial replacements 
are often associated with elevated drinking water lead levels in the 
short-term (USEPA, 2011b). EPA notes that while customer-owned lines 
are not under the direct control of the water systems, there are many 
actions the water system can take to influence the customers behavior 
including educating the customer and providing financial assistance, 
such as loans or grants, to the customer (water systems are not 
required to bear the cost to replace the customer-owned portion). 
Moreover, the ``ownership'' status of LSLs is not necessarily static 
(e.g., it may change as a result of state law or regulations governing 
public utilities).
    EPA specifically requested comment on including galvanized service 
lines in goal-based and mandatory LSLR rates under the proposed LCR 
revisions. Some commenters agreed that galvanized lines should be 
replaced under LSLR programs, noting that science demonstrates that 
galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream from an LSL 
can adsorb lead and contribute to lead in drinking water. Some 
commenters sought clarification regarding the burden of proof required 
to determine if a galvanized service line ``ever was'' downstream of an 
LSL. A few commenters recommended that the final rule take an approach 
that either requires replacement of all or no galvanized service lines 
due to the difficulty and burden often required to determine whether a 
galvanized line ``ever was'' downstream of an LSL. EPA agrees 
galvanized lines that are or were downstream of an LSL can contribute 
to lead in drinking water and should be replaced under a system's LSLR 
program.
    Some commenters believed that lead status unknown service lines 
should not be used in calculating the number of replacements required, 
while others suggested that water systems should receive replacement 
credit whenever an unknown is investigated and verified to be non-lead. 
EPA disagrees that unknowns should be excluded from the LSLR rate 
calculation. In the final rule, partial LSLR no longer count as a 
replacement because they do not result in a full LSLR, so allowing 
unknown verifications to count as a replacement without actually 
conducting a LSLR would run counter to the final rule's emphasis on 
full LSLR. Additionally, this policy would not incentivize, and would 
instead discourage, systems from conducting robust material 
investigations for their initial inventory or updating their inventory 
over time, given that improving the inventory would increase their LSLR 
burden as some unknowns are found to be LSLs. EPA also disagrees that 
verification of unknowns to be non-lead should count as a replacement. 
Counting a verification as ``replaced'' could also disincentivize a 
robust initial inventory in attempts to lower the LSLR burden and allow 
compliance with LSLR requirements without conducting an LSLR.
    EPA requested comment on the goal-based LSLR requirement for 
systems that exceed the trigger level, asking if a goal-based program 
provides adequate incentives for water systems to achieve meaningful 
LSLR, and such a program could be incorporated into existing 
infrastructure improvement programs. Commenters offered a wide range of 
views on the new construct. Commenters expressed some support for the 
proposed requirement, noting it

[[Page 4216]]

would increase the number of systems with an LSLR program. Many 
commenters asked for EPA to be more prescriptive regarding the goal 
LSLR rate in the final rule. For example, some commenters suggested 
that EPA should set a Federal goal LSLR rate, while others thought that 
EPA should set a minimum goal LSLR rate while maintaining the current 
provision which requires states to set a higher goal rate where 
feasible. Other commenters suggested that EPA set a maximum goal rate, 
such as three percent. EPA also requested comment on what criteria must 
be met for the Agency to establish a Federal goal rate for an 
individual water system under Sec.  142.19. Some commenters disagreed 
that EPA should maintain authority to supersede a state-approved goal 
LSLR rate. EPA disagrees that it should be more prescriptive regarding 
the goal LSLR rate. The goal-based LSLR program is intended to reflect 
the specific water system and state's priorities and community 
characteristics. EPA agrees with commenters that the final rule should 
not include a provision for the Regional Administrator to establish a 
goal LSLR rate that would supersede a state decision. States best 
understand individual water system's characteristics, its technical, 
financial, and managerial capacity, as well as community demographics. 
States may also set goal LSLR rates in accordance with statewide 
replacement policies, such as conducting LSLR in tandem with existing 
infrastructure work, taking a more active approach to LSLR, or making a 
determination that a higher replacement rate is feasible.
    EPA requested comment on the feasibility of a minimum annual LSLR 
rate of three percent as a result of a lead action level exceedance. 
While some commenters thought that a three percent LSLR was too 
burdensome, others believed the rate was not stringent enough and 
should be higher. Some noted that the current rule requires seven 
percent LSLR and claimed that a replacement rate of three percent would 
be backsliding in violation of the statutory requirement that revisions 
to existing drinking water standards ``maintain, or provide for 
greater, protection of the health of persons'' as the existing rule. 
Some commenters believed that a mandatory LSLR rate should apply at all 
times and regardless of a water system's lead levels, effectively 
requiring mandatory, proactive LSLR program at all water systems.
    EPA disagrees that a requirement to fully replace three percent of 
all known and unknown LSLs annually is too slow. Under the previous 
LCR, many water systems delayed or never initiated LSLR because the 
rule allows a system to stop LSLR with two bi-annual rounds of tap 
sampling at or below the action level (AL). A number of scenarios 
allowed water systems to delay or not begin LSLR. For example, under 
the previous LCR, water systems without CCT must conduct a study, 
obtain state approval for the recommended CCT, and obtain state 
approved optimal WQPs prior to beginning LSLR. Because a CCT study 
takes longer than one year, many water systems were able to complete 
two rounds of tap sampling at or below the AL and were not required to 
complete the CCT study. Further, a water system could delay initiation 
if the system did not have an accurate LSL inventory and needed time to 
identify the total number of LSLs in order to determine the number of 
LSLs required for 7 percent replacement. Meanwhile, that water system 
could complete two rounds of tap sampling at or below the AL resulting 
in an end of the LSLR program having replaced few or no LSLs. As a 
result, very few water systems have conducted LSLR programs under the 
previous rule. The LCRR no longer allows these delays; systems that 
exceed the trigger level (TL) must conduct a CCT study so they are 
prepared to quickly install CCT if there is a subsequent ALE. Also, 
water systems must prepare an LSL inventory prior to the compliance 
effective date and systems must conduct four rounds (two years) of bi-
annual tap sampling at or below the AL before LSLR may stop. Requiring 
only full LSLR to count as a replacement will require more time and 
resources per replacement than partial LSLR, which was allowed in the 
previous rule because water systems will likely require customer 
consent to replace their portion of an LSL at customer cost and may 
need access to the customer's property. EPA notes that as in the 
previous LCR, states must require systems to replace LSLs on a shorter 
schedule, i.e., a higher annual percentage than required under the 
Federal rule, where the state determines a shorter schedule is 
feasible.
    EPA disagrees that reducing the LSLR rate to three percent is 
backsliding relative to the current LCR. The current LCR does not 
require full replacement of LSLs and the required seven percent 
replacement rate is rarely occurring since there are provisions in the 
current rule that allow for avoidance of LSLR. EPA has determined that 
the revisions to the LCR, as a whole, maintain or provide for greater 
public health protection. Because a treatment technique rule is not 
centered on a single compliance level, but rather on an integrated set 
of actions designed to reduce the level of exposure to a contaminant, 
the backsliding analysis for a treatment technique rule should be based 
on an assessment of public health protection as a result of 
implementation of the rule as a whole, rather than a comparison of 
numerical benchmarks within the treatment technique rule. Even when the 
lead service line removal rates are compared directly, this rule 
results in a greater rate of removal. Based on data presented in Tables 
6-7 and 6-8 of this preamble, improvements in the final rule will 
result in a 5 to 73 fold increase in full LSLR investments by closing 
loopholes, improving sampling and monitoring requirements, compelling 
early action, and strengthening replacement requirements. LSL 
replacement programs are required to be initiated at systems that 
exceed the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L versus 15 [micro]g/L in 
the previous LCR. The requirement for a LSLR plan for all systems will 
avoid delays in initiating LSLR that have hampered progress under the 
current rule. Furthermore, the more stringent sampling requirements in 
the final rule will better identify elevated lead levels associated 
with LSLs, which will result in more systems that exceed the trigger 
and action levels and are thus required to replace LSLs. The current 
rule allows systems to count the line as replaced towards their seven 
percent removal if a sample taken from an individual line is below 15 
[micro]g/L--called ``testing out''--even when no replacement has 
occurred. The final rule eliminates the ability of water systems to 
``test out'' lines from replacement. In addition, while the current 
rule requires a minimum of one year of mandatory LSLR, the final rule 
requires water systems to demonstrate lead levels below the 15 
[micro]g/L action level for two years before ceasing mandatory LSLR. 
EPA also notes that the final rule's three percent LSLR rate includes a 
greater pool of service lines covered by the replacement requirements 
than the current rule, including not only LSLs, but also lead status 
unknown service lines and galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines. Including these known and potential lead sources is expected to 
result in more service lines requiring replacement under this construct 
at three percent than under the seven percent required in the previous 
LCR. Furthermore, the final rule includes provisions requiring water 
systems to replace lead connectors when encountered and complete

[[Page 4217]]

customer-initiated LSLR regardless of their 90th percentile lead 
levels, rather than requiring those actions only for systems that 
exceed the action level. This is bolstered by requirements for systems 
to make their LSL inventory publicly available and notify occupants of 
homes with LSL every year about their LSL, drinking water exposure 
risks, and mitigation options, including removal. In addition, only 
full LSLs will count towards the mandated replacement rate; partial 
LSLR may still be conducted in certain limited situations, but they 
will not count in calculating the number of lead lines that have been 
replaced, in contrast to the current LCR. Therefore, this element of 
the rule, taken by itself, meets the statutory standard for this rule 
that it maintains or provides for greater health protection. Lastly, 
LSLR is just one component of the revised rule. Other strengthened 
provisions in the rule such as corrosion control treatment, find-and-
fix, and public education, will mitigate lead exposure to a greater 
extent relative to the current rule, and thus the rule as a whole 
provides more protection than the current rule.
    Some commenters suggested use of a rolling average replacement rate 
across several years to provide more flexibility to the water system 
than a static annual rate. Commenters noted that in the first year of 
mandatory LSLR, water systems may receive a high number of requests 
from customers to have their LSL replaced, while the pool of willing 
customers may decline in later years. Commenters believed that water 
systems should respond to as many customer requests as they can, even 
if it exceeds their mandatory LSLR rate, in order to remove lead 
sources sooner. Water systems should not be incentivized, commenters 
said, to replace the minimum number of LSLs in the first year to ensure 
a sufficient number of willing participants to meet the mandatory LSLR 
rate in later years. The Agency agrees that a rolling average construct 
is appropriate for the final rule. As commenters mentioned, a water 
system may receive heightened customer interest in LSLR immediately 
following a lead AL exceedance. Replacing more than 3% LSLs in the 
first year of an LSLR program under a rolling average rate will result 
in earlier reductions in drinking water lead exposure for those 
households served by systems that are able to obtain resources for a 
short term expedited replacement program. This would remove a potential 
unintended incentive under a fixed rate of 3% to replace the minimum 
number of LSLs in the first year to ensure there is sufficient customer 
participation to achieve 3% in the second year. For example, under a 
rolling average, a system that is able to expedite LSLRs in the first 
year following an ALE to replace 4% but in the second year is only able 
to replace 2% will achieve a 3% two year rolling average. EPA notes 
that while the final rule requires states to set the mandatory LSLR 
rate higher than 3% where feasible, the short-term ability of a water 
system to replace more than 3% immediately following a lead AL 
exceedance when customer interest is highest is not necessarily 
indicative of long-term feasibility. EPA also notes that a rolling 
average approach could provide flexibility to water systems that 
experience delays in initiating LSLR programs. While not mentioned by 
commenters, some systems may not immediately have access to LSLR 
financing following a lead AL exceedance, and therefore would face 
increased challenges to meet the mandatory 3% LSLR in the first year. 
These challenges could be compounded where the water system experiences 
delays securing financing and then faces, as commenters noted in the 
context of customer-initiated replacement, construction moratoriums in 
the winter months. The rolling average approach could alleviate these 
challenges. For example, a system that is only able to replace 2% in 
the first year due to delays may be able to expedite the LSLR program 
to replace 4% in the second year and achieve a 3% rolling two year 
average. EPA acknowledges that some households would experience delays 
in reductions to drinking water lead exposure under this example in 
comparison to a fixed annual rate. EPA recommends that water systems 
begin LSLR as quickly as possible following an ALE to assure that the 
system achieves the required 3% rolling annual average by the end of 
the second year following the ALE. EPA notes that by having the LSLR 
plan prepared in advance as required by the rule, systems should be 
positioned to avoid delays and have timely implementation of their LSLR 
program. EPA recognizes that potential funding or scheduling delays 
that may impede a water system's ability to achieve the LSLR rate or 
circumstances such as higher than average customer interest that may 
expedite a water system's ability to achieve the LSLR rate may occur 
throughout implementation of the LSLR program. Therefore, EPA has 
constructed the rolling average approach for the duration of the LSLR. 
For example, a water system that continually exceeds the lead AL may 
expend its initial funding source and need to seek new funding to 
continue LSLR. The rolling average approach is not intended to address 
delays caused by customer refusals, as the final rule includes a 
mechanism for a water system to cease LSLR after it shows no unknowns 
in its inventory and has received replacement refusals from all 
customers served by an LSL or galvanized requiring replacement service 
line.
    EPA sought comment on proposed risk mitigation procedures following 
LSLR or a LSL disturbance, such as the appropriateness of pitcher 
filters. The proposed rule categorized disturbances into two types: 
Minor disturbances that require consumer notification and flushing, and 
more significant disturbances requiring consumer notification, 
flushing, and pitcher filters. Some commenters claimed that high 
velocity flushing is appropriate for all disturbances and that filters 
should not be required as a result of any disturbance. EPA agrees that 
flushing can be effective at reducing lead in drinking water but 
disagrees that it is adequate in response to all disturbances. Use of 
pitcher filters or POU devices over a period of months can help reduce 
lead exposure from more significant disturbances that may cause 
sustained elevated lead concentrations over weeks or months. EPA has 
determined that pitcher filters provide the most viable and efficient 
option for both water systems and consumers. EPA agrees that POU 
devices are also effective for risk mitigation and acknowledges that 
some water systems may prefer POU devices to pitcher filters. It is 
important to note that systems that elect to distribute POU for risk 
mitigation after an LSLR are not required to maintain and/or own the 
devices since they would be used only for short-term mitigation and not 
for compliance purposes. Small water systems that select POU devices as 
their compliance alternative must maintain and test devices to be in 
compliance with the LCRR. EPA also received comments suggesting that 
notification and risk mitigation be provided after a customer's water 
is turned back on. A commenter noted that some work may require a 
customer's water to be turned on and off multiple times. EPA agrees 
with the commenter that providing notification and risk mitigation 
before the consumer uses the water is of primary importance and has 
revised the requirement for notification and risk communication to be 
provided prior to the water system returning the affected service line 
to service.
    EPA received many comments calling for the final rule to ban 
partial LSLR

[[Page 4218]]

under all circumstances. Commenters noted that partial replacements are 
not effective at reducing lead in drinking water and may cause a 
temporary lead spike. Many other comments supported the proposal's 
allowance of partial replacements, claiming that in some cases partial 
replacements are unavoidable, such as during emergency repairs. EPA 
agrees that it is not feasible to ban partial LSLR in all situations. 
Although partial LSLR can cause lead levels to be temporarily elevated, 
the practice may sometimes be unavoidable, such as resulting from an 
emergency repair. In another scenario, other water system activities 
may result in a significant LSL disturbance and the water system may 
find it appropriate to remove the portion it owns, while the customer 
does not agree to replace his or her portion. Because of circumstances 
such as those, it is appropriate for the rule to not prohibit all 
partial LSLR. The final rule discourages the practice of partial LSLR 
by excluding it from counting towards goal and mandatory LSLR rates, 
while also ensuring risk mitigation steps are taken when partials are 
conducted. One commenter noted that their state prohibits partial LSLR 
and considers lead connectors to be part of the LSL. The commenter 
sought clarification in the final rule as to how systems would comply 
with their partial LSLR ban as well as the proposed requirement to 
replace lead connectors as they are encountered. EPA agrees with this 
commenter and has provided clarification in the final rule to allow an 
exemption from the requirement to replace lead connectors as they are 
encountered if state law bans partial LSLR, includes lead connectors in 
the LSL definition, and requires systems to remove all LSLs 
irrespective of a system's 90th percentile lead level. This new 
provision will facilitate compliance with both state and Federal law 
while ensuring that consistent progress towards the replacement of lead 
connectors will occur over time.
    Some commenters requested that EPA allow verbal refusals or 
documented attempts to reach a non-responsive customer rather than 
limiting refusals to customer signatures turning down LSLR as was 
proposed. EPA agrees with commenters, noting that there may be times 
where, despite a good faith effort to engage the customer, the water 
system is unable to reach the customer to obtain a consent or refusal 
for LSLR. EPA agrees that compliance should be based on the effort to 
reach the customer to obtain a refusal, and that the water system 
should not be penalized as a result of customer actions.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    All water systems with LSLs or lead status unknown service lines in 
their initial inventory must create and submit an LSLR plan to their 
state by the rule's compliance date. The LSLR plan must include a 
description of: (1) A strategy for determining the composition of lead 
status unknown service lines in its inventory, (2) procedures to 
conduct full LSLR, (3) a strategy for informing customers before a full 
or partial LSLR, (4) for systems that serve more than 10,000 persons, a 
recommended LSLR goal rate in the event of a lead trigger level 
exceedance, (5) a procedure for customers to flush service lines and 
premise plumbing of particulate lead, (6) a LSLR prioritization 
strategy based on factors including but not limited to the targeting of 
known LSLs, LSLR for disadvantaged consumers and populations most 
sensitive to the effects of lead, and (7) a funding strategy for 
conducting LSLRs which considers ways to accommodate customers that are 
unable to pay to replace the portion they own. Completing a LSLR plan 
will prepare water systems to take the steps necessary to remove a 
source of drinking water lead exposure when required. Water systems 
will be able to initiate removals in a more timely manner and may be 
able to more cost effectively identify and remove LSLs with careful 
preparation and planning.
    The final rule does not include a requirement for water systems to 
include pitcher filter tracking and maintenance plan because water 
systems will likely distribute the filter and all replacement 
cartridges simultaneously, making it unnecessary to track filters 
replacement schedules over time. The final rule adds a new LSLR plan 
component for water systems to include a strategy for accommodating 
customers who wish to replace the LSL but are unable to pay the cost of 
replacing the portion of they own. Nothing in this provision obligates 
the water system to pay for replacement of a customer-owned LSL. EPA 
notes potential environmental justice concerns associated with full 
LSLR when the customer is expected to pay the entire cost to replace 
the customer-owned portion of the LSL. EPA believes that these impacts 
can be mitigated by water systems developing a financial assistance 
strategy ahead of time. In recent years, EPA has become aware of water 
systems around the country that have successfully adopted one or more 
approaches for facilitating full LSLR (``Strategies for Achieving Full 
LSLR,'' docket EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300). As part of their plan, water 
systems could investigate whether rate revenue can contribute to 
customer-owned LSLR or identify external LSLR funding, such as Federal 
or state grants or loans, that could be used to finance a customer's 
LSLR. EPA maintains a list of some funding sources that can be used for 
lead in drinking water reduction activities which can be reached at 
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement. EPA is also requiring that the LSLR plan must 
include a replacement prioritization strategy, which will inform how a 
water system will execute their LSLR program.
    The final rule requires the replacement of lead goosenecks, 
pigtails, and connectors any time they are encountered by the water 
system. Coupling lead connector replacement with other water system 
activities, such as main replacement or LSLR, will facilitate 
consistent progress is made toward elimination of this lead source from 
drinking water infrastructure over time. A new provision was added to 
allow systems to comply with state regulations which ban partial LSLR 
and consider lead connectors part of the LSL.
    The final rule requires that water systems complete customer-
initiated LSLR within 45 days of being notified by the customer, with 
the possibility of an extension to 180 days after notification to the 
state. EPA encourages water systems to establish a process for 
customer-initiated LSLRs that would allow for up front coordination on 
timing and would avoid the need for a reactionary replacement of the 
water system portion of the LSL. To mitigate potential lead exposure 
associated with a partial LSLR until the system completes the full 
replacement, the water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher 
filter or POU device with six months of replacement cartridges, to 
consumers until the replacement is completed. Because of the potential 
for partial LSLR to contribute higher levels of lead into drinking 
water, water systems must also provide the customer with a filter 
within 24 hours of learning of a customer replacement that left a 
system-owned LSL in place within the past six months. This new 
requirement will ensure customers are protected from the effects of 
partial LSLR, regardless of who owns the remaining LSL portion. Water 
systems that conduct a full LSLR must also provide customer 
notification and risk mitigation before the service line is returned to 
service.
    EPA has retained the inclusion of galvanized service lines that are 
or were downstream of an LSL in the calculation

[[Page 4219]]

of the LSLR rate. Water systems are required to presume the galvanized 
service line was downstream of an LSL if unable to demonstrate that the 
galvanized service line was never downstream of a lead service line. 
This approach ensures that all galvanized service lines that may 
contribute lead into drinking water may be counted towards replacement 
under the water system's LSLR program. In the final rule, lead status 
unknown service lines must be considered in determining a water 
system's annual LSLR rate under a goal-based or mandatory LSLR program. 
This provides an incentive to water systems to verify the material of 
lead status unknown service lines.
    In the final rule, water systems must recommend a goal LSLR rate in 
their LSLR plan to be implemented after a lead trigger level 
exceedance. There is no required minimum or maximum for the recommended 
goal rate but it must be approved by the state. States may set a 
different LSLR goal rate than the rate recommended by the system. EPA 
expects that some systems may propose to conduct goal based LSLR in 
coordination with planned infrastructure work, while other systems may 
propose more expansive goal based LSLRs to address the most susceptible 
or disadvantaged populations. EPA believes it is appropriate for the 
system to propose a goal LSLR rate based upon an understanding of its 
individual opportunities and challenges in conducting LSLRs and the 
priorities in the community for improved public health protection. EPA 
believes that the primacy agency is in the best position to evaluate 
the system's recommendation and determine a goal rate.
    The final rule retains the proposed minimum mandatory full LSLR 
rate of three percent after a lead action level exceedance (ALE). The 
final rule also maintains the LCR's existing requirement that water 
systems conduct LSLR on a shorter schedule (i.e., greater than three 
percent annually) where the state has determined it is feasible for the 
system. The final rule incorporates commenters' suggestions to require 
that the mandatory LSLR rate be determined based upona rolling two year 
average. A water system that exceeds the action level must replace a 
rolling two year average of 3% per year (i.e., starting in year 2 
following an ALE, a water system's compliance is determined every year 
based upon whether it replaced at least 6% in the prior two-year 
period). As stated in Sec.  141.84(a)(7), the number of LSLRs required 
under the mandatory LSLR program must be calculated using the number of 
LSLs and galvanized requiring replacement service lines at the time the 
system first exceeds the action level plus the number of unknowns at 
the beginning of each years of the system's LSLR program. A water 
system that has an ALE must conduct the mandatory LSLR program until 
the water system's 90th percentile lead levels are at or below the 
action level for 2 years and the cumulative percentage of LSLs replaced 
by the system is greater than or equal to 3% times the number of years 
that elapsed between the system's first ALE and the date on which the 
system's 90th percentile lead levels are at or below the action level 
for 2 years. A system with 90th percentile lead levels at or below the 
action level for 2 years that has not yet replaced the required 
cumulative percentage of lines, may discontinue LSLR only if it 
achieves replacement of the cumulative percentage of LSLRs before the 
end of the third year in which its 90th percentile lead levels are at 
or below the action level. For example, if a system exceeds the action 
level and replaces 2% in the first year following the ALE, 4% in the 
second year, and 2% in the third year that system will have met the 
requirement for a rolling two year 3% average. However if that system's 
90th percentile lead levels drop below the action level in the second 
year and stays below the action level in the third year, that system 
cannot stop its LSLR program unless it replaces 1% in the fourth year 
to achieve a cumulative replacement of 9%.Where a water system fails to 
achieve its mandatory LSLR rate, it may remain in compliance if it has 
no remaining lead status unknown service lines in its distribution 
system and it provides documentation of refusals, or non-response, to 
the water system's efforts to fully replace all LSLs and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines. The final rule builds on the 
proposal by allowing documentation of two good faith attempts to reach 
the customers that either resulted in a signed or verbal refusal, or 
non-response. This provision allows a water system to maintain 
compliance with the rule in the expected limited cases when customers 
do not cooperate enough with systems to meet the minimum LSLR 
requirements in the rule. This provision does not allow refusal of an 
individual customer to count as a replaced LSL.
    The final rule mandates risk mitigation best practices after 
partial replacements or other actions that cause LSL disturbances. 
These practices include consumer notification, flushing, a free pitcher 
filter or POU and replacement cartridges delivered to the affected 
consumer, and an offer to conduct a follow up tap sample between three 
and six months following the replacement to ensure lead levels have 
subsided. While the final rule does not include a ban on partial LSLR, 
provisions in the revised rule requirements will discourage partial 
LSLR relative to the previous rule; in addition, the revised 
requirements will reduce consumer exposure to lead in drinking water 
when partials and other LSL disturbances occur.

E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small 
Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed revisions that provide small Community Water Systems 
(CWSs), serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all Non-Transient, Non-
Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) greater flexibility to comply with 
the requirements of the LCRR. In 1998, EPA designated corrosion control 
treatment as an affordable compliance technology for all categories of 
small systems in accordance with SDWA Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(iii) 
(USEPA, 1998c). EPA has determined that corrosion control treatment is 
still an affordable technology for the three categories of small 
systems, however, EPA recognized that small systems tend to have more 
limited technical, financial, and managerial capacity to implement 
complex treatment techniques. Small system flexibilities will provide 
alternatives to chemical treatment, as it is difficult for many small 
systems to find operators that have the more advanced skills necessary 
to implement and maintain such treatment.
    EPA proposed three compliance alternatives for a lead action level 
exceedance to allow increased flexibility for small CWSs that serve 
10,000 or fewer people and four compliance alternatives for NTNCWSs of 
any size. The proposed rule would allow water systems to select the 
most financially and technologically viable strategy that is effective 
in reducing lead in drinking water. EPA proposed the following 
compliance alternatives for small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) installation 
and maintenance of Optimized Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT), or (3) 
installation and maintenance of point-of-use (POU) treatment devices. 
EPA proposed the above three compliance alternatives for NTNCWSs and an 
additional compliance alternative of replacement of all lead bearing 
plumbing materials.

[[Page 4220]]

As proposed, the NTNCWS must have control of all plumbing materials and 
must have no LSLs to select this option.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA requested comment on whether small system flexibility is needed 
by systems serving between 3,301 and 10,000 persons and whether a 
different threshold is more appropriate. Several commenters recommended 
the final LCRR revise the threshold for small systems to those serving 
3,300 persons or fewer to be consistent with other drinking water 
rules. Some commenters supported the proposed LCRR small system 
definition and recommended that the small system flexibility provisions 
apply to systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer. Other commenters 
argue that the proposed threshold of 10,000 or fewer persons is too 
broad and it would apply to over ninety percent of the nation's water 
suppliers. These commenters stated that most systems serving 3,301 to 
10,000 people likely have sufficient resources to comply with the 
regulatory requirements for larger systems and do not require the 
flexibility needed by smaller water systems.
    EPA agrees that the appropriate threshold to provide flexibility to 
small CWS is 10,000 or fewer persons served. The Agency agrees that 
small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons typically do not 
have the capacity to implement multiple measures simultaneously such as 
corrosion control treatment and LSLR programs. Small CWSs and NTNCWSs 
tend to have more limited technical, financial, and managerial capacity 
to implement complex treatment technique rules such as the LCR (USEPA, 
2011a). Many small public water systems face challenges in reliably 
providing safe drinking water to their customers and consistently 
meeting the requirements of the SDWA and the National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulations (NPDWRs) (USEPA, 2011a). The cost of providing 
service places significant pressure on small water systems because they 
lack resources and economies of scale (USEPA, 2000c). The Agency 
determined the compliance flexibility options would be most appropriate 
for small water systems that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, as they are 
most frequently the systems that are struggling to maintain compliance 
with the current LCR and/or do not have the capacity to operate 
corrosion control treatment in conjunction with other complex treatment 
technique requirements. Small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons have more monitoring and reporting (M&R) violations, 
approximately 90 percent of all M&R violations for all NPDWRs. 
Recurring M&R violations can obscure more important water quality 
problems because MCL and maximum disinfectant residual level (MRDL) 
violations may not be discovered if a system fails to conduct routine 
monitoring. M&R requirements are often the simplest compliance 
requirements and systems that cannot complete these procedures may have 
other technical, financial and managerial issues (USEPA, 2011a). Small 
system flexibilities will provide alternatives to chemical treatment as 
it is difficult for many small systems to find operators that have the 
more advanced skills necessary to implement and maintain such 
treatment, particularly given the limited financial and programmatic 
capacity of many small utilities (Kane, 2018). EPA has concluded that 
these small systems can work with their state to identify an affordable 
and feasible treatment technique to reduce drinking water lead 
exposure. EPA expects that small systems will work with their state to 
identify the single most cost-effective measure from this list of 
affordable and feasible compliance options. That measure will depend 
upon the characteristics of the small system including the number of 
service connections, the number of LSLs and the technical capacity of 
the system's operators.
    Some commenters recommended that a threshold 3,300 or fewer persons 
should be used in the final rule as it would allow for consistency 
across NPDWRs. EPA notes that the NPDWR for lead and copper is a unique 
and complicated treatment technique rule that requires water systems 
with elevated lead to take a suite of actions to reduce lead levels in 
drinking water. To improve public health protection, the final rule 
maintains or modifies regulatory requirements from the previous LCR and 
includes new requirements that apply to all system sizes, for example, 
preparing an LSL inventory, collecting all tap samples from homes with 
LSLs, conducting ``find-and-fix'' assessments, conducting water system 
side LSLR when customer initiated LSLR occurs and providing filters, 
providing filters in the event of an LSL disturbance, and conducting 
public education outreach to customers served by an LSL. Additionally, 
the final rule establishes a new trigger level that, when exceeded, 
prompts a set of actions designed to protect public health. Given the 
complex requirements associated with this treatment technique rule, EPA 
has determined that it is not feasible for water systems serving 10,000 
or fewer persons to implement the full suite of treatment technique 
requirements for systems that exceed the action under the final LCRR 
because, in most cases, they lack the technical, financial, and 
managerial capacity to do so. EPA has concluded that small system 
flexibilities are appropriate and allow water systems that exceed the 
action level, with state approval, to take the lead reduction 
approaches that both maximize public health protection to the extent 
feasible and are best tailored to their communities.
    EPA does not agree with commenters that support the small system 
flexibilities only for systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. EPA 
recognizes that while small systems serving between 3,301 and 10,000 
persons may have greater technical, managerial, and financial capacity 
than smaller systems, they still face limitations in their capacity to 
implement multiple treatment technique actions. EPA has determined that 
it is not feasible for most systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to 
implement the multiple treatment technique actions of optimized CCT, PE 
and LSLR due to limitations in financial, managerial and technical 
capacity. Implementing such a complex NPDWR as the LCRR treatment 
technique rule requires consequential managerial, operational, and 
financial resources investment. New rule requirements, such as 
implementation of an LSLR goal based program when the lead TL is 
exceeded and mandatory 3% per year rate based on a two year rolling 
average LSLR when the AL is exceeded, preparing and updating an LSL 
inventory, collecting 5th liter samples from LSL sites and collecting 
tap samples from 100% LSL sites, conducting find-and-fix actions, 
testing in schools and child care facilities and conducting enhanced PE 
all represent significant new requirements for water systems. Small 
water systems will need to comply with all of these new LCRR 
components. Therefore, EPA has determined that systems serving 10,000 
or fewer persons have less professional staff than larger systems; 
these systems have an average of 0.4 to 2.4 full time operators and 0.5 
to 2.4 managers per system, which is approximately 2 to11 times less 
than the average number of operators in the larger systems. Average 
revenues for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons are about 4 to 170 
times smaller than average revenues for large systems (USEPA, 2009).
    Other commenters assert that POU treatment is implementable only in 
very small water systems. Some commenters

[[Page 4221]]

stated that POU treatment is not an appropriate option for small 
systems since they could not properly train users on how to maintain 
them. Other commenters suggested the POU treatment option is not cost-
effective compared to corrosion control treatment for systems serving 
more than 3,300 people.
    EPA also recognizes the concerns over POU device maintenance 
problems; however, with proper installation and maintenance provided by 
the water system, including changing filter cartridges and resolving 
operational issues experienced by the user, POU devices are an 
effective option for some small CWSs and NTNCWSs. When POUs are 
identified by EPA in the list of technologies for small system 
compliance, Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA requires PWSs using 
POU treatment units to own, control, and maintain the treatment units 
to ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with the 
treatment technique. It also requires that the POUs be equipped with 
mechanical warning devices to ensure that customers are automatically 
notified of operational problems. EPA believes that some small water 
systems can cost effectively install and maintain POU devices in their 
customer's homes and can educate their customers on the proper 
operation of these devices. Most NTNCWSs own and control all the 
outlets in their system and can ensure proper operation and maintenance 
of installed units. In addition, smaller CWSs serve fewer persons for 
which they would need to provide POU devices compared to larger CWSs.
    In the proposal, EPA also requested comment on whether different 
flexibilities would be more appropriate for small systems. Many 
commenters recommended that the lead-bearing plumbing replacement 
option proposed for NTNCWSs should be also extended as a compliance 
option for small CWSs. Commenters noted that this option could be 
beneficial for some small CWSs that do not wish to operate OCCT or 
install POU devices in perpetuity but have lead bearing plumbing 
materials that are in their control. One commenter wrote that small 
CWSs that control the premise plumbing include public water systems 
that are owned and operated by assisted living facilities, boarding 
schools, prisons, and apartment buildings. EPA agrees with the 
commenters and acknowledges that in certain circumstances, when small 
CWSs have no LSLs and have control of all of the plumbing materials in 
the system, replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing material might be 
feasible, affordable, and a more effective option than CCT for the 
system to reduce drinking water lead exposure.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that small CWSs that elect to 
conduct LSLR would not be required to implement immediate measures to 
reduce lead exposures. One commenter noted this approach ``is not 
acceptable from public health, health equity or environmental justice 
perspectives'' because it creates the potential for consumers to be 
exposed to high lead levels for up to 15 years without CCT or POU 
devices in place. Other commenters were concerned that small CWSs that 
elect to implement CCT would not be required to undertake LSLR. These 
commenters noted that this approach allows LSLs to remain in the ground 
indefinitely, thus raising ``serious environmental justice concerns.''
    EPA agrees that systems serving greater than10,000 persons can and 
should implement both corrosion control treatment and LSLR programs if 
the system exceeds the action level. For systems serving less than 
10,000 people, EPA has determined it is appropriate to retain both LSLR 
and CCT as compliance alternative options as outlined in the proposed 
LCRR. CCT may be the most appropriate option for small CWSs and NTNCWSs 
that have many LSLs because LSLR is a resource-intensive process and 
may not be a feasible solution for some systems. LSLR, on the other 
hand, may be a feasible option for small CWSs and NTNCWSs that have 
fewer LSLs and that could be removed within a few years. The state must 
require a system to replace LSLs on a shorter schedule, taking into 
account the number of LSLs in the system, where a shorter replacement 
schedule is feasible. The LSLR option could allow those systems to 
avoid the need to add a CCT process that would require continual 
operation and maintenance. EPA has determined that it is not feasible 
for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 to both operate optimized 
CCT and conduct LSLR. As explained in greater detail above, these 
systems have limited operator staff to manage CCT and LSLR programs. 
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons do not enjoy the economies of 
scale of larger systems therefore the cost of multiple treatment 
technique actions may not be affordable for these smaller systems. 
Additionally, the LCRR includes several public education requirements 
including annual notice to sites served by an LSL that will provide 
consumers with information about the risks of the LSLs and the actions 
they can take to reduce their risks. Regardless of the compliance 
options selected, all water systems are required to conduct public 
education when the lead action level is exceeded. Finally, the LCRR 
will afford all NTNCWSs and small CWSs the flexibility to evaluate the 
best treatment technique for them to control lead and to implement 
their chosen approach based on state approval.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    Under the final LCRR, small CWSs that serve 10,000 persons or fewer 
and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead trigger level but do not exceed 
the lead and copper action levels must evaluate the four compliance 
alternatives and make a recommendation to the state within six months 
on which compliance alternative the water system would implement if the 
water system subsequently exceeds the lead action level. The state must 
approve the recommendation or designate an alternative compliance 
option within six months of submittal. In the event these water systems 
exceed the lead action level, they must implement the state-approved 
compliance option.
    Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead action level 
and had not previously exceeded the trigger level, must evaluate the 
compliance alternatives and make a recommendation to the state within 
six months. The state must approve the system's recommendations or 
designate an alternative compliance option within six months; these 
water systems must implement the state-approved compliance option.
a. Lead Service Line Replacement
    Water systems that select and are approved for LSLR and 
subsequently exceed the lead action level are required to implement a 
full LSLR program on a schedule specified by the state, not to exceed 
15 years. EPA is requiring that NTNCWSs and small CWSs with LSLs that 
exceed the lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L that choose to fully 
replace all of their LSLs until none remain must ensure they have the 
authority or consent to remove the customer-owned portion of every LSL 
in its distribution system or obtain refusals from customers. If the 
water system's 90th percentile drops below the lead action level, the 
water system must continue to replace LSLs until none remain. This 
option is projected to be a feasible and affordable, as well as 
practical choice for small systems that have few LSLs that could be 
removed within a few years, thus potentially avoiding the need to add a 
CCT process that would

[[Page 4222]]

need to be continually operated and maintained.
b. Corrosion Control Treatment
    Water systems that select and are approved for implementation of 
optimized CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action level are 
required to implement the state-approved option for CCT. The final rule 
provides flexibility for NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and maintain 
optimized CCT as a compliance alternative after exceeding the lead 
action level. EPA has determined in its analysis that some water 
systems may choose this alternative as the feasible, affordable, and 
most effective strategy for reducing lead in drinking water (e.g., 
small water systems with many LSLs to replace or a large number of 
households and non-residential buildings that would make installation 
and maintenance of POU devices logistically challenging) (see section 
VI.C.4 of this preamble). EPA is requiring water systems, including 
small water systems, that have already installed CCT and subsequently 
exceed the lead action level to re-optimize CCT.
c. Point-of-Use Devices
    Water systems that select and are approved for the POU option and 
subsequently exceed the lead action level, are required to implement a 
POU program on a schedule specified by the state, but not to exceed one 
year for CWSs and three months for NTNCWSs. The final rule provides 
flexibility for NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and maintain POU 
devices, independently certified by a third party to meet the American 
National Standards Institute standard applicable to the specific type 
of POU unit to reduce lead in drinking water, as a compliance 
alternative to a lead action level exceedance in lieu of CCT and LSLR. 
EPA is requiring small CWSs that select this compliance alternative to 
provide a minimum of one POU device per household and one for every tap 
that is used for cooking and/or drinking in every building in its 
distribution system, regardless of whether that household or building 
is served by an LSL, to ensure the residents can access filtered water. 
Since system-wide CCT is not being provided under this option, even 
homes and non-residential buildings without LSLs would need to be 
provided with a POU device to address lead leaching from old lead 
solder or brass plumbing fittings and fixtures. EPA is requiring 
NTNCWSs to provide a POU device for every tap intended for drinking or 
cooking to ensure all building users can easily access filtered water. 
The water system is responsible for maintenance of the device, 
including changing filter cartridges and resolving operational issues 
experienced by the customer. Small CWSs that serve relatively few 
households, or NTNCWSs that are responsible for the facility's 
plumbing, may find this to be the feasible, affordable, and most 
effective compliance alternative (see section VI.C.4 of this preamble). 
Small CWSs must ensure water system personnel have access to the homes 
of the residents and the non-residential structures to install and 
maintain the POU devices, including changing the filters. Systems are 
also required to provide instructions on the proper use of POU devices 
to maximize the units' lead level reduction effectiveness.
d. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
    Water systems that select and are approved to replace all lead-
bearing plumbing and subsequently exceed the action level are required 
to replace all lead bearing plumbing on a schedule specified by the 
state, but not to exceed one year. Under the final rule, NTNCWSs and 
small CWSs that have control over all plumbing in its buildings and no 
LSLs may choose to replace all lead bearing plumbing in response to a 
lead action level exceedance. EPA is requiring that the replacement of 
all lead bearing plumbing occur on a schedule set by the state which 
must not exceed one year.

F. Public Education

    Under the current LCR, water systems that exceed the lead action 
level must initiate a public education program within 60 days of the 
end of the tap sampling period in which the action level exceedance 
occurred. The purpose of public education is to inform consumers that 
elevated levels of lead have been found in the drinking water, provide 
information about sources of lead in drinking water, provide 
information about the health effects of lead, and explain the actions 
consumers can take to reduce exposure as well as the actions the water 
system is taking to reduce drinking water lead levels. Under the 
current rule, water systems are required to provide consumers with 
their tap sample results within 30 days.
1. Proposed Revisions
    Proposed revisions included a requirement for systems to update 
public education materials with revised mandatory health effects 
language. EPA proposed to modify requirements to provide consumers with 
their lead tap sample results within 24 hours if the sample is greater 
than 15 [micro]g/L, while maintaining the current rule requirement to 
provide tap sample results within 30 days for sample results less than 
or equal to 15 [micro]g/L.
    EPA proposed additional public education requirements following a 
lead action level exceedance. EPA proposed that CWSs conduct annual 
outreach to state and local health agencies to explain the sources of 
lead in drinking water, describe health effects of lead, with the 
expectation they would explore collaborative efforts. EPA proposed a 
requirement for systems with LSLs to annually notify consumers served 
by an LSL or service line of unknown lead status and to provide them 
with public education annually until the LSL is replaced or the unknown 
service line is determined not to be an LSL. EPA proposed that this 
notification inform consumers of the health effects and sources of lead 
in drinking water (including LSLs), how to have water tested for lead, 
actions consumers can take to reduce exposure to lead, and information 
about the opportunities for LSLR, including the water system's 
requirement to replace its portion of an LSL when notified by a 
customer that they intend to replace the customer-owned portion of the 
LSL.
    EPA also proposed additional public education requirements for 
water systems that are required to conduct a goal based LSLR program 
but that fail to meet their annual LSLR goal. EPA proposed to require 
those systems to conduct additional public outreach activities to 
increase customer awareness of the potential higher exposure to lead 
from an LSL and advance customer interest in participating in the goal 
based LSLR program. EPA proposed that CWSs conduct one or more of the 
following annual public outreach activities, until the water system 
meets its replacement goal: (1) A social media campaign (e.g., 
Facebook, Twitter), (2) outreach to organizations representing plumbers 
and contractors to provide information about lead in drinking water 
including health effects, sources of lead, and the importance of using 
lead free plumbing materials, (3) certified mail to LSL customers 
inviting them to participate in the LSLR program, (4) conduct a town 
hall meeting or participate in a community event to provide information 
on the LSLR program, (5) visit targeted customers to discuss LSLR 
program and opportunities for LSLR, or (6) obtain written refusal from 
all LSL customers to participate in the LSLR program. Outreach to 
organizations representing plumbers and contractors is included as an 
outreach activity that

[[Page 4223]]

systems may conduct, as plumbers and contractors may also be a source 
of information about lead in drinking water for customers and may help 
with identifying LSLs during home repair.
    EPA proposed that CWSs conduct annual outreach to state and local 
health agencies to explain the sources of lead in drinking water, 
describe health effects of lead, and explore collaborative efforts.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received many comments on the mandatory health effects language 
required in all public education materials, the CCR, and the 24 hour 
public notice of a lead action level exceedance. Some commenters 
characterized the proposed language as redundant, too long and not 
clearly stating the level of risk. Some commenters recommended using 
more definitive language about the health risk in adults. Some 
commented that the language improperly describes the scientific 
evidence on adult risks as ``recent.'' Several commenters provided 
suggestions for making the language clearer and more concise. EPA has 
revised the mandatory health effects language in the final rule to 
address many of these suggestions and to provide better risk 
communication and improve accuracy and clarity, resulting in a more 
concise message and simpler sentence structure for clearer 
communication.
    EPA also received comments on the proposed consumer notice 
requirement for individual samples that exceed 15 [micro]g/L. Many 
commenters expressed concern over the ability of water systems to 
deliver a notice to consumers within 24 hours of learning of a tap 
sample over 15 [micro]g/L and recommended that water systems be allowed 
two business days to notify consumers. After considering these 
comments, EPA has determined that it may not be possible for water 
systems to provide consumer notification within 24 hours, therefore the 
final rule will require water systems to provide the consumer 
notification as soon as practicable but no later than 3 calendar days. 
Once systems receive tap sample results that exceed 15 [micro]g/L, they 
can choose from several options that make it feasible to provide the 
consumer notice within 3 days, including delivery electronically, by 
phone, hand delivery, mailing with a post mark within 3 days, or any 
other method approved by the state.
    EPA requested comment on whether the Agency should require water 
systems to distribute public education materials to homes with unknown 
service line types to inform them of the potential for their service 
line to be made of lead and the actions they can take to reduce their 
exposure to drinking water lead. Many commenters supported the new 
provision and noted that it would encourage homeowner engagement in 
LSLR, while some expressed concern that notifying consumers that their 
service lines are of unknown lead status may cause fear and distrust of 
the water system. EPA does not find any compelling evidence that public 
education to consumers with lead status unknown service lines would 
cause increased fear and distrust so is finalizing requirements to 
notify customers with an LSL and lead status unknown lines. Persons 
served by a lead status unknown service line may decide to take steps 
to determine the material of their service line and/or take measures to 
reduce their potential exposure to lead in drinking water. Providing 
information to aid customer decision making should provide greater 
transparency increasing trust.
    EPA requested comment on the appropriateness of required outreach 
activities a water system should conduct if they do not meet the goal 
LSLR rate in response to a trigger level exceedance. EPA also requested 
comment on other actions or additional outreach efforts water systems 
could take to meet their LSLR goal rate. Many commenters supported 
outreach to encourage participation in the LSLR program but expressed 
concern about how well the activities followed risk communication best 
practices. Commenters expressed concern that some of the outreach 
activities (e.g., social media campaign) would exclude some consumers. 
EPA agrees that a social media campaign on its own may exclude some 
segments of the population and has revised the outreach requirements in 
the final rule to be more inclusive. In the final rule, conducting a 
social media campaign is still an option but must be accompanied by at 
least two other forms of outreach to ensure that water systems reach 
individuals who may not use social media. At least one of the 
activities must include the following: (1) Send certified mail to 
customers with lead or galvanized requiring replacement service lines, 
inviting them to participate in the LSLR program, (2) conduct a 
townhall meeting, (3) participate in a community event to provide 
information about its LSLR program and distribute public education 
materials, (4) contact customers by phone, text message, email or door 
hanger, or (5) use another method approved by the state to discuss the 
LSLR program and opportunities for LSLR. Many commenters suggested 
alternative means for reaching customers such as newspapers, 
television, radio, and reverse 911 calls, or that states be able to 
approve alternative methods. EPA has added some of the outreach efforts 
commenters suggested (e.g., newspaper, television, and radio) as 
additional options that CWSs may select if they continue to fail to 
meet their goal LSLR. In addition to conducting at least one of the 
above five activities, CWSs must conduct at least two activities from 
the following list if they continue to fail to meet their goal LSLR: 
(1) Conduct a social media campaign, (2) conduct outreach via 
newspaper, television, or radio, (3) contact organizations representing 
plumbers and contractors by mail to provide information about lead in 
drinking water, or (4) visit targeted customers to discuss the LSLR 
program and opportunities for replacement.
    EPA requested comment on the appropriateness, frequency, and 
content of required outreach to state and local health agencies and 
whether the requirement should apply only to a subset of the country's 
CWSs. Many commenters supported requiring water systems to engage with 
public health agencies; however, they expressed concern that an annual 
report from all CWSs to local and state health agencies would not be an 
effective way to encourage collaboration and would overload health 
agencies with virtually the same information. Some commenters suggested 
that the outreach requirement be limited to CWSs with action level 
exceedances or CWSs with LSLs. Additionally, many commenters 
recommended that outreach be led by the state. EPA acknowledges 
concerns about the amount of information health agencies would be 
receiving from water systems; however, under the final rule each CWS 
will provide unique information. In addition to providing important 
information on sources of lead in drinking water and actions to reduce 
lead in drinking water that health agencies may incorporate in their 
lead poisoning program materials, CWSs must also provide system-
specific information about find-and-fix activities and information 
about school and child care facility testing. Therefore, it is 
important that all CWSs provide this information so that the state and 
local health agencies in their service area can evaluate it along with 
other data they may have such as blood lead levels and take steps to 
investigate other potential sources of lead in the communities they 
serve. The purpose of this outreach is

[[Page 4224]]

also to provide an opportunity for CWSs to explore collaborative 
efforts with local and state health agencies and work together on 
public education programs; therefore, EPA believes it is important for 
all CWSs to participate. Collaborating with local and state health 
agencies serves as an additional way for CWSs to reach consumers who 
may be affected by lead in their drinking water, so they can take 
measures to reduce their exposure.
    Many commenters requested clarification of whether this provision 
requires systems to provide public education to health care providers 
and caregivers. EPA acknowledges commenters' confusion and has 
clarified that is not required in the final rule. The requirement is 
for annual outreach to local and state health agencies. Some commenters 
also expressed concern with the January 15 deadline and recommended 
that it be conducted on the same schedule with the Consumer Confidence 
Report (CCR) or other required outreach. In response, EPA has updated 
the reporting date to July 1, consistent with the CCR.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA is requiring public education materials to include the 
following revised mandatory health effects statement:
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects 
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and 
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior 
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The 
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy 
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can 
have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 
nervous system problems.
    EPA is requiring that water systems must notify persons served at 
the sampling site for any individual tap sample that exceeds 15 
[micro]g/L, as soon as practicable but no later than 3 days after 
receiving the sampling results. This is in addition to the existing LCR 
requirement to provide a notice of the individual tap sample results 
from lead testing to persons served at the sampling site, which must be 
sent within 30 days of receiving results. For tap samples that do not 
exceed 15 [micro]g/L, the 30-day consumer notice will remain in effect. 
In the final rule, water systems that have individual tap samples 
greater than 15 [micro]g/L must also implement the ``find-and-fix'' 
provisions as described in section III.K of this preamble.
    EPA is requiring systems with lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines in their inventory to 
notify and provide public education materials to households served by a 
lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service 
line. Targeted public education for persons served by a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line 
is intended to raise awareness of people in a household that may have 
higher lead exposures so that they may take actions to reduce exposure 
to lead and participate in LSLR programs. CWSs must provide this 
notification and public education annually until the LSL or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line is replaced or the lead status 
unknown service line is determined not to be an LSL. The notice is 
required to include a statement that the person served by the water 
system has an LSL, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service line, information on the health effects of lead, and 
actions they can take to reduce exposure to lead. For persons served by 
an LSL or galvanized requiring replacement service line, the notice 
must also provide information about the opportunities for LSLR, 
including the water system's requirement to replace its portion of an 
LSL when notified by a property owner that they intend to replace their 
portion of the LSL. This notification must include a description of any 
programs that provide financing solutions for property owners seeking 
to replace their portion of an LSL, if such funding is available. For 
persons served by a lead status unknown service line, this notice must 
include information about ways that homeowners can verify the material 
of the service line. EPA is also requiring water systems with LSLs that 
exceed the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L to provide information 
about their LSLR program and opportunities for LSLR to persons served 
by LSLs or lead status unknown service lines. Systems must send the 
notification within 30 days of the end of the monitoring period in 
which the trigger level exceedance occurred and repeat it annually 
until the system is no longer in exceedance.
    Additionally, EPA is requiring water systems that cause a 
disturbance to a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service line to notify persons at the service connection and 
provide them with information to reduce their exposure to potentially 
elevated lead levels. This can include disturbances resulting in the 
water to an individual service line being shut off or bypassed, such as 
operating a valve on a service line or meter setter. It can also 
include disturbances caused by partial or full LSLR or those resulting 
from the replacement of an inline water meter, a water meter setter, or 
gooseneck, pigtail, or connector.
    EPA is requiring CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons that fail to 
meet their annual LSLR goal to conduct additional public outreach 
activities. Failure to meet the LSLR goal, by itself, will not be a 
violation of the treatment technique or monitoring and reporting 
requirements; however, failure to conduct public outreach activities 
will result in a treatment technique violation. To increase customer 
awareness of the potential higher exposure to lead from an LSL and 
advance customer interest in participating in the goal based LSLR 
program, water systems must conduct annual public outreach activities 
until the water system meets its replacement goal or a water system is 
no longer required to perform a goal based LSLR program. To enhance 
community engagement and allow water system flexibility as suggested by 
the NDWAC, EPA is providing options to meet this requirement, so water 
systems can conduct effective community engagement. A water system that 
does not meet its LSLR goal rate must select at least one of the 
following outreach activities to conduct in the following year: (1) 
Send certified mail to customers with lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines inviting them to participate in the LSLR 
program, (2) conduct a town hall meeting, (3) participate in a 
community event to provide information on the LSLR program and 
distribute public education materials, (4) contact customers by phone, 
text message, email, or door hanger, or (5) use another method approved 
by the state to discuss the LSLR program and opportunities for LSLR. If 
the water system continues to fail to meet the annual replacement goal 
in the following year, the water system must conduct one of the above 
activities and at least two additional outreach activities per year 
from the following activities to promote participation in the LSLR 
program: (1) Conduct a social media campaign (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), 
(2) conduct outreach via newspaper, television, or radio, (3) contact 
organizations representing plumbers and contractors by mail to provide 
information about lead in drinking water including health effects, 
sources of lead, and the importance of using lead free plumbing 
materials, (4) visit targeted customers to discuss the LSLR program and 
opportunities for

[[Page 4225]]

replacement, or (5) obtain written refusal from all LSL or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line customers to participate in the LSLR 
program. A refusal includes a signed or verbal statement by the 
customer refusing LSLR, or documentation of no response after two good 
faith attempts to reach the customer. Water systems must provide 
written certification to the state that they have conducted the 
required outreach activities under this rule.
    In addition, EPA is requiring that CWSs conduct annual outreach to 
state and local health agencies to discuss the sources of lead in 
drinking water, health effects of lead, steps to reduce exposure to 
lead in drinking water, and information on find-and-fix activities. 
CWSs are expected to use this as an opportunity to collaborate with 
state and local health agencies. State and local health agencies 
include the state health department and city or county health 
department. For tribal systems, this would be the Indian Health Service 
Area, Division of Environmental Health Services program, or applicable 
tribal program if administered through self-determination contracts or 
compacts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act. This annual outreach will provide an opportunity for water 
utilities to participate in joint communication efforts, led by state 
health departments, state lead poisoning prevention agencies, and/or 
state drinking water primacy agencies (NDWAC, 2015). By working 
together, CWSs and health agencies can help ensure that caregivers, 
health care providers, and communities they serve hear and respond 
appropriately to information about lead in drinking water. CWSs may 
also use this as an opportunity to develop public education materials 
in consultation with health agencies. EPA is clarifying the content of 
the annual outreach to local and state health agencies in the final 
rule to include providing information about find-and-fix activities 
conducted in the previous calendar year, including the location of the 
tap sample site that exceeded 15 [micro]g/L, the result of the initial 
tap sample, the result of the follow up tap sample, the result of water 
quality parameter monitoring and any distribution system management 
actions or corrosion control treatment adjustments made. EPA is also 
changing the reporting date from January 15 to July 1 to coincide with 
notifying local and state health agencies of school sampling results, 
consistent with the CCR. CWSs may send one letter that covers both 
find-and-fix activities and school sampling results to local and state 
health agencies.
    EPA is requiring that small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select POU 
devices as their compliance option in response to a lead action level 
exceedance must provide public education materials to inform users how 
to properly use POU devices to maximize the units' effectiveness in 
reducing lead levels in drinking water.

G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water Sampling

1. Proposed Revisions
    Several changes to the LCR were proposed in the LCRR to improve tap 
sampling requirements in the areas of site selection tiering criteria, 
sample collection methods, and sampling frequency. In addition, to 
improve transparency and raise consumer awareness, EPA proposed that 
water systems make the results of these tap samples publicly available 
within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling monitoring period.
    EPA proposed revisions to tiering criteria for selection of tap 
sampling sites to better target locations expected to have higher 
levels of lead in drinking water. Under the proposed LCRR, Tier 1 
sampling sites for CWSs consist of single-family structures (SFS) that 
are served by an LSL. When multiple-family residences (MFRs) comprise 
at least 20 percent of the structures served by a water system, the 
water system may include these types of structures (served by an LSL) 
in its sampling pool as Tier 1 sampling sites. However, a large 
apartment building would be unlikely to have an LSL. EPA proposed Tier 
2 sampling sites for CWSs to be buildings, including MFRs that are 
served by an LSL. EPA also proposed that Tier 3 sampling sites for CWSs 
consist of SFSs that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed 
before the effective date of the applicable state's lead ban. EPA 
proposed that NTNCWS Tier 1 sampling sites consist of buildings that 
are served by an LSL and the remaining tap samples be taken at 
buildings with copper pipe and lead solder installed before the 
effective date of the applicable state's lead ban (Tier 3 sites). EPA 
did not modify the definition of a ``representative site'' but referred 
to it as a ``Tier 4'' site in the proposal.
    EPA proposed additional requirements for water systems to enable 
prioritization of LSL sites in tap sampling. Under the LCRR proposal, 
all water systems with LSLs or potential LSLs must re-evaluate their 
lead sampling sites based on their LSL inventory. These water systems 
would be required to update their inventory annually and ensure tap 
sampling sites are served by an LSL. Under the current LCR, water 
systems with LSLs must collect at least half of their tap samples from 
sites with known LSLs. However, in the proposal, water systems with 
LSLs would be required to collect all tap samples from sites with known 
LSLs if possible. Under the proposal, water systems with an adequate 
number of LSL sites to meet the required minimum number of tap sampling 
sites must calculate their lead 90th percentile using only tap samples 
from LSL sites (100 percent LSLs).
    EPA proposed that if a water system does not have an adequate 
number of LSL sites to meet the minimum number of tap samples to 
calculate the 90th percentile level, it may collect the remainder of 
the samples from non-LSL sites only after all the LSL tap sampling 
sites are utilized. If the water system conducts tap sampling at non-
LSL sites beyond what is required, EPA proposed that the water system 
could only include the tap samples with the highest lead concentrations 
to meet the number of requisite sites for the 90th percentile 
calculation. EPA also proposed that tap samples collected which are not 
used in the lead 90th percentile calculation must still be reported to 
the state.
    EPA proposed the use of grandfathered data to determine their tap 
sampling monitoring schedule if the data were from sites that met new 
requirements. Water systems that collect lead tap samples after the 
publication date of the final rule, but before the rule compliance date 
(three years after final rule publication), in accordance with the 
proposed tap sample site selection criteria, could use data to 
determine the tap sampling monitoring schedule. EPA proposed that water 
systems which do not have qualifying grandfathered data, must use the 
lead 90th percentile results from the first tap sampling monitoring 
period after the compliance date of the final rule. There were no 
proposed changes to the copper sampling requirements. However, due to 
the proposed increased tap sampling frequency requirements for lead, 
each tap sample collected may not need to be analyzed for both lead and 
copper as schedules may diverge for some water systems.
    EPA proposed a lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L which affects 
the tap sampling frequency. Under the proposal, water systems that 
exceed the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L but do not exceed the 
copper and lead action levels and are conducting tap sampling on a 
triennial basis, would begin annual tap sampling at the standard number 
of sites for lead

[[Page 4226]]

but may remain on triennial sampling for copper at the reduced number 
of sites. EPA proposed that water systems that do not exceed the lead 
trigger level for three consecutive years of annual monitoring could 
reduce their lead monitoring to triennial at the reduced number of 
sites.
    Under the proposal, qualification for reduced monitoring would be 
contingent upon several factors, including but not limited to, results 
of lead and copper tap sampling, the size of the water system, and 
maintaining water quality parameters (WQPs) for optimized CCT. The 
schedule for tap sampling may be affected when these factors change. 
Criteria for reduction in tap sampling frequency and number of sites 
were more stringent in the proposal compared to the current rule. A 
water system must not exceed the trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L to be 
eligible for a triennial monitoring schedule at the reduced number of 
tap sample sites for lead, and large water systems are not eligible for 
triennial monitoring unless they meet the practical quantitation level 
(PQL). The proposed revisions to tap sampling frequency and locations 
were meant to ensure more frequent tap sampling would occur at sites 
more likely to have elevated lead levels.
    EPA proposed several changes to the tap sampling protocol, 
consistent with the Agency's February 2016 memorandum (USEPA, 2016d). 
Specifically, EPA proposed to prohibit tap sample instructions that 
include pre-stagnation flushing, aerator removal prior to tap sampling, 
and use of narrow mouth collection bottles. EPA also proposed that tap 
samples be collected in wide-mouth bottles that are one liter in 
volume. Wide-mouth bottles are advantageous for lead and copper tap 
samples because they allow for a higher water flow rate compared to a 
narrow-necked bottle. Collection of tap samples using a wide-mouth 
bottle is more characteristic of faucet water flow when filling a glass 
of water.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA did not propose to change the current LCR sampling protocol 
requirement for samples to be one liter first draw tap samples. 
However, EPA did request comment on alternative tap sampling procedures 
for locations with an LSL; specifically, whether water systems with 
LSLs should collect a tap sample representative of water in contact 
with the LSL (i.e., the ``fifth liter''). EPA received a wide variety 
of comments on this topic, with many in support of the fifth liter and 
several opposed to it. Some commenters suggested collecting both a 
first liter and a fifth liter sample and using the highest copper and 
lead result in the 90th percentile calculation. Others commented on the 
method in EPA's request for comment of collecting a first draw copper 
sample and a fifth liter lead sample. Those that supported collecting a 
fifth liter state that the current first liter tap sampling protocol 
does not capture lead from the highest source, the LSL, thereby 
providing a false sense of security to residents, while a fifth liter 
could more accurately capture the highest lead levels at the site. 
These commenters state that the first liter protocol fails to measure 
the impact of the greatest contributor to lead levels in the home, the 
LSL. Commenters emphasized that the first liter can capture lead from 
premise plumbing but does not effectively capture lead levels from the 
service line, since it may extend 50 feet or more from the building. 
Commenters stated the fifth liter sample will better identify systems 
that should take action to address elevated lead levels. The commenters 
that were opposed to the fifth liter sample, stated that this technique 
would be too complicated for residents to carry out, resulting in more 
confusion and sampling errors. Commenters noted that if the fifth liter 
sample option is finalized, samplers will need to be well trained in 
this method. Other commenters disagreed with the fifth liter sample, 
because they argue it is not consistent with how a consumer would use 
the water.
    Tap sampling is required under the LCR to evaluate the 
effectiveness of corrosion control treatment and to determine if 
additional actions including LSLR are needed to reduce drinking water 
lead exposure. EPA agrees with commenters who support the fifth liter 
sample option for locations with LSLs. EPA has determined that in 
locations with LSLs, first liter samples can underestimate system lead 
levels compared to a fifth liter sample. Such underestimation of system 
lead levels based on first-draw sampling could allow water systems to 
be unaware that their corrosion control treatment is not working well 
(Lytle et al., 2019). Without appropriate awareness from tap sampling, 
systems will not take actions to reduce lead exposure and communicate 
lead in drinking water risks to consumers.
    Numerous studies have evaluated the contribution of lead in 
drinking water from different sources (e.g., service lines, faucets, 
meters). A study published by American Water Works Association (AWWA) 
Water Research Foundation (2008) ``Contributions of Service Line and 
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues'' (Sandvig 
et al., 2008) estimates that 50 percent to 75 percent of lead in 
drinking water comes from LSLs. Thus, when present, LSLs are the 
greatest contributor of lead in a home's drinking water. Research using 
sequential tap sample collection techniques on homes with LSLs 
indicates that a first draw sample may not represent the significant 
contributions of LSLs to a home's drinking water lead levels (Lytle et 
al., 2019). Therefore, relying on first liter samples for lead could 
allow a situation in which there may be high lead levels in a system 
but a 90th percentile concentration below the trigger level or action 
level.
    Given that LSLs are the greatest contributor of lead in drinking 
water, EPA reviewed the sampling data in the AwwaRF, 2008, Del Toral, 
2013, and Lytle et al., 2019 studies to determine the liter in any 
given sequential sampling profile that was most likely to contain the 
water that remained stagnant within a customer-owned LSL. Based on this 
information, EPA selected the fifth liter as the most likely to capture 
this water and any elevated levels of lead. Additionally, the fifth 
liter is more likely to capture the water from the customer-owned 
portion of the service line, which may remain in place from partial 
LSLRs conducted by systems under the previous rule. The first draw 
sample represents water that has traveled through the service line but 
that has sat in contact with the plumbing materials inside the home 
prior to the tap for the stagnation period. The first draw is an 
effective sampling technique to identify lead corrosion from taps, 
solder, pipes and fittings within the home but is not an effective 
sampling approach to capture corrosion from LSLs. Therefore, the final 
LCRR requires systems to collect fifth liter samples at LSL sites 
because the data gathered from fifth liter samples to calculate the 
90th percentile is a better indicator of the effectiveness of corrosion 
control treatment in a system.
    EPA finds that requiring the fifth liter sample for tap sampling 
would be more representative of lead concentrations in service lines 
than the first liter sample, which will provide better information on 
the highest concentration of lead in the system's drinking water. This 
better information will more appropriately identify the need for 
required actions designed to reduce lead and copper exposure by 
ensuring effective CCT and re-optimization of CCT when water quality 
declines; enhancing water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring; 
implementing a ``find-and-fix'' process

[[Page 4227]]

to evaluate and remediate elevated lead at a site where the individual 
tap sample exceeds 15 [micro]g/L; and making consumers aware of the 
presence of a LSL, if applicable, to facilitate replacement of LSLs.
    EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that a fifth liter sample 
option is too complicated for samplers to perform. To address 
commenters' concern regarding the proposed fifth liter protocol, EPA 
modified it to no longer require the use of a gallon container as some 
customers may not be able to manage a gallon container of water. EPA 
also modified the protocol so that samplers collect five one liter 
bottles which allows for collection of a first liter for copper 
analysis and a fifth liter for lead analysis, thus reducing the 
potential need for two separate sampling events. Although there are 
additional steps in the fifth liter protocol for LSL sites, EPA will 
work with states and stakeholders to provide templates for sampling 
instructions that are clear and simple. Samplers will be able to 
collect samples in accordance to this new protocol with minimal error. 
The EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that the fifth liter 
sample option should not be required because it does not represent 
water that is typically consumed. The LCR tap sampling requirements are 
not intended to represent typical consumption; rather, the tap sampling 
is intended to determine the effectiveness of corrosion control 
treatment and to determine if additional actions are needed including 
LSLR to reduce drinking water exposure to lead.
    EPA received many comments on the proposed tiering criteria for 
selection of tap sampling sites. Some commenters stated the proposed 
tiers were biasing samples against copper sites and suggested EPA 
should diversify tap sample sites. Other comments suggested the removal 
of Tier 2 sites altogether due to the difficulty of reaching this 
population to carry out the sampling. EPA disagrees with these comments 
because the changes in the tiering requirements are designed to 
increase the likelihood of collecting tap samples at sites expected to 
have elevated lead levels. Many commenters recommended EPA modify the 
tiers to consider sites with plumbing materials other than LSLs, such 
as galvanized pipes, lead goosenecks, and other lead fittings. Some of 
these comments raised concerns about water systems with few or no LSLs, 
but that have galvanized service lines impacted by lead, or lead 
goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors in their distribution system. 
Several comments supported the proposed tiering criteria, while others 
offered alternative approaches. EPA agrees that galvanized service 
lines impacted by lead, or lead goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors 
should be considered in the tiering criteria for selecting tap samples 
and has modified the final rule to reflect this.
    Many commenters requested clarification on how the 90th percentile 
calculation should be performed when systems have a mix of Tier 1 
through 4 sites. Commenters suggest that for systems with a mix of Tier 
1 through 4 sites, they should not be permitted to ``dilute'' the 
sampling pool with Tier 4 sites if they have a sufficient number of 
Tier 3 sites, similar to how EPA proposed calculating the 90th 
percentile when there is a mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites. EPA agrees 
and notes this is addressed in the regulatory text under Sec.  
141.86(a). For example, for a water system to use Tier 4 sites it must 
have an insufficient number of Tier 1 through 3 sites: A CWS with 
insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 sampling sites shall complete 
its sampling pool with ``Tier 4 sampling sites''.
    Many commenters state that the rule does not capture worst-case 
scenario copper concentrations, since the proposed tiering criteria 
focus on high risk sites for lead. While EPA agrees more emphasis has 
been placed on LSL sites, water systems without LSLs will be focusing 
on sites with copper pipe with lead solder.
    Several commenters asked that the method for calculating the 90th 
percentile in the current rule be maintained. A commenter noted how 
follow-up samples from find-and-fix are not included in the 90th 
percentile calculation and suggested that if the follow-up sample 
provides information confirming that the initial sample was taken in 
error, the initial sample result should not be used in the 90th 
percentile calculation Several commenters also requested clarification 
whether follow-up samples taken after a partial or full LSLR are 
included in the 90th percentile calculation. Some commenters disagree 
with this inclusion, stating it may deter water systems from carrying 
out replacement activities. EPA clarifies that follow-up samples 
collected under the find-and-fix provisions or after a LSLR are not 
included in the 90th percentile calculation but must be submitted to 
the state. The find-and-fix samples may be outside of the tap sampling 
monitoring period or collected using a different tap sample protocol.
    EPA received many comments on the tap sampling protocol in the 
proposed LCRR. EPA proposed the use of wide-mouth collection bottles 
and the prohibition of flushing the taps prior to the 6-hour stagnation 
period and cleaning or removing tap aerators in anticipation of 
sampling. Many commenters supported these updated provisions, stating 
it will limit these practices which were altering sample results and 
could make them lower, while others disagreed with them, stating it 
will negatively impact lead results. In addition, some commenters 
explained that there is confusion when, in certain cases, customers 
should be flushing stagnant water out of taps or cleaning aerators to 
prevent lead exposure. EPA disagrees with commenters who were in favor 
of allowing pre-stagnation flushing in LCR tap sampling. Flushing, or 
running taps, has long been understood to decrease water lead levels in 
a home, and thus has been a recommendation by Federal, state, and local 
authorities as a way to reduce lead exposure prior to water use, 
especially in residences of higher risk (e.g., houses containing LSLs) 
as well as a beneficial practice at homes that may have lead solder or 
faucets and fixtures that are not ``lead-free''. Flushing removes water 
that may be in contact with LSLs for extended periods of time, which is 
when lead typically leaches into drinking water (USEPA, 2016). As a 
general matter, EPA recommends consumers flush taps as a regular public 
health protective practice to reduce household exposure to lead in 
drinking water. However, in the case of collecting tap samples to 
determine whether corrosion control is effective or additional actions 
must be taken to reduce exposure, this practice may mask potential 
higher lead levels and is prohibited in this final rule. EPA also 
disagrees with commenters that supported removing and cleaning the 
faucet aerator prior to sampling. The taps used for monitoring likely 
contain an aerator as part of the faucet assembly, and particulate 
matter, including lead, may accumulate within these aerators. Thus, 
removing and/or cleaning these aerators just prior to sample collection 
could mask the contribution of particulate lead. It is advisable to 
regularly remove and clean faucet aerators to avoid particulate matter 
build-up. As a general matter, EPA recommends consumers clean faucet 
aerators as a regular public health protective practice to reduce 
household exposure to lead in drinking water. However, if customers 
only remove and clean the aerators before sample collection, the sample 
results will not be representative. Thus, EPA has prohibited the 
removal and/or cleaning

[[Page 4228]]

of the faucet aerator as part of the procedures for collection of lead 
and copper tap samples.
    EPA did not propose revisions to the requirement that tap samples 
be taken after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing system 
for at least six hours. Some commenters asked that a maximum stagnation 
time also be included in the protocol to avoid situations where water 
has been stagnant for such an extended period of time (i.e., vacation 
homes) that results would not be representative of regular use. EPA 
does not believe that a maximum stagnation period is necessary for the 
rule. Water systems can choose other sites from the same tier in the 
sample pool if they are aware that this is a problem. Therefore, EPA 
has not added a maximum stagnation time into the final rule 
requirements.
    Several commenters suggested that EPA include alternative sampling 
techniques such as random-daytime sampling or using filters to measure 
the lead levels after water is used under normal circumstances for a 
specified period of time. EPA considered suggestions for other sampling 
methodologies such as random-daytime sampling. EPA disagrees with these 
commenters. EPA determined that first liter samples at non-LSL sites 
and the fifth liter at LSL sites are the most appropriate means to 
evaluate CCT for both lead and copper. Suggested methods such as 
random-daytime sampling are too complex for compliance sampling that is 
implemented by customers and would require an increased cost and burden 
to water systems. Random daytime sampling is a practice that collects 
samples at random locations in the distribution system at random times 
throughout the day. Lead levels vary significantly from location to 
location based upon differing plumbing materials. Lead levels also vary 
over time based upon water use at a location. The LCRR controls for 
these variables by tiering sampling locations to select sites with 
leaded plumbing materials and by requiring a stagnation period prior to 
collecting a sample. These protocols will assure that elevated lead 
levels will be found, if present, which enables the system to evaluate 
corrosion.
    EPA proposed to expand to all systems the current LCR requirement 
applicable to most systems that change their source water or make a 
significant treatment change, to obtain approval from their primacy 
agency prior to making the change. EPA requested comment on whether the 
regulation should specify a minimum tap sampling frequency following 
the source water change or significant treatment change and if so, 
whether it should be annual or biannual tap sampling. EPA received 
substantial comments from this request. Some commenters asked EPA to 
define ``significant'' as this can include a wide range of changes, 
some of which may not warrant increased sampling requirements. They 
noted that there are several factors that come into play that should 
determine the appropriate tap sampling frequency following the change, 
factors include: Full water quality parameter sampling of the new 
source, applicable saturation indices results, current or proposed 
corrosion control treatment, blending with existing sources, size of 
system, and previous LCR tap sampling.
    Some commenters expressed that this should be determined by the 
state based on these factors and the risk profile of the type of change 
proposed. Many commenters asked EPA to establish a minimum tap sampling 
frequency of every six months following these changes to fully account 
for the impact to water quality from the addition or change in source 
water or long term treatment while others stated annual monitoring 
would be appropriate because it is more feasible for water systems. 
Some requested six-month monitoring for new sources and annual 
monitoring for treatment changes. After a full evaluation of these 
comments, EPA has determined a minimum tap sampling frequency of once 
every six months following a change in source water or a significant 
treatment change is appropriate. Deterioration in water quality or 
unintended consequences of source water or treatment changes will be 
more quickly identified and therefore addressed when tap sampling 
occurs every six months. To provide additional clarification if a 
significant change would include any long-term change in treatment and 
the addition of a new source as specified in Sec.  141.90(a)(3), which 
includes examples of long term treatment changes. States have the 
expertise to determine which changes qualify as significant to warrant 
standard 6-month monitoring.
    EPA received comments on customer-requested tap sampling. Many 
commenters disagreed with including the results of this sampling in the 
90th percentile. They state that EPA should provide clear guidance on 
how to discard these samples before including them in the calculation. 
However, other commenters mention how carrying out customer-requested 
tap sampling is positive and can empower customers to take action upon 
receipt of results. Others assert that when samples are taken upon 
customer request, they should be collected with the standard compliance 
protocol to standardize the sampling process, especially if they are 
included in the 90th percentile calculation. Some commenters asked how 
to include these samples in the compliance pool and whether they should 
be included only if they are sites served by an LSL. Some asked for 
clarification on customer-requested samples that are collected outside 
of the compliance period or not in accordance with the tap sampling 
compliance protocol. EPA agrees that samples taken upon customer-
request should be used in the 90th percentile calculation only if they 
are from known LSL sites (or appropriate tier if no LSLs), collected 
during the tap sampling period, and use the appropriate tap sampling 
protocol. EPA encourages water systems to create and maintain a program 
for testing at residences where customers request it and to share the 
sampling results with customers.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The frequency of monitoring and number of samples to be collected 
and analyzed is based primarily on how many people the water system 
serves and previous tap water monitoring results. If residents are 
collecting tap samples, the water system must recruit volunteers at the 
sites that are most likely to have elevated lead based on the tiering 
criteria described in the section below.
    To the extent feasible, water systems are required to use the same 
tap sample sites each monitoring period. If a resident decides to 
discontinue participation in tap sampling, the water system must select 
a similarly ``tiered'' site. Due to potential non-response from 
resident volunteers, EPA recommends including more sampling sites in 
the pool of targeted sampling sites than is required. The water system 
is required to calculate a 90th percentile of the sampling results from 
all sites separately for lead and copper at the end of each monitoring 
period. This 90th percentile value is reported to the state and used to 
determine whether the system must comply with other requirements of the 
rule, such as corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring, 
public education, and LSLR. Water systems with LSLs are required to 
collect samples from all LSL sites (Tier 1 and 2) unless there is an 
insufficient number to meet the minimum number of samples required. In 
those cases, the water system must use Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites, in that 
order.
    In the final rule, EPA revised the tap sample tiering criteria to 
include 5 tiers for several reasons. First, this revision

[[Page 4229]]

ensures that priority is given to highest risk lead sources in the 
absence of LSLs; galvanized service lines that have been impacted by a 
lead source such as lead goosenecks, pigtails and connectors. 
Galvanized lines that are or were downstream of a lead source such as a 
LSL can contribute to lead in drinking water. These lines have zinc 
coating containing lead that can leach into drinking water when 
corroded. They also can capture lead from upstream lead sources and 
release lead if water quality changes or these pipes are disturbed. 
These sites have been designated as Tier 3. In this way, these 
materials are prioritized in tap sampling site selection and will be 
sampled for non-LSL systems that have these. In the final rule, Tier 4 
sites will be comprised of single-family structures containing copper 
pipes with lead solder and Tier 5 sites are representative of sites 
throughout the distribution system. NTNCWSs must sample at sites with 
LSLs (Tier 1), unless they have insufficient numbers to meet the 
minimum requirement of sites, then they can choose from Tier 3 sites 
and then Tier 5 sites.

                                 Revised Lead and Copper Site Selection Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CWS                                        NTNCWS
         Tier          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Proposed rule            Final rule           Proposed rule          Final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................  Collect samples from   Collect samples from   Collect samples from  Collect samples from
                         SFSs served by LSLs.   SFSs served by LSLs.   building served by    buildings served by
                         Tier 1 samples can     Tier 1 samples can     LSL.                  LSL.
                         be collected from      be collected from
                         MFRs if they           MFRs if they
                         represent at least     represent at least
                         20 percent of          20 percent of
                         structures served by   structures served by
                         the water system.      the water system.
Tier 2................  Collect samples from   Collect samples from   N/A.................  N/A.
                         buildings and MFRs     buildings and MFRs
                         served by LSLs.        served by LSLs.
Tier 3................  Collect samples from   Collect samples from   Collect samples from  Collect samples from
                         SFSs with copper       SFSs with galvanized   buildings with        SFSs with
                         pipes with lead        service lines          copper pipe and       galvanized service
                         solder installed       downstream of an       lead solder           lines downstream of
                         before the effective   LSL, currently or in   installed before      an LSL, currently
                         date of the state's    the past or known to   the effective date    or in the past or
                         lead ban.              be downstream of a     of the state's lead   known to be
                                                lead connector.        ban.                  downstream of a
                                                                                             lead connector.
Tier 4................  Representative sample  Collect samples from   Representative        N/A.
                         where the plumbing     SFSs with copper       sample where the
                         is similar to that     pipes with lead        plumbing is similar
                         used at other sites    solder installed       to that used at
                         served.                before the effective   other sites served..
                                                date of the state's
                                                lead ban.
Tier 5................  N/A..................  Representative sample  N/A.................  Representative
                                                where the plumbing                           sample where the
                                                is similar to that                           plumbing is similar
                                                used at other sites                          to that used at
                                                served.                                      other sites served.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LSL = lead service line; MFR = multi-family residence; N/A = not
  applicable; NTNCWS = non-transient non-community water system; SFS = single family structure.

    In the final rule, EPA made significant changes to the tap sample 
collection protocol under Sec.  141.86(b). For LSL sites, a first liter 
and a fifth liter must be collected and analyzed. The first liter 
analyzed for copper and the fifth liter for lead. Water systems without 
LSL sites must collect a first draw one-liter sample for analysis for 
lead and copper. The fifth liter protocol requirements are described in 
Sec.  141.86(b). This change to the overall protocol from first draw to 
fifth liter sample will increase the likelihood that the highest levels 
of lead will be captured, and appropriately trigger systems into 
improved corrosion control treatment, LSLR and public education 
programs to reduce drinking water lead exposure. Only sites served by 
an LSL will collect a fifth liter for lead analysis. A first-draw 
sample will be retained for copper analysis at these sites. For sites 
not served by an LSL, a first-draw sample will be collected and 
analyzed for lead and/or copper depending on the water system's 
monitoring schedules for lead and copper.
    EPA is finalizing the modifications to the tap sampling protocol 
regarding the removal and cleaning of aerators and pre-stagnation 
flushing in anticipations of sampling efforts. EPA is also promulgating 
the requirement that all tap samples be collected in wide-mouth sample 
bottles so that collection is occurring when the faucet is flowing at a 
high rate, typical of normal water use such as pouring a glass of 
water.
    EPA added a requirement for tap sampling every six months following 
the addition of a new source water or a long-term change in treatment 
in the final rule unless the state determines that the addition of the 
new source or long term treatment change is not significant and 
therefore does not warrant more frequent monitoring. The new 
requirement is described in Sec.  141.86(d)(2)(iv).

H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring

1. Proposed Revisions
    Under the current LCR, water systems that have CCT monitor water 
quality parameters (WQPs) to ensure effective CCT. WQP samples must be 
collected at taps every six months and at entry points to the 
distribution system every six months prior to CCT installation and 
every two weeks thereafter. EPA proposed several revisions to the WQP 
monitoring requirements. EPA proposed to eliminate calcium carbonate 
stabilization as a potential option for CCT and thus, to remove the 
WQPs associated directly with this CCT option (e.g., all parameters 
related to calcium hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water 
temperature)).
    EPA proposed additional WQP monitoring samples be collected by 
water systems that have CCT and that have any individual tap sample(s) 
with lead results exceeding 15 [mu]g/L. The additional WQP monitoring 
is a part of proposed provisions for ``find-and-fix'' (see section 
III.K. of this preamble), which would require water systems to collect 
follow-up lead tap samples at every sampling site that has an 
individual lead sample greater than 15 [mu]g/L within 30 days of 
obtaining results of the individual sample greater than 15 [mu]g/L. EPA 
also proposed a WQP sample be collected at a location on the same size 
water main located within a half mile of the residence with the lead 
result greater than 15 [mu]g/L. This WQP monitoring was proposed to be 
completed within five days of receiving results of the individual lead 
sample greater than 15 [mu]g/L. Water systems with existing 
distribution system WQP monitoring sites that meet the main size/
proximity requirements could conduct the sampling at that location. EPA 
proposed that any water system which adds sites for the purposes of

[[Page 4230]]

WQP monitoring specified in this paragraph include those additional 
sites in future WQP monitoring.
    EPA also proposed that both CCT and WQPs be assessed during 
sanitary surveys for water systems with CCT. EPA proposed that states 
conduct a periodic review of WQP results and other data to ensure the 
water system is maintaining the optimal CCT and to assess if there 
should be modifications to the CCT to further reduce lead and copper 
levels in tap samples.
    In addition to the updates for WQP requirements previously 
specified, EPA proposed several supplementary changes to the current 
rule. EPA also proposed revisions to the requirements for water systems 
to reduce the number of sites sampled and the frequency of WQP 
sampling. As a prerequisite to reducing the number of sites used in 
water quality parameter monitoring, the current rule requires the water 
system to maintain the range of water quality parameters for two 6-
month monitoring periods. EPA proposed that water systems would also 
need to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level for those two 6-
month monitoring periods to be eligible for a reduction in the number 
of sites for WQP sampling. As a prerequisite to reducing the frequency 
of monitoring for water quality parameters, under the current rule, the 
water system must maintain the range of WQP values for three 
consecutive years to reduce to annual monitoring. Under the proposal, 
the water system would need to also meet the lead 90th percentile 
trigger level for those three consecutive years in order to be eligible 
for yearly monitoring. Under the current rule, if the water system 
meets the WQP requirements determined by the state and the lead 90th 
percentile trigger level for three additional annual monitoring 
periods, it may reduce its WQP monitoring frequency to once every three 
years. EPA also proposed that for every phase of potential reduced WQP 
monitoring (i.e., semi-annual, annual and triennial), the water system 
would also be required to meet the lead trigger levels. This would 
ensure that the required WQP monitoring sites and frequency continue 
when water systems have high lead levels. For a water system on reduced 
monitoring, EPA proposed that grandfathered data may be used if 
collected in accordance with the proposed revisions and its 90th 
percentile in either grandfathered data or initial tap sampling is at 
or below the trigger level.
2. Public Comments and EPA Response
    As noted in Section III.B, EPA received mixed comments on its 
proposal to delete calcium carbonate stabilization as a mandatory 
corrosion control treatment and the removal of calcium, temperature, 
and conductivity as mandatory water quality parameters when it was 
selected as the corrosion control treatment. EPA has removed calcium 
carbonate stabilization and its associated unique water quality 
parameters from the final rule as options for systems that are 
optimizing or re-optimizing CCT. However, for systems that have 
previously been deemed optimized using this treatment approach, the key 
water quality parameters of pH and alkalinity are being maintained in 
the final rule and states will be allowed to designate additional water 
quality parameters to reflect optimal corrosion control (provided the 
system does not exceed the trigger level or action level).
    EPA received many comments about the number of water quality 
parameter sites that could be added as a result of the proposed find-
and-fix requirements. Commenters expressed concern that added WQP sites 
could not be removed and could over time become too numerous. The 
systems that will be subject to optimal water quality parameter 
monitoring are all large systems, medium systems that continue to 
exceed an action level, and small systems that exceed an action level 
and have selected optimal corrosion control treatment under the small 
system flexibility. EPA agrees with commenters that suggested there 
should be a limit on the number of water quality parameter locations 
that may be added and has determined the maximum sites should be two 
times the standard number of water quality parameter sites. EPA 
determined that this is a sufficient number of sites to ensure water 
quality. When a system exceeds this upper threshold for the number of 
sites, the State has discretion to switch out sites that have been 
added if the newer site can better assess the effectiveness of the 
corrosion control treatment and to remove sites during sanitary survey 
evaluation of OCCT.
    Several commenters stressed that the final rule should require all 
systems to conduct regular monitoring of the optimal water quality 
parameters. EPA agrees with these commenters that triennial monitoring 
does not provide enough data on water quality in the distribution 
system. Significant changes in distribution system water quality can 
occur over a three-year period and water systems need to conduct more 
frequent WQP sampling to assure CCT is being effectively maintained.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule includes the proposed revision to the WQP monitoring 
requirements with two modifications. Section 141.82(j)(1)(vi) of the 
final rule limits the number of WQP sites that must be added through 
the find-and-fix process to two times the standard number of WQP sites. 
The final rule allows states to determine which sites will be retained 
if a system exceeds the find-and-fix threshold of two times the 
standard number of water quality parameter sites. This is summarized in 
the table below.

                         Number of Water Quality Parameter Sites in Distribution System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Standard                                Find-and-fix
        System size (number people served)          monitoring (number  Reduced  monitoring   threshold (number
                                                        WQP sites)       (number WQP sites)       WQP sites)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000.........................................                   25                   10                   50
10,001-100,000...................................                   10                    7                   20
3,301-10,000.....................................                    3                    3                    6
501-3,300........................................                    2                    2                    4
101-500..........................................                    1                    1                    2
<=100............................................                    1                    1                    2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, if a system that serves more than 100,000 persons 
reached the find-and-fix threshold of 50 water quality parameter 
locations, the state has the discretion to determine which added find-
and-fix sites to retain if new locations are needed to assess corrosion 
control treatment. States have the flexibility to decide that it is 
necessary

[[Page 4231]]

to retain all the WQP sites and exceed the find-and-fix maximum if it 
deems it necessary to demonstrate optimal corrosion control treatment.
    Second, the final rule requires all WQP locations to be sampled at 
least annually and specifies that samples should be taken throughout 
the monitoring period to reflect seasonal variability and triennial 
monitoring does not provide sufficient data.

I. Source Water Monitoring

1. Proposed Revisions
    The 1991 LCR required water systems to conduct source water 
monitoring following an action level exceedance. Based on the results 
of the source water monitoring, the state must decide whether it is 
necessary for the water system to install source water treatment to 
reduce lead and/or copper tap levels. Regardless of whether a state 
decides that treatment is needed or not, the water system is still 
required to conduct source water monitoring following the state 
decision. EPA proposed to discontinue additional source water 
monitoring requirements if (a) a water system has conducted source 
water monitoring for a prior lead and/or copper action level 
exceedance, (b) the state has determined that source water treatment is 
not required, and (c) a water system has not added any new water 
source(s).
    EPA proposed these changes to eliminate monitoring requirements 
that are not necessary to protect public health. Lead and copper are 
rarely found in the source water in significant quantities (Chin, D., 
Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985; USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); thus, where the 
state has decided that source water treatment is not needed, EPA 
proposed to allow the state to waive source water monitoring for any 
subsequent action level exceedance under the conditions listed above 
and to eliminate the regular monitoring currently required for source 
water lead and copper.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Several commenters expressed support for waiving source water 
monitoring as outlined in the proposed LCRR. One commenter specifically 
expressed support for source water monitoring waivers to be issued by 
the state in the case of subsequent action level exceedances as 
outlined in the proposed LCRR. Other commenters opposed the waiver, 
citing lack of public access to data that lead can occur naturally in 
source water in some geologic settings, and that they have ``more than 
a dozen public water systems that treat for naturally occurring, 
elemental lead found in their source water and even more systems with 
low levels of lead that do not require treatment.'' The Agency does not 
dispute that lead may be found in source water in certain geologic 
settings; however, the final LCRR requires that any system which adds a 
new source shall collect an additional source water sample from each 
entry point to the distribution system during two consecutive six-month 
monitoring periods until the system demonstrates that drinking water 
entering the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum 
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the state. EPA 
disagrees that source water monitoring results should be made publicly 
available because source water sampling results are not representative 
of water quality at the tap.
3. Final Rule Revisions
    The final LCRR eliminates source water lead and copper monitoring 
that is not necessary to protect public health. Lead and copper are 
rarely found in the source water in significant quantities (Chin, D., 
Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985; USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); thus, where the 
state has decided that source water treatment is not needed, the state 
may waive source water monitoring for any subsequent action level 
exceedance under certain conditions. The final LCRR includes the 
provision for discontinued additional source water monitoring 
requirements if (a) a water system has conducted source water 
monitoring for a prior lead and/or copper action level exceedance, (b) 
the state has determined that source water treatment is not required, 
and (c) a water system has not added any new water source(s).

J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

1. Proposed Requirements
    EPA proposed a new requirement for all CWSs to sample for lead at 
schools and child care facilities they serve and to provide public 
education for those facilities. The intent of the requirement is to 
inform and educate targeted CWS customers and users about risks for 
lead in premise plumbing at schools and child care facilities since 
large buildings, such as schools, can have higher potential for 
elevated lead levels due to complex premise plumbing and inconsistent 
water use patterns. While schools are not likely to be served by LSLs, 
they may have lead in premise plumbing; therefore, EPA proposed these 
requirements because public education and water system sampling would 
provide schools and child care facilities with assurance in the process 
and benefits of managing a drinking water testing program and the 
information necessary for them to take actions to reduce lead risk. 
While, prior to this rule, EPA did not require public water systems to 
conduct sampling in schools and child care facilities, the Agency had 
established a voluntary program: 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking 
Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities--A Training, Testing and 
Taking Action Approach (3Ts) (EPA-815-B-18-007). The purpose of this 
program is to assist states, schools, and child care facilities with 
conducting their own testing programs, conducting outreach, and taking 
action to address elevated levels of lead. Some states and localities 
have established mandatory and voluntary programs to test for lead in 
schools and child care facilities. However, many schools and child care 
facilities have not been tested for lead. A 2018 survey by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 41 percent of school 
districts had not tested for lead and an additional 16 percent did not 
know if they had been tested (GAO, 2018).
    EPA proposed these requirements because students and young children 
are especially vulnerable to lead exposure and spend a large portion of 
their day in schools and child care facilities. Lead in drinking water 
can be a significant contributor to overall exposure to lead, 
particularly for infants whose diets often include foods or formula 
made with water from public water systems (i.e., baby food, juice, or 
formula). Young children and infants are particularly vulnerable to 
lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower 
exposure levels in children than in adults. In children, low levels of 
exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral 
nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired 
hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells.
    Children spend on average over six hours per day at school ((U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Center for Education 
Statistics), with many spending more time at on-site before- or after-
school care or activities. Children consume water in these facilities 
through drinking and as part of food preparation. Across the country, 
about 100,000 schools participate in the national school lunch program, 
serving daily lunch to approximately 30 million students (USDA, 
National School Lunch

[[Page 4232]]

Program, 2019). Ninety thousand schools serve breakfast to 14.8 million 
students every day (USDA). The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 
(HHFKA), which authorizes funding and sets policy for USDA's child 
nutrition programs, requires schools participating in federally funded 
meal programs to make water available during meal periods at no cost to 
students (section 202 of HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A))). The Act also 
mandates that child care facilities provide free drinking water 
throughout the day (section 221 of HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1766 (u)(2))). The 
combination of potential higher lead levels in large buildings, 
vulnerability of children to lead, and the length of time spent at 
schools and child care facilities presents lead risks to children that 
can be mitigated through public education, sampling, and voluntary 
remediation actions.
    Furthermore, the requirement for water systems to conduct sampling 
at schools and child care facilities provides an added measure of 
protection, above the other elements of the treatment technique rule, 
in light of the vulnerabilities of the population served and the 
potential variability of lead levels within the system and within a 
school or child care facility over time. Large buildings such as 
schools can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels because, 
even when served by a water system with well operated OCCT, there may 
be longer periods of stagnation due to complex premise plumbing systems 
and inconsistent water use patterns. In such situations, there may not 
be technical improvements that can be made to the OCCT. However, risk 
can be mitigated through public education and voluntary remediation 
actions such as replacement of premise plumbing. Water systems have 
developed the technical capacity to conduct sampling for lead in 
operating their system and complying with current drinking water 
standards.
    EPA proposed that the CWS be required to provide information about 
the health risks and sources of lead in drinking water and collect 
samples from five drinking water outlets at each school and two 
drinking water outlets at each child care facility within its 
distribution system once every five years. It would share results with 
the facility, local and state health departments, and the state primacy 
agency. Samples would be first draw after at least 8-hours but not more 
than 18-hours stagnation in the building and be 250 ml in volume. EPA 
proposed this sampling protocol to be consistent with the recommended 
sampling protocols under the Agency's 3Ts Toolkit. The smaller sample 
size is more representative of the amount of water consumed per serving 
and the stagnation time is representative of daily water use within 
these facilities. These samples would serve as a preliminary screen for 
lead risks within the facility and are not necessarily representative 
of lead levels in other outlets.
    EPA proposed that the CWS compile a list of schools and child care 
facilities served by the water system to conduct outreach and sampling, 
including distributing the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water 
Toolkit (EPA-815-B-18-007), or subsequent guidance issued by EPA that 
provides information on identifying lead risks, follow-up sampling 
procedures, stakeholder communication, and remediation options. A CWS's 
distribution of the 3Ts would initiate or contribute to active 
communication with schools and child care facilities, who are critical 
customers that serve a vulnerable population. EPA also proposed that 
the CWS provide results to schools and child care facilities, the 
drinking water primacy agency, and the local and state health 
department where the facility is located no more than 30 days after 
receipt of results. The results of the samples would not be used as 
part of the CWS's calculation of the 90th percentile value because 
these samples are being collected in a manner to inform whether action 
is needed at a specific school or child care facility and not whether 
corrosion control is effective system-wide. EPA did not propose 
requirements for CWSs to take remediation actions at facilities 
following the sampling and notification requirements. The managers of 
these facilities have established lines of communication with the 
occupants of these buildings (and their parents or guardians) and have 
control over routine maintenance and plumbing materials that may need 
to be addressed. The managers of the schools and child care centers can 
use the sampling results and the 3Ts to make decisions about additional 
voluntary actions to reduce lead risks in their facilities, including 
implementing their own 3Ts program.
    EPA proposed a process for a water system to opt out of the 
sampling requirements. In the preamble, EPA described a process for a 
state or primacy agency to waive these requirements for individual CWSs 
to avoid duplication of effort with existing drinking water testing 
requirements in schools and child care facilities. EPA proposed that if 
a state has a program that requires schools and child care facilities 
to be sampled in a manner consistent with the proposed requirements, 
the state may use that program in lieu of the proposed requirements.
2. Public Comments and EPA's Response
    EPA requested comment on an alternative to the proposed 
requirements for public education and sampling at schools and child 
care facilities described in this section. Under the proposed 
alternative, a CWS would be required to conduct annual outreach to 
school and child care facilities about the health risks and source of 
lead and drinking water, and would test at school and child care 
facilities as described in the proposal only when requested by a 
facility in their service area. Under this alternative, EPA assumed 
that 5 percent of schools and child care facilities in a water system 
service area would request testing per year (see Economic Analysis 
Chapter 5, section 5.3.2.5 for additional detail).
    EPA received many comments on the proposed school and child care 
sampling requirements spanning a variety of topics. These included 
comments on the proposed and alternative options, requests for 
clarification on aspects of the requirements that relate to CWS 
compliance, the required number of samples, requests for exemptions, 
and comments on waivers for existing sampling programs.
    EPA specifically asked for public comment on the proposed option 
that CWSs be required to sample for lead in school and child care 
facilities once every five years or if CWSs should be required to 
sample in facilities on request only. Some commenters supported the 
proposed requirements citing the importance of testing in these 
facilities, while others supported the alternative option citing the 
benefits of providing public education materials to interested schools 
and child care facilities and reduced burden to CWSs. Conversely, some 
commenters objected to the alternative proposal citing concerns that 
facilities may not request testing due to lack of knowledge about lead 
risks, the importance for testing for lead, or fear of testing results. 
Some commenters also argued that the requirements should be removed 
from the final rule stating that CWSs should not be the entity 
responsible for testing in schools and child care facilities and citing 
concerns about costs and resources, while others argued that the 
proposed requirements would not provide benefits to schools or child 
care

[[Page 4233]]

facilities. A few commenters also stated that sampling of school or 
child care facilities would be more effective if led by the Department 
of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services.
    Based upon comments, EPA has decided to combine the proposed and 
alternative options by incorporating both mandatory and on request 
sampling into the final rule. CWSs must conduct sampling in elementary 
schools and child care facilities as described in the proposed 
requirements for one sampling cycle (5 years) and will offer sampling 
to secondary schools on request. After the first cycle is complete, 
CWSs must continue to conduct outreach to schools and child care 
facilities and must sample at the request of a facility. These 
requirements are intended to educate schools and child care facilities 
about the risks of lead in drinking water and inform them of ways to 
mitigate lead risks. The initial sampling accompanied by continued lead 
in drinking water outreach will provide elementary schools and child 
care facilities with an understanding of how to create and manage a 
drinking water testing program that is customizable to their needs and 
an appreciation of the benefits of such a program. The cycle of 
sampling is intended to reinforce the importance and benefits of lead 
testing in elementary schools and child care facilities. Children under 
the age of 7 are at the greatest risk of drinking water lead exposure, 
and prioritizing sampling in those facilities with the greatest risks 
will reduce burden on CWSs and will enable them to focus upon those 
schools and child care facilities with the most susceptible 
populations. This construct will also allow CWSs, following the initial 
cycle of sampling, to focus resources on sampling in schools and child 
care facilities that request assistance. EPA anticipates that after the 
first sampling cycle, elementary schools and child care facilities will 
better understand the process and benefits of lead testing and be more 
likely to implement their own 3Ts programs. However, facilities 
interested in further assistance will have the opportunity to be tested 
for lead by the CWS on request prompted through annual outreach. CWSs 
will not be required to sample more than 20 percent of the schools and 
child care facilities they serve in a given year.
    EPA disagrees that the requirements for testing in schools and 
child care facilities should be removed from the final rule or that the 
requirements provide no benefits. Individual outlets, such as water 
fountains, can leach lead even when a water system has OCCT. The 
requirements are part of a targeted public education effort to educate 
schools and child care facilities and their users of the risks from 
lead in premise plumbing, the importance of testing for lead in 
drinking water, and to help them make decisions to mitigate lead risks. 
The requirement for CWSs to conduct sampling and public education for 
this vulnerable subset of consumers is within EPA's authority to 
promulgate a treatment technique rule to ``prevent known or anticipated 
adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 
1412(b)(7)(A)). School and child care facility sampling contributes to 
increased public awareness of the potential for elevated levels of lead 
in premise plumbing independent of a water system's 90th percentile 
value. EPA also anticipates that increased familiarity with the 3Ts 
will assist facilities in taking steps to reduce lead risks to 
vulnerable populations.
    EPA also disagrees that the requirements would be more effective if 
led by another Federal agency. Few existing mandatory and voluntary 
programs are administered by state or local departments of education 
(Cradock et al., 2019). EPA notes that the Department of Education and 
the Department Health and Human Services are signatories to the 2019 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Reducing Lead Levels in Schools 
and Child Care Facilities along with other Federal partners and 
organizations. The signatories to the MOU agree to work together to 
encourage schools and child care facilities to take actions to address 
lead in their facilities. This includes testing for lead in drinking 
water, disseminating results, and taking corrective actions. EPA 
intends for the requirements to complement these efforts and not 
replace ongoing initiatives to address lead risks in schools and child 
care facilities. EPA concluded that CWSs have the technical expertise 
to assist in schools and child care facilities in drinking water 
testing.
    EPA also received many comments requesting clarification on 
achieving CWS compliance. Some commenters suggested that a CWS would be 
in violation of the proposed requirements if a school or child care 
facility did not respond to outreach for testing. Similarly, commenters 
suggested that meeting the requirement to sample in 20 percent of 
schools and 20 percent of child care facilities per year depended on 
facilities responding to CWS outreach. Some commenters cited these 
concerns as a rationale for supporting the alternative on request 
option. EPA notes that some schools and child care facilities may not 
respond to CWS outreach, meaning a CWS would not be able to obtain a 
refusal. EPA agrees that further clarification was needed and revised 
Sec.  141.92(a)(3) to document a non-response after a CWS has made two 
separate good faith attempts to reach the facility. EPA also clarified 
in Sec.  141.92(c) that non-responses and refusals may be accounted for 
in the annual 20 percent testing requirement for elementary schools and 
child care facilities during the mandatory sampling.
    Some commenters suggested that the sampling requirements be 
expanded to include more samples per facility and more frequent 
sampling. Commenters argued that limited sampling may fail to detect 
elevated lead levels and some schools and child care facilities may 
infer from results that there is no lead risk. Other commenters noted 
that some schools and child care facilities do not follow the 3Ts and 
may not conduct follow-up sampling or take remediation actions. Some 
commenters further suggested that the 3Ts Toolkit is not sufficient for 
addressing lead issues. EPA disagrees that sampling requirements be 
expanded, as the intent is to provide a preliminary screen for lead in 
schools and child care facilities and an improved understanding of the 
importance of lead testing, and is not a replacement for comprehensive 
testing as detailed in the 3Ts. EPA further disagrees with comments 
regarding the effectiveness of the 3Ts. The GAO indicated in a 2018 
report that 60 percent of school districts were not familiar with the 
3Ts guidance, but for those that were, 68 percent reported finding the 
guidance helpful in reducing lead risks in their facilities (GAO, 
2018). Requiring distribution of the 3Ts along with testing results is 
intended to both increase awareness of the need for lead testing and 
provide schools and child care facilities with information and tools 
they can use to reduce lead risks in their drinking water.
    Conversely, some commenters suggested that facilities be exempted 
from testing based on construction dates (e.g., 1986 ban on lead 
solder) or that repeat testing is not necessary if a facility is tested 
once, or all outlets are tested once, and results show no or low lead 
levels. The proposed requirements exempt CWSs from sampling in schools 
and child care facilities constructed after 2014 (consistent with 
Section 1417 of the SDWA), as these facilities will have been 
constructed with lead free plumbing components. Prior to the amendment 
of Section 1417 of the SDWA by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water 
Act, fixtures could

[[Page 4234]]

contain up to 8 percent of lead by weighted average and be classified 
as lead free. Changing the exemption date to 1986 would therefore be 
less protective of public health. EPA also disagrees with allowing 
exemptions based on previous low and non-detected lead levels. Lead 
levels at an outlet or within a building have been shown to vary over 
time, with lead levels at one outlet not necessarily characterizing 
lead levels at other others in the building. Therefore, exempting water 
systems from testing in facilities based on the previous results of 
samples taken at a limited number of outlets is not appropriate.
    EPA received many comments on the alternative school and child care 
sampling programs in Sec.  141.92(d). Commenters noted an inconsistency 
between the preamble in the November 2019 notice, which described the 
state providing waivers to CWSs where existing school and child care 
sampling requirements are at least as stringent as Sec.  141.92, and 
the proposed requirement which stated ``the water system may execute 
that program [existing state or local regulations] to comply with the 
requirements of this section,'' implying a different mechanism. As 
noted above, EPA recognizes this inconsistency and has updated Sec.  
141.92(d) to describe the conditions by which a state may issue a full 
or partial waiver to CWSs. In addition, commenters encouraged EPA to 
accommodate sampling protocols of existing state and local programs, 
stating that programs using different stagnation times or sample 
volumes should not be excluded if they require more sampling more 
outlets more frequently and include remediation activities. EPA agrees 
that there are a variety of programs that may differ from the proposed 
requirements but may otherwise be sufficient or more comprehensive. In 
response, the final rule provides additional flexibility for existing 
programs to reduce duplicative testing by CWSs.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA is requiring CWSs to sample for lead in the elementary schools 
and child care facilities they serve once during the first five years 
after the compliance date for the final rule, and to sample for lead in 
the secondary schools they serve on request. After all elementary 
schools and child care facilities are tested once, the CWS will be 
required to conduct sampling at all the schools and child care 
facilities they serve when requested by a facility. EPA is retaining 
the exemption for schools and child care facilities constructed after 
January 1, 2014. However, in response to public comment, EPA has 
revised this exemption to include facilities built after the date of 
state adopted standards that meet the definition of lead free in 
accordance with Section 1417 of the SDWA, as amended by the Reduction 
of Lead in Drinking Water Act, to account for localities that adopted 
lead free standards earlier than 2014. These requirements apply to all 
CWSs regardless if they receive water from a wholesale system.
    EPA is retaining the proposed requirement that all CWSs compile a 
list of schools and licensed child care facilities served by the system 
to conduct public education outreach and sampling. EPA notes that 
pursuant to Sec.  141 90(i)(1)(i), the CWS shall use a good faith 
effort to identify facilities in their service area, such as reviewing 
water system billing and other records to identify service connections 
for schools and child care facilities and by requesting information 
from appropriate state agencies. During the first five years after the 
rule compliance date, the CWS is required to contact the elementary 
schools and child care facilities identified and provide them 
information about health risks of lead in drinking water at least 
annually, schedule sampling, and provide the 3Ts Toolkit (or subsequent 
EPA guidance). The CWS must also contact the secondary schools 
identified in the list at least annually and provide them with health 
information, and information on how to request sampling. As the list is 
updated, new schools and child care facilities will be identified and 
included in the annual outreach. In the first cycle of sampling, an 
elementary school or child care facility may decline or not respond to 
sampling. In response to comments, EPA has revised the requirement to 
allow the CWS to document non-responses in addition to refusals.
    The CWS is required to contact 20 percent of elementary schools and 
20 percent of child care facilities per year such that all facilities 
are sampled once (over the 5 years). In response to comments on 
flexibility, the final rule will allow an alternative schedule to be 
approved by the state, as long as all elementary schools and child care 
facilities are sampled once within a 5-year period. EPA has also 
clarified that non-responses and refusals may be accounted for in the 
20 percent testing rate. CWSs are also required to sample secondary 
schools at the request of the facility during the 5-year period of 
mandatory sampling for elementary schools and child care facilities. If 
a CWS receives requests from more than 20 percent of the secondary 
schools it serves during a year, it may defer additional requests to 
the following year. A CWS is not required to conduct sampling in more 
than 20 percent of the secondary schools it serves in any year during 
the cycle of mandatory sampling for elementary schools and child care 
facilities.
    Once the CWS has completed the requirements for all elementary 
schools and child care facilities once, EPA is requiring the CWS to 
sample both elementary and secondary schools and child care facilities 
on request. When offering sampling on request, the CWS shall continue 
to distribute annual information on the health risks of lead in 
drinking water and is required to provide annual information to schools 
and child care facilities about the opportunity to request sampling. At 
least 30 days prior to sampling, the CWS must provide instructions to 
facilities on how to identify outlets for sampling. If the CWS receives 
requests from more than 20 percent of the schools and 20 percent of the 
child care facilities it serves in a given year, the CWS may defer 
additional requests to the following year. The CWS is not required to 
complete sampling in more than 20 percent of the schools and 20 percent 
of the child care facilities it serves in a given year, and may sample 
the other facilities in the following year. The CWS is also not 
required to sample any individual school or child care facility more 
than once every five years. While not required, EPA recommends that 
CWSs consider factors such as age of students, building construction 
date, socioeconomic indicators, presence of LSLs, and Federal funding 
through Title 1 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and Head Start (42 U.S.C. 9801 
et seq.) to prioritize sampling in facilities that serve vulnerable or 
disadvantaged populations.
    EPA is retaining the sampling protocol and the provisions to 
provide sample results to schools and child care facilities along with 
remediation information within 30 days of receipt of results. EPA has 
clarified that the remediation information is detailed in the 3Ts. 
Schools and child care facilities are encouraged to use the testing 
results and 3Ts Toolkit to inform follow-up activities and remediation 
actions. For consistency across other reporting requirements, the final 
rule includes provisions for CWSs to report all results to the primacy 
agency and local and state health departments as part of annual 
reporting.
    EPA is retaining the proposed process for a state to waive school 
and child care facility sampling requirements for individual CWSs to 
avoid duplication of effort and has clarified this in the final

[[Page 4235]]

rule. During the cycle of mandatory sampling in elementary schools and 
child care facilities, a state may issue a CWS a written waiver if 
there is a state or local program to sample for lead in drinking water 
at schools or child care facilities that meets the requirements of this 
rule. This also may include schools or child care facilities that are 
sampling for lead through facility or district policy. If the sampling 
meets the final rule requirements, with the exception of stagnation 
time and sample volume, a waiver may be granted if remediation actions 
are required as part of the program. Likewise, programs with less 
frequent sampling (e.g., every six years) that sample more outlets and 
require remediation, will meet the requirements for a waiver. A state 
may also issue waivers for voluntary sampling programs that meet the 
requirements for CWSs to offer sampling on request to secondary schools 
during the cycle of mandatory sampling in elementary schools and child 
care facilities, and to all schools and child care facilities 
thereafter. Some mandatory and voluntary programs are or have 
previously been funded, wholly or in part, under grant programs for 
school and child care testing established by the WIIN Act. Therefore, 
waivers may also be granted if sampling is conducted in accordance with 
a grant awarded under Section 1464(d) of the SDWA. A state may not 
issue a waiver to extend past the time period covered by the mandatory 
or voluntary program.
    If a program is limited to a subset of schools and child care 
facilities defined in Sec.  141.92(a)(1) of this final rule, a state 
may issue a partial waiver. For example, if a state has a required 
program for testing lead in drinking water in both elementary and 
secondary public schools but not in other types of schools or child 
care facilities, then a CWS serving only public schools can receive a 
full waiver. If a CWS serves both public and non-public schools and 
child care facilities, then the CWS would be required to notify and 
sample at the non-public schools and child care facilities and could 
receive a partial waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is not responsible 
for sampling in public schools. A state may issue full or partial 
waivers for existing voluntary programs. For example, if a state agency 
offers testing to all public schools when requested, the state could 
grant a partial waiver such that a CWS would not be required to offer 
sampling to public secondary schools in its service area during the 
time the CWS is conducting mandatory sampling in elementary schools and 
child care facilities. When the CWS is offering sampling on request to 
all schools and child care facilities, a state could then grant a 
waiver such that the CWS would not be required to offer sampling to the 
elementary and secondary public schools in its service area for the 
duration of the voluntary program.

K. Find-and-Fix

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed a ``find-and-fix'' approach that would require water 
systems to perform additional actions when an individual tap sample 
exceeds 15 [mu]g/L. Water systems would be required to collect a 
follow-up sample for each tap sample site that exceeded 15 [mu]g/L 
within 30 days of receiving the tap sample result. The results of these 
``find-and-fix'' follow-up samples would be submitted to the state but 
would not be included in the system's 90th percentile calculation 
because multiple investigatory samples at locations with high lead 
levels would bias results. If the water system is unable to collect a 
follow-up sample at a site, the water system would have to provide 
documentation to the state for why it was unable to collect a follow-up 
sample. The water system would be required to provide the follow-up tap 
sample results to consumers within 30 days of receiving the result 
(consistent with the current rule), unless that follow-up sample also 
exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, in which case, EPA proposed the water system must 
notify the consumer within 24 hours of learning of the result. EPA 
proposed that water systems with CCT that have an individual tap sample 
that exceeds the lead action level, would be required to collect an 
additional WQP sample within five days of obtaining the lead tap sample 
result. For a CWS, this WQP sample must be collected from a site in the 
same water pressure zone, on the same size or smaller water main within 
0.5 miles of the residence with the tap sample exceeding the lead 
action level. Water systems with an existing WQP site that meets these 
criteria would be able to sample at that location.
    Any water system that is unable to regain access to the same site 
to collect a follow-up tap sample may decide to sample at another site 
within close proximity of the original site and with similar structural 
characteristics.
    EPA proposed that WQP samples be collected within 5 days, since WQP 
sites are more accessible sites and do not require coordination with 
customers. The proposal included requirements to sample WQPs as close 
to the lead tap sample site as possible so that the water quality will 
more closely match the conditions at the site that exceeded 15 
[micro]g/L. The intent of the proposed requirements for a follow-up tap 
sample collected for lead was to help the water system determine the 
potential source of lead contamination (e.g., premise plumbing, LSL) 
and the intent of the required WQP sample for water systems with CCT 
was to help determine if CCT is optimized, if additional WQP sites are 
needed, and/or if WQPs set by the state are being met. Such steps would 
help identify the source of the elevated lead to initiate appropriate 
mitigation. EPA proposed that when a water system is unable to identify 
and/or mitigate the risk, it must submit a justification to the state.
    Under the proposal, the water system would be required to determine 
if problems with the CCT are leading to elevated levels of lead in the 
tap samples and then implement a mitigation strategy if necessary. In 
addition to the follow-up tap sample and the WQP sampling, the water 
system could review distribution system operations or other factors to 
determine the cause of the elevated lead level. CCT adjustment may not 
be necessary to address every exceedance. Water systems would note the 
cause of the elevated lead level if known in their recommendation to 
the state. Mitigation strategies could include a water system-wide 
adjustment to CCT, flushing portions of the distribution system, or 
other strategies to improve water quality management to reduce lead 
levels. Under this proposal, water systems would be required to confirm 
the find-and-fix steps were completed and recommend water system 
actions, such as spot flushing, to the state for approval within six 
months of the end of the monitoring period in which the site(s) first 
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L and the state would have six months to approve the 
recommendation. EPA proposed implementation requirements for water 
systems that do not have CCT and recommends installation of it and for 
water systems with CCT that recommends re-optimization of CCT.
    A water system may identify a fix that is out of its control. For 
example, if the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet 
owned by the customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the 
faucet, the water system would provide documentation to the state under 
this proposal. All other fixes recommended by a water system would be 
implemented on a schedule specified by the state.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received a number of comments that expressed concerns that a 
single

[[Page 4236]]

elevated tap lead sample could trigger a system-wide corrosion control 
installation or re-optimization. One commenter stated that requiring 
the installation of corrosion control equipment for the entire utility 
if the cause of a sample exceedance is listed as corrosive water in one 
home, is excessive. Others commented that this provision is 
unwarranted, inappropriate, or a disproportionate response which could 
result in expensive and time-consuming distribution system evaluations. 
EPA disagrees that the find-and-fix provisions are unwarranted. These 
requirements initiate sampling and other activities that will assess 
the potential cause of the elevated levels of lead and will prompt 
additional feasible actions that will reduce the risks to persons at 
the locations where there may be elevated levels of lead. Many 
commented that corrosion control adjustments should only be made in 
response to data demonstrating that current corrosion control is 
deficient throughout the distribution system, and not in response to a 
small number of individual tap samples. Many commenters also 
interpreted the rule to require corrosion control treatment 
modifications to be the typical response to address a site that 
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. In response to these comments, the final rule 
emphasizes localized distribution system management as the likely fix. 
Mitigation strategies could include, flushing or other strategies to 
improve water quality management. However, in some instances where the 
find and fix corrosion control assessment monitoring finds that optimal 
water quality parameters are not being maintained in a portion of the 
distribution system, systems may need to implement localized or 
centralized adjustment of corrosion control treatment. A system that 
does not have existing corrosion control treatment is not required to 
conduct a corrosion control study or to install treatment as a result 
of find-and-fix unless the state determines it is necessary.
    Some commenters noted that small water systems without corrosion 
control treatment may not be able to collect water quality parameter 
samples within five days as these systems may not have ready access to 
instruments and laboratories that can perform these analyses. EPA 
agrees and is allowing small water systems without corrosion control 
treatment up to 14 days to perform this monitoring. Many commenters 
also requested clarity on the purpose and location of the samples, with 
several interpreting the proposed rule as requiring the water quality 
parameter monitoring to be conducted at the site with the lead result 
above 15 [mu]g/L. Many commenters also questioned the recommendation in 
the proposed rule to take a lead sample at a nearby site of similar 
plumbing characteristics, if the system was unable to take a follow-up 
sample at the site that was above 15 [mu]g/L. EPA agrees that sampling 
at a different site in the vicinity will not help assess the lead 
source at the site that was above15 [mu]g/L, so the final rule does not 
require systems to do this. If the water system is unable to collect a 
follow-up sample at a site, the water system must provide documentation 
to the State, explaining why it was unable to collect a follow-up 
sample. EPA also agrees that clarification is needed and has provide 
more details in the final rule of where and when follow up samples must 
be collected.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final rule, EPA is clarifying that the water quality 
parameter monitoring (Step 1) is intended to assess the corrosion 
control treatment at a nearby location in the distribution system and 
the follow-up sample at the tap sampling site above 15 [mu]g/L (Step 2) 
is intended to identify the lead source at the site.
    Step 1 of the process is the corrosion control assessment step in 
which water quality parameter sampling must be done within five days of 
the system receiving the tap sample results exceeding 15 [mu]g/L, 
except for small water systems (serving 10,000 people or fewer persons) 
without corrosion control treatment that may perform the sampling 
within 14 days. The sampling is to replicate as closely as possible the 
water quality conditions at the time when the tap exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. 
The water quality parameter sampling location is not at the tap that 
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L but must be within the same pressure zone, on the 
same size main and within a half-mile from the tap sample site. Section 
141.82(j)(1)(v) of this final rule allows systems with an existing WQP 
site that meets these criteria to sample at that site. Section 
141.82.(j)(1)(vi) requires that a system that does not have an existing 
WQP site that meets the criteria to add the additional WQP site to its 
routine monitoring. Since the monthly total coliform sampling for large 
systems vastly exceeds the water quality parameter monitoring in the 
distribution system for the lead and copper rule, EPA expects coliform 
sampling locations should be available that are in the same pressure 
zone, on the same size main, and within a half mile of the site that 
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L in many large systems. Medium-size systems may also 
find that total coliform sampling sites are available and can meet the 
criteria for sampling location when the existing water quality 
parameter sites are not located in that area of the distribution 
system. The maximum WQP sites that a system would have to sample are 
two times the standard number sites required. When a system exceeds 
this upper threshold for the number of sites, the state has discretion 
to determine if the newer sites can better assess the effectiveness of 
the corrosion control treatment and may remove existing WQP sites 
during sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT.
    Step 2 is designated as site assessment in the final rule. In Step 
2, water systems are required to conduct follow-up sampling at the tap 
sampling site above 15 [mu]g/L. This is intended to help the system 
identify the source of the lead, such as the service line, brass 
faucet, lead solder, and/or gooseneck/pigtails, if possible. The final 
rule allows tap sample collection of a different volume or using a 
different protocol (if needed to better identify the source of lead) 
than samples collected under the tap monitoring and therefore the 
sample is not included in the 90th percentile calculation. If the water 
system is unable to carry out follow-up tap sampling (i.e., the 
customer refuses a follow-up tap sample or there is a lack of 
response), the water system is responsible for documenting the reason 
for not carrying out the sampling. Water systems must note the cause of 
the elevated lead level, if known from the site assessment.
    In Step 3, water systems evaluate the results of the monitoring 
from Steps 1 and 2 to determine if the cause of the lead tap sample 
above 15 [mu]g/L is due to a source of lead at the sampling location, 
to corrosive water quality parameters or is unknown. If the water 
system determines the cause of the elevated level of lead is solely due 
to a source of lead at the sampling location, or is unknown, the system 
is not required to recommend an action to fix the cause of the elevated 
lead. If the water system finds that corrosive water quality parameters 
are the cause, the system must determine if distribution system 
management changes such as flushing to reduce water age or adjustment 
of the corrosion control treatment are necessary to restore optimal 
water quality parameters in that portion of the system. Adjustment of 
corrosion control treatment could include changing the feed rates for 
the corrosion inhibitor for a portion of the distribution system or for 
the entire

[[Page 4237]]

system to ensure that optimal water quality parameters are maintained 
for optimal corrosion control. The system must submit the 
recommendation to the state within six months after the end of the tap 
sampling period in which the site(s) exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. Systems in 
the process of optimizing or re-optimizing optimal corrosion control 
treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)-(f)) do not need to submit a recommendation 
for find and fix as they are currently adjusting corrosion control 
treatment.

L. Water System Reporting Requirements

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed changes to water system reporting requirements in 
conjunction with corresponding proposed changes to the regulatory 
requirements. These changes in reporting requirements were proposed to 
inform state decision-making and improve implementation and oversight.
    In addition to the proposed tap sampling protocol revisions, EPA 
proposed that a water system would also be required to submit for state 
approval its tap sampling protocol that are provided to residents or 
individuals who are conducting tap sampling. The sampling protocol 
would be required to be written in accordance with new rule 
requirements. EPA proposed that the state would review the protocol to 
ensure that it does not include prohibited instructions for pre-
stagnation flushing, and cleaning and/or removing the faucet aerator 
prior to sample collection and ensures the use of wide-mouth collection 
bottles. Under the proposal, water systems would also need to provide 
certification to the state that the approved sampling protocol has not 
been modified within 10 days of the end of the tap sampling monitoring 
period, and to submit an updated version if any modifications are made.
    EPA also proposed to include new reporting requirements in 
conjunction with the revisions to the LSLR requirements in the final 
rule. By the rule's compliance date, the water system would be required 
to submit to the state an inventory of service lines. The water system 
would have to submit an updated inventory annually thereafter that 
reflects LSLs replaced and lead status unknown service lines that have 
been identified in the distribution system.
    EPA also proposed that any water system with LSLs and 90th 
percentile tap sampling data that exceeds the lead trigger level would 
be required to annually certify to the state that it conducted 
notification in accordance with proposed LSL customer notification 
provisions. The notification would ensure customers were properly 
alerted about the trigger level exceedance, potential risks of lead in 
drinking water, and informed about the water system's goal based LSLR 
program.
    In addition, under the proposal, a CWS must certify that it has 
completed the notification and sampling requirements at a minimum of 20 
percent of schools and child care facilities served by the water system 
annually. The certification would include the number of schools and 
child care facilities served by the water system, the number of schools 
and child care facilities sampled in the calendar year, and the number 
of schools and child care facilities that have refused tap sampling. In 
addition, the proposal required that a CWS must certify that individual 
sampling results were shared with the respective school and child care 
facility, and with local or state health departments. If a CWS does not 
serve any school or licensed child care facilities, the water system 
would have to annually certify to the state that it made a good faith 
effort to identify schools and child care facilities and confirm that 
no schools or child care facilities are served by the water system. The 
good faith effort could include reviewing customer records and 
requesting lists of schools and child care facilities from the state or 
other licensing agency. Certification was to be sent to the state by 
July 1 of each year for the previous calendar year's activity.
    EPA also proposed reporting requirements for small CWSs using the 
point-of-use compliance flexibility option. These systems would need to 
report their sampling results and corrective actions taken if a POU 
sample exceeded 10 [mu]g occurred. In addition, they would certify the 
maintenance of the POUs if requested by the state.
    Additionally, calcium results were no longer subject to reporting 
requirements under the proposed rule, because calcium was eliminated as 
a CCT option and thus not a regulated OWQP.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received many comments on the various reporting requirements. 
Many of the commenters expressed concern about the increased burden the 
proposed reporting requirements could impose and several offered 
suggestions such as an online tool, using existing opportunities such 
as sanitary surveys for reporting, or allowing the water system to 
self-certify instead of certifying that certain requirements are 
complete to the state. Commenters expressed that these burdens range 
from administrative to financial, and that small systems are likely to 
be impacted most. Some commenters argue against some of the reporting 
requirements to certify or re-submit material annually, stating that 
systems could track this on their own but provide to the state upon 
request. Many commenters were worried there would not be an adequate 
tracking tool or data system such as EPA's Safe Drinking Water 
Information System (SDWIS) to manage the reporting requirements of the 
proposal. Some commenters state that they would need to create tracking 
systems of their own and would need additional staff and data 
management systems. EPA agrees that new reporting requirements create a 
burden for water systems and states and has made changes to streamline 
reporting in the final rule as described below. EPA intends to support 
the data management needs of primacy agencies for the LCRR through the 
SDWIS Modernization development project, and to have a product 
available for state use by the compliance date of the LCRR. EPA will 
work closely with state program and information technology staff on 
LCRR database needs and on overall SDWIS modernization.
    Regarding LSL reporting requirements, some commenters asked that 
reporting of updates to the service line inventory cease after all LSLs 
have been identified in the inventory as none would be installed in the 
future. EPA does not agree since updated inventories also reflect LSLR 
which include customer initiated and required LSLR following a trigger 
level and action level exceedance. The state needs to have this 
information to track compliance of LSLR requirements. Several 
commenters stated it is redundant to require water systems to submit a 
service line inventory and replacement plans after an action level 
exceedance because water systems are already submitting these. However, 
other commenters stated that LSLR plans should be submitted to the 
state regardless of the 90th percentile results. Based on commenter 
input, EPA has modified the requirement in the final rule; water 
systems will not be required to submit the inventory and replacement 
plans after an action level exceedance since they are submitted at the 
rule compliance date and updated inventories are submitted according to 
their tap sampling monitoring frequency (i.e., annually or triennially) 
thereafter, thereby reducing the frequency of reporting inventory 
updates. In addition, there are off-ramps for

[[Page 4238]]

submitting inventory updates for those systems that can verify they no 
longer have LSLs, galvanized lines requiring replacement, or lead 
status unknown service lines in their distribution.
    Some commenters requested that the final rule retain the reporting 
deadlines in the current rule. For instance, reporting lead and copper 
results within 10 days of the end of the tap sampling monitoring period 
instead of before the tap sampling period ends (for systems where the 
state calculates the 90th percentile) which was proposed. Many 
commenters had concern about the school and child care sampling and 
public education reporting requirements. Several commenters asked why 
after sampling results are reported, they also must be certified that 
they completed this requirement to the state. Several commenters offer 
suggestions on how to reduce the burden of these requirements or 
streamline them, such as submitting an annual report, or maintaining 
the records on hand and submitting upon request from the state. Many 
commenters had concerns about the number of attempts and documenting 
refusals when a facility simply does not respond. EPA has made changes 
to Sec.  141.92(a)(3) regarding schools and child care facility 
refusals and nonresponse and the reporting Sec.  141.90(i) so that CWSs 
certify once per year that they have met the schools and child care 
facility requirements for the previous calendar year. In addition, the 
annual certification is due July 1 of each year consistent with the 
timing for annual CCR certification.
    Regarding the proposed reporting requirements for the ``find-and-
fix'' provision, several commenters state it is impractical to maintain 
lists and tracking of all the ``fixes'' done by the water system and 
that this gives rise to privacy concerns for homeowners. Some 
commenters suggested a requirement for water systems to include ``find-
and-fix'' activities in an annual or monthly report. Several commenters 
asked for guidance such as a template or checklist for the find-and-fix 
provisions states review. EPA evaluated public comments and agrees that 
clear steps, be included in the find-and-fix requirements and has made 
modifications to the final rule accordingly. This should also 
streamline find-and-fix reporting.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    Many of the reporting requirements from the proposal have been 
retained in the final rule. However, EPA has taken into consideration 
all of the comments and has modified several sections to reduce burden, 
enhance efficiency of reporting and/or to include new necessary 
provisions. Many changes were made for clarification and organizational 
purposes in Sec.  141.90, while others were made to reflect changes 
made to corresponding sections of the rule proposal.
    The lead service line reporting requirements have been updated to 
allow systems to discontinue inventory updates when they no longer have 
service lines that need to be replaced or materials verified (i.e., no 
remaining lead status unknown). In addition, the inventory requirements 
are now linked to the tap sampling monitoring schedules in Sec.  
141.86(d) to streamline dates for reporting. Also, systems must report 
annually that they completed any customer-initiated LSLR, in addition 
to requesting an extension to complete a customer-initiated LSLR.
    The final rule clarifies that all water systems must report to the 
state an addition of a new source or long-term treatment change prior 
to adding the source or modifying treatment. In addition, this final 
rule includes a requirement for water systems to submit a tap site 
sample plan prior to the compliance date of the rule with tap sampling 
sites that meet the new site selection tiering criteria based on their 
LSL inventory to ensure states can verify the tap sampling sites comply 
with the requirements in the final rule and can track changes in the 
tap sampling pool.
    Regarding reporting for small system compliance flexibility 
options, an additional reporting requirement was added for systems who 
have opted to remove lead-bearing plumbing from their distribution 
system; they must certify within one year that the material has been 
eliminated. Under reporting for schools and childcare facilities, EPA 
has made several changes, including reporting requirements for 
elementary and childcare facilities in the first five years of 
monitoring and reporting requirements for school and childcare sampling 
that is performed on-request.

IV. Other Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

A. Consumer Confidence Report

    In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among 
other things, this amendment added a provision requiring that all CWSs 
deliver to their customers a water quality report annually called a 
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). CCRs summarize information water 
systems collect to comply with regulations. The CCR includes 
information on source water, the levels of any detected contaminants, 
compliance with drinking water rules (including monitoring 
requirements), and some educational language, including a mandatory 
health effects statement regarding lead.
1. Proposed Revisions
    As recommended by the NDWAC (see section VII.L.2 of this preamble), 
EPA consulted with risk communication experts to propose revised 
mandatory health effects language for the CCR. In addition, EPA 
proposed to use consistent mandatory lead health effects language in 
PE, CCR, and Public Notification materials. To improve clarity, EPA 
proposed to require CWSs to include a revised mandatory health effects 
statement that would inform consumers that lead is harmful for all age 
groups and to include a mandatory statement about LSLs (e.g., their 
presence and how to replace them) for water systems with LSLs. The 
proposed statement is below.
    Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age 
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could have 
decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning and 
behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases 
prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become pregnant has 
similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is released during 
pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water 
containing lead have increased risks of heart disease, high blood 
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems. To increase transparency 
and improve public access to information, EPA also proposed to require 
CWSs to report the range of lead tap sample results in addition to the 
currently required 90th percentile and the number of samples that are 
greater than the lead action level for each monitoring period. 
Reporting the range of tap sample lead levels would allow consumers to 
understand how high tap sample levels were at individual sites.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Several commenters suggested revisions to the informational health 
effects statement on lead in drinking water that would be required in 
the CCR to make the language more readable and useful to consumers. 
Some commenters recommended requiring the CCR to include information on 
LSLs and the LSL inventory, including the number of LSLs, the number of 
lead status unknown service lines, the total number of service lines in 
the water system, and a statement that a service line inventory has 
been prepared and is available for

[[Page 4239]]

review. They also recommended requiring the CCR to notify consumers 
that complete lead tap sampling data are available for review and how 
to access the data. EPA agrees this is important information to 
consumers and has incorporated these recommendations in the final rule 
requirements for the CCR.
    A few commenters expressed concern that the CCR is no longer an 
effective method to communicate drinking water contaminant related 
issues and suggested use of other platforms such as social media. EPA 
supports using diverse methods of communication to reach consumers and 
provided recent guidance on electronic delivery of CCRs. In the final 
rule, EPA has increased the number and forms of public education 
materials. EPA has also worked to improve risk communication by 
consulting with risk communication experts, adopting clearer and more 
concise health effects language, and keeping the health effects 
language consistent across the CCR, 24 hour public notice for a lead 
action level exceedance, and all public education materials. In 
addition, the Agency has recommended that systems use social media to 
provide public education and outreach, for example to convey 
information about their LSLR program.
3. Final Revisions
    EPA is finalizing the requirement for reporting tap sampling 
results in the CCR as proposed, while clarifying the meaning of ``round 
of sampling'' for systems on six-month monitoring given the new 
sampling requirements in the LCRR. The final rule requires water 
systems to include in the CCR the 90th percentile concentration of the 
most recent round(s) of sampling, the number of sampling sites 
exceeding the action level, and the range of tap sampling results for 
lead and copper. These results should be provided for each sampling 
event completed in the reporting period. This means that water systems 
on six-month monitoring will be required to include both rounds of lead 
and copper results. In response to comments, EPA added a new provision 
requiring water systems to include information in the CCR on how to 
access the service line inventory. EPA also added a new provision 
requiring water systems to include information in the CCR on how to 
access the results of all tap sampling. EPA incorporated some of the 
commenters' suggested revisions to increase the clarity and accuracy of 
both the lead informational statement and mandatory health effects 
statement required in the CCR. The mandatory health effects statement 
for the final rule reads as follows and is also required in the public 
notice of an action level exceedance and in public education materials:
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects 
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and 
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior 
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The 
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy 
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can 
have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 
nervous system problems.

B. Public Notification

    The current Public Notification Rule (PN) is part of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act 1996 Right To Know provisions. The rule is designed 
to ensure that consumers will know if there is a problem with their 
drinking water. These notices alert consumers if there is risk to 
public health. They also notify customers: If the water does not meet 
drinking water standards; if the water system fails to test its water; 
if the system has been granted a variance (use of less costly 
technology); or if the system has been granted an exemption (more time 
to comply with a new regulation). In 2000, EPA revised the existing 
Public Notification Rule. (40 CFR part 141, subpart Q) The revisions 
matched the form, manner, and timing of the notices to the relative 
risk to human health. The revised rule makes notification easier and 
more effective for both water systems and their customers.
    In 2016, section 2106 of the WIIN Act amended section 1414(c)(1) of 
the SDWA to require water systems to provide to persons served by the 
system ``[n]otice that the public water system exceeded the lead action 
level under section 141.80(c) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
(or a prescribed level of lead that the Administrator establishes for 
public education or notification in a successor regulation promulgated 
pursuant to section 1412).'' The WIIN Act also amended section 
1414(c)(2) of the SDWA to require EPA's public notification regulations 
to require systems to notify the public no later than 24 hours after a 
system learns of an exceedance of the lead action level if it '' ``has 
the potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a 
result of short-term exposure'' just as section 1414(c)(2) has applied 
to violations of drinking water standards that have the potential to 
have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term 
exposure. These situations are currently categorized as ``Tier 1'' 
under the current public notification rules (see Table 2 to Sec.  
141.201). Tier 1 notices must ``be distributed as soon as practicable, 
but not later than 24 hours, after the public water system learns of 
the violation or exceedance'' pursuant to section 1414(c)(2)(C)(i) of 
the SDWA. The WIIN Act also amended section 1414(c)(2)(iii) to require 
that such notifications be provided to the Administrator in addition to 
the head of the state agency that has primary enforcement 
responsibility under section 1413 of the SDWA, as applicable, as soon 
as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water 
system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' In a State with 
primacy, EPA interprets the notice to the Administrator ``as 
applicable'' only when there is an action level exceedance; it would 
not apply to other Tier 1 situations where a State has primacy. This 
notice allows EPA to identify whether it must provide notice as 
required in section 1414(c)(2)(D), which was added to Section 
1414(c)(2) as part of the WIIN Act. It provides that if a State with 
primary enforcement responsibility or the water system has not issued a 
notice for an exceedance of a lead action level that has the potential 
to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-
term exposure, the Administrator is required to issue the required 
notice. Because EPA does not have any obligation to issue a Tier 1 
notice for violations of drinking water standards in states with 
primacy, there is no need for EPA to be notified of those Tier 1 
situations.
1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed to incorporate these requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs 
with a lead ALE as part of proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper 
Rule (LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule incorporated the amendments 
to section 1414 of the SDWA in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q-Public 
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (and as necessary into any 
provisions cross-referenced therein), and added exceedances of the lead 
AL under Sec.  141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 violations subject to 
the new 24-hour notice requirements discussed above. EPA proposed to 
categorize a lead AL exceedance as Tier 1 based on the conclusion that 
such exceedances ``have the potential to have serious adverse health 
effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure.'' Since 
exposure to lead can result in serious health effects as a result of 
short-term exposure in some circumstances, EPA proposed that any lead 
AL exceedance result in Tier 1 public notification. In

[[Page 4240]]

addition, EPA proposed to update the mandatory health effects statement 
for PN to be consistent with the proposed CCR revisions.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received many comments expressing concerns about the ability of 
water systems to meet the proposed 24-hour distribution requirement for 
notification of an AL exceedance. Many commenters requested that water 
systems be allowed at least two business days to deliver the public 
notice. EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns; however, the Agency 
disagrees that systems would not be able to provide the notice within 
24 hours. For several years, water systems have been required to 
provide Tier 1 notification for certain violations of drinking water 
standards within 24 hours of learning of the violation. Systems can 
prepare to provide the notice by creating a notification template in 
advance and may choose from several options for distribution of a 
public notification that make it feasible to provide the notice to all 
persons served by the system within 24 hours of learning of the 
exceedance. These options are specified in Sec.  141.202(c) of the rule 
and include broadcast media such as radio and television, posting the 
notice in conspicuous locations throughout the area served by the water 
system, hand delivery of the notice to persons served by the water 
system, or another delivery method approved by the primacy agency.
    Many commenters questioned the categorization of a lead AL 
exceedance as a Tier 1 violation, particularly given it is not a 
health-based value. Some suggested that it be categorized as a Tier 2 
violation. However, as described above, Section 2106 of the 2016 WIIN 
Act amended section 1414(c)(2) of the SDWA to require EPA's public 
notification regulations to require systems to notify the public no 
later than 24 hours after a system learns of an exceedance of the lead 
AL if it ``has the potential to have serious adverse effects on human 
health as a result of the customer did not wish to replace the faucet 
exposure.'' The scientific evidence demonstrates that exposure to lead 
is associated with increased risk of serious adverse health effects. 
The strongest evidence is for cognitive effects from prenatal and 
childhood exposure. Also of concern are studies showing increases in 
risk of cancer and cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, immunological, 
and neurological effects in adults (USEPA, 2013; National Toxicology 
Program, 2012; USEPA, 2004a). Given there is no safe level of lead, and 
there are life stages (e.g., early childhood) where any lead exposure 
is especially problematic, lead AL exceedances could have serious 
adverse health consequences. Accordingly, to avoid these impacts, 
consumers must be notified as soon as possible as required under the 
SDWA.
3. Final Revisions
    The final rule adds exceedances of the lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L to 
the list of Tier 1 violations subject to the new 24-hour distribution 
requirement for notification of an AL exceedance. This is based on the 
conclusion that such exceedances have the potential to have serious 
adverse health effects on human health as a result of short-term 
exposure. Therefore, the final rule requires CWSs and NTNCWSs with a 
lead ALE to provide public notice to persons served by the system 
within 24 hours of learning of the ALE; that is, within 24 hours of the 
system receiving and calculating the 90th percentile value. A copy of 
the notice must also be sent to both the primacy agency and the 
Administrator in accordance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
141.4(c)(2)(iii) and 141.31(d). EPA has also updated the mandatory 
health effects language required in the public notice of a lead ALE as 
well as the CCR and public education materials to enhance clarity and 
accuracy. The mandatory health effects language in the final rule reads 
as follows:
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects 
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and 
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior 
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The 
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy 
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can 
have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 
nervous system problems.

C. Definitions

1. Proposed Revisions
    Under the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, EPA proposed new 
and revised definitions under Sec.  141.2. Definitions for ``aerator,'' 
``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,'' and ``tap sampling 
protocol,'' were added to correspond with proposed rule changes 
regarding tap sampling methods. In addition, EPA proposed changes to 
population size criteria for small and medium-size water systems to 
reflect the 1996 changes to SDWA for small-system flexibility, where 
small water systems serve 10,000 or fewer customers.
    Definitions were added in the proposal to ensure readers understood 
the criteria for identifying a ``child care facility,'' and a 
``school,'' in relation to new sampling requirements for these 
facilities. In addition, definitions for ``trigger level,'' ``find-and-
fix,'' ``customer,'' and ``consumer'' were included in the proposal 
because ``trigger level'' and ``find-and-fix'' were new requirements 
under the proposal, while ``customer'' and ``consumer'' referred to 
defined groups impacted by aspects of the proposal such as public 
education under Sec.  141.85. Further, in the proposal, terms related 
to LSLs, such as ``galvanized service line,'' ``trenching,'' 
``potholing,'' ``hydrovacing,'' and ``gooseneck, pigtail, or 
connector,'' were defined because these are processes or materials 
associated with the LSLR requirements of the proposal. EPA also 
modified the definition of a ``lead service line'' to better fit the 
rule requirements in the proposal. These changes included removing lead 
goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors from the definition and specifying 
when galvanized lines are considered an LSL for purposes of conducting 
LSLR. EPA made these modifications to align with rule requirements 
which prioritize the identification, replacement, and tap sampling at 
sites with LSLs, as they are the primary source of lead in drinking 
water when present. The definition of a lead service line does not 
include lead goosenecks, pigtails or connectors to avoid water systems 
replacing only lead connectors to meet goal rate and mandatory LSLR 
requirements.
    ``Sampling period'' was also added in reference to the months of 
the year that sampling is permitted under Sec.  141.86, while 
``monitoring period'' was added and defined, to refer to the tap 
sampling frequency the water system is required to conduct. To ensure 
appropriate implementation of rule requirements, definitions for 
``pitcher filter'' and ``point-of-use'' (POU) device were also included 
in the proposal. Definitions for a ``method detection limit'' (MDL) and 
a ``practical quantitation level'' (PQL) were provided in the proposed 
rule to better explain analytical methods in the current and proposed 
rules.
2. Public Comment and EPA Response
    Many commenters were concerned about the new definitions of 
``consumer'' and ``customer'' and explained that they were misused or 
used interchangeably throughout the rule. For instance, in the 
proposal, ``customer'' was defined as paying users

[[Page 4241]]

of the water system, whereas ``consumer'' included all users, including 
those paying the water bill. Commenters noted there was confusion about 
their use for LSL notification and public education purposes and 
interpreted a requirement to notify ``consumers'' to mean any person 
who may have used the water and questioned how a water system can 
notify transient populations. Commenters also noted that owners of the 
service line were not explicitly included in either definition and that 
they are an important group that should be contacted under certain 
circumstances. EPA agrees that the proposed definitions may be 
confusing and has not included them in Sec.  141.2 of the final rule. 
EPA instead modified the regulatory text to specify the group of people 
affected in each section of the rule in lieu of using ``consumer'' and 
``customer'' (e.g., ``persons served water by a lead service line'') 
throughout this final rule.
    Many comments suggested modifications to the proposed definitions 
for ``pitcher filter'' such as specifying if EPA intends only the 
filter or the pitcher and the filter. Other suggestions included 
requiring pitcher filters to meet a standard by a certifying body that 
the device reduces lead. EPA agreed with some of the commenters' 
concerns and has included in the definition that a pitcher filter must 
be certified by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
certifying body to reduce lead.
    Many commenters requested clarification on definitions for ``child 
care facility'' and ``school''. Several were opposed to including 
``licensed'' with respect to child care facilities while others stated 
they should be limited to state-licensed child care sites. Some 
commenters asked EPA to remove ``or other location'' from the 
definition of ``school''. Some commenters asked if higher education 
centers like universities and technical schools are included in the 
school definition and therefore in school sampling requirements. EPA 
modified the proposed school testing requirements to distinguish 
testing required at child care facilities and elementary schools versus 
those for secondary schools. In response to this, EPA has added new 
definitions for ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'', so that 
it is clear which facilities are referred to in the requirements under 
Sec.  141.92. These definitions are consistent with the National Center 
for Education Statistics Glossary (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary.asp).
    After evaluations of public comments, EPA agrees and has modified 
the definitions of ``school'' and ``child care facility'' in the final 
rule to reduce any ambiguity as it was not EPA's intent to include 
locations such as museums or athletic facilities in the definition of 
``school'' while EPA has maintained that licensed facilities are 
included in the ``child care facility'' definition. Commenters asked 
for more detail on ``wide-mouth bottle'' and EPA has included a 
specific diameter to define a wide mouth bottle in the final rule.
    Many commenters disagreed with how EPA defined ``sampling period'' 
and ``monitoring period'' stating that EPA did not use these terms 
consistently throughout the rule. They also note these definitions may 
conflict with other NPDWRs. In the final LCRR, EPA has uniquely defined 
these in regard to tap sampling for purposes of the LCRR. The LCRR 
includes definitions for ``tap sampling monitoring period'' to describe 
frequency and ``tap sampling period'' to describe the time period in 
which samples must be collected.
    Some of the comments requested clarification on ``unknown'' service 
lines, which prompted EPA to create new definitions such as ``lead 
status unknown service line'' to clearly delineate a category for 
unknown service lines. EPA agrees that clarification is needed and has 
included descriptions both in the LSL inventory requirements and as a 
new definition in Sec.  141.2. EPA received significant comment on the 
definition of an LSL, specifically, whether it is appropriate for a 
galvanized service line to be considered an LSL if it ever was or is 
currently downstream of an LSL. Many of these commenters expressed that 
water systems will not have records to demonstrate if a galvanized 
service line ``ever was or is currently downstream of any lead service 
line or service line of unknown material,'' some stating that 
galvanized service lines should be included regardless of what is 
upstream. Other commenters stated that galvanized service lines should 
not be included to reduce burden to the water system. As proposed, most 
galvanized service lines would be deemed an LSL because of lack of 
information about upstream LSLs. In addition, commenters questioned why 
the proposal requires replacement of galvanized lines, but they cannot 
be used for tap sampling sites. EPA determined that a galvanized 
service line that is or ever was downstream from an LSL requires 
replacement but is not included in the LSL definition to reduce 
confusion and because it has its own definition. In addition, EPA 
included sites served by a galvanized requiring replacement in the tap 
sample site selection criteria (tier 3) in the final rule. This also 
helps clarify that while galvanized service lines that were or are 
upstream of an LSL require replacement, they are not appropriate sites 
for tap sampling.
    Many commenters were opposed to the exclusion of lead connectors 
(goosenecks, pigtails, etc.) from the proposed definition of an LSL, 
some stating this was violating SDWA's anti-backsliding provision under 
Section 1412(b)(9). Some commenters reference the SDWA definition of an 
LSL as well as an LSL as defined by the California and Michigan 
regulations. Commenters provided input about what should and should not 
be included in the LSL definition and noted where there were 
contradictions in the rule between tap sampling, LSL inventory and 
replacement requirements regarding an LSL. EPA agreed that clarity was 
needed in the definition of an LSL due to its importance related to LSL 
inventory, LSLR outreach, and selection of tap sample sites and has 
clarified this in section III.C of this preamble. EPA has modified the 
definition to simplify it and to specify that it is for the purposes of 
the LCRR only, to prioritize tap sampling sites and replacement of full 
LSLs. EPA excluded the lead connector portion of the LSL definition and 
has clarified the lead connector definition itself. For purposes of 
this rule, lead connectors are not a part of the service line and are 
required to be replaced only when identified while conducting other 
maintenance and replacement activities. EPA has kept these connectors 
out of the LSL definition to ensure water systems are conducting LSLR 
on service lines and not counting replacement of connectors as a 
replaced LSL. A commenter noted that the definition for ``service line 
sample'' should be removed since the LCRR no longer allows test out of 
LSLs.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    As stated above, EPA has made many changes to the definitions in 
the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, including modifying the 
proposed definitions, removing some additional terms and defining other 
additional terms. Definitions that were modified in the final rule 
include: ``action level,'' ``find-and-fix,'' ``first draw sample,'' 
``galvanized service line,'' ``gooseneck, pigtail or connector,'' 
``lead service line,'' ``pitcher filter,'' ``point-of-use device,'' 
``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``school,'' ``child care facility,'' ``tap 
sampling protocol,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,'' and changing

[[Page 4242]]

``trigger level'' to ``lead trigger level.'' EPA revised definitions 
for ``monitoring period'' and ``sampling period'' to ``tap sampling 
monitoring period'' and ``tap sampling period.''
    In addition, EPA has added the following definitions to improve the 
final rule: ``Full lead service line replacement,'' ``lead status 
unknown service line,'' ``partial lead service line replacement,'' 
``elementary school,'' ``secondary school'' and ``system without 
corrosion control treatment.'' These were added to ensure consistent 
implementation for LCRR requirements for preparing a service line 
inventory, LSLR, carrying out school sampling and conducting CCT 
studies. In addition, ``hydrovacing,'' ``trenching,'' and ``potholing'' 
have been removed because of their minimal use in the rule.
    EPA has also no longer included the terms ``consumer'' and 
``customer'' in the definitions and has instead been more specific in 
each part of the rule about the impacted person or group. EPA removed 
the definition for ``service line sample'' because test outs of LSLs 
are not allowed in the LCRR. EPA has maintained the current definitions 
of ``small water system'' and ``medium-size water system'' in Sec.  
141.2 consistent with the proposal.

V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement

A. What are the state recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed requirements that would improve oversight and 
enforcement of the LCRR by the state. The proposal was consistent with 
a recommendation from GAO which recommended in its report ``Drinking 
Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's 
Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule,'' that EPA require states to 
report available information about lead pipes to EPA's SDWIS (or a 
future redesign) database and should require states to report all 90th 
percentile sample results for small water systems (GAO-17-424, 2017).
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Commenters noted the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of the proposed rule. The many proposed transactions 
between water systems and states, and between states and the EPA, would 
cause significant costs for primacy agencies. Many commenters noted 
that data management is critical for the final LCRR and inquired about 
the development of SDWIS Prime.
    EPA has accounted for the costs to states to implement and enforce 
the rule requirements in the proposed and final rules. While the costs 
to states have increased in the final rule relative to the previous 
rule, public health is better protected under the revised LCRR. The 
increased costs result from several improvements in the final rule that 
will benefit public health, such as additional LSLR and better 
implementation of CCT. These benefits are monetized and presented in 
the final rule's economic analysis.
    EPA is intending to provide states with LCRR data management 
capabilities through the SDWIS Modernization system development 
project. EPA worked with states to form the SDWIS Modernization Board 
in January 2020. The Board is not an advisory group reaching consensus, 
the Board provided input into the third party-led SDWIS Modernization 
Alternatives Analysis through the end of June 2020. State members of 
the Board are expected to convey option recommendations to EPA by the 
end of July 2020, with EPA expected to select an option in August 2020.
    Following option selection, EPA is intending to engage with states 
in the development and testing of the SDWIS Modernization data system 
through Spring 2022. EPA will then provide assistance to states in 
their adoption of the new system. The system will include functions for 
ensuring data quality as well as for primacy agencies to be able to 
connect the system to locally run applications, such as the Drinking 
Water Application running on a state server.
    EPA is intending to provide LCRR Data Entry Instructions (DEIs) by 
Fall 2021. The LCRR DEIs will provide detailed guidance to Primacy 
Agencies regarding the LCRR monitoring, record keeping, and reporting 
requirements.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA is requiring that the state retain all record keeping 
requirements from the current LCR. In addition, EPA is requiring the 
state to maintain a record of all public water system's LSL inventories 
and annual updates. This information is necessary for the state to 
calculate goal and mandatory LSLR rates, as well as verify correct tap 
sample site selection tiering. EPA is also requiring the state to 
maintain a record of the state's decision and approval related to water 
system changes to source water or treatment. The state is required to 
maintain records regarding the required steps water systems must 
complete as required under the final ``find-and-fix'' requirements.
    Finally, the state is also required to maintain records of the 
small system flexibility compliance alternative the state approved for 
non-transient non-CWS s and small CWSs. This information allows the 
state to track water systems' progress with corrosion control 
treatment, complete LSLR, use of POU devices, and replacement of leaded 
premise plumbing, as appropriate.
    EPA is requiring states to report additional data elements to EPA. 
The state is required to report the OCCT status of all water systems, 
including the parameters that define the optimization (for example, 
orthophosphate residual or target pH and alkalinity values). EPA is 
requiring that all 90th percentile value be reported for all size 
systems. EPA has found that many states already voluntarily report 90th 
percentile lead values for all systems to the SDWIS.
    EPA also requires that states report the current number of LSLs at 
every water system. National information about the numbers of LSLs in 
public water systems will support EPA oversight of the LCR as well as 
EPA and other Federal agencies in targeting programs to reduce lead 
exposure, such programs established by the WIIN Act (WIINA, 2016) and 
America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA, 2018).

B. What are the special primacy requirements?

1. Proposed Revisions
    The proposed revision added new primacy requirements to match new 
requirements in other rule sections, such as state designation of a 
goal LSLR rate. The proposed rule also included a provision that would 
give EPA the authority to set an alternative goal rate where it 
determines an alternative rate is feasible. The new school sampling 
requirement for water systems resulted in a proposed state requirement 
to define a school or child care facility and determine if any existing 
testing program is at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. 
States must also verify compliance with find-and-fix requirements.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Many commenters noted the increased data management demands of the 
proposed rule. Some commenters noted that the state flexibilities could 
create additional work for the states. For example, some commenters 
preferred EPA to set a national goal-based LSLR rates instead of the 
state. Some commenters disagreed that EPA should have authority to 
supersede a state-

[[Page 4243]]

approved LSLR goal rate. See section III.D.2. of this document for 
EPA's response to these comments. States had many other comments about 
the level of burden on the states required by the rule. EPA 
acknowledges the increased burden for states but notes that the 
additional requirements are feasible and will improve implementation 
and enforcement of the LCRR. EPA received several comments requesting 
Agency guidance on implementation of the revised rule. EPA understands 
this is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in 
protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation 
guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to 
support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide 
training and other supporting materials that will help states and water 
systems implement the revised rule, reduce state transaction costs, and 
promote greater national consistency.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final rule EPA clarified that because water systems that 
serve 10,000 or fewer people do not need to recommend a goal LSLR rate 
to the state, states do not need to approve a goal LSLR rate for these 
systems. Water systems below this threshold will follow the small 
system flexibility and will not engage in a goal-based LSLR program 
after exceeding the lead trigger level. In response to comments, the 
final rule does not include provisions for the Regional Administrator 
to establish an LSLR goal rate that would supersede a state decision. 
EPA also included a special primacy requirement that states must 
establish a higher mandatory LSLR rate where feasible for all water 
systems.

VI. Economic Analysis

    This section summarizes the final rule Economic Analysis (EA) 
supporting document (USEPA, 2020a) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) 
revisions, which is prepared in compliance with section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA and under Executive Order 12866. Section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA states that when proposing a national primary 
drinking water regulation (NPDWR) that includes a treatment technique, 
the Administrator shall publish and seek comment on an analysis of the 
health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to be experienced as 
the result of compliance with the treatment technique and the 
alternative treatment techniques that are being considered, taking into 
account, as appropriate, the factors required under section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i). EPA is also using the health risk reduction cost 
analysis (HRRCA) in the development of this final rule for purposes of 
Section 1412(b)(4), (5), and (7) of the SDWA (i.e., to determine the 
feasibility of the treatment techniques). Clause (i) lists the 
following analytical elements: (1) Quantifiable and non-quantifiable 
health risk reduction benefits; (2) quantifiable and non-quantifiable 
health risk reduction benefits from reductions in co-occurring 
contaminants; (3) quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs that are 
likely to occur solely as a result of compliance; (4) incremental costs 
and benefits of rule options; (5) effects of the contaminant on the 
general population and sensitive subpopulations including infants, 
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with a history 
of serious illness; (6) any increased health risks that may occur as a 
result of compliance, including risks associated with co-occurring 
contaminants; and (7) other relevant factors such as uncertainties in 
the analysis and factors with respect to the degree and nature of the 
risk.
    Costs discussed in this section are presented as annualized present 
values in 2016 dollars, which is consistent with the timeframe for 
EPA's water system characteristic data used in the analysis. EPA 
estimated the year or years in which all costs occur over a 35-year 
time period. Thirty-five years was selected to capture costs associated 
with rule implementation as well as water systems installing and 
operating corrosion control treatment and implementing LSLR programs. 
EPA then determined the present value of these costs using discount 
rates of 3 and 7 percent. Benefits, in terms of health risk reduction 
from the LCR revisions, result from the activities performed by water 
systems, which are expected to reduce risk to the public from exposure 
to lead and copper in drinking water at the tap. EPA quantifies and 
monetizes some of this health risk reduction from lead exposure by 
estimating the decrease in lead exposure accruing to children from 0 to 
7 years of age from the installation and re-optimization of corrosion 
control treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the implementation of point-of-use 
(POU) filter devices and by quantifying and monetizing the resulting 
change in intelligence quotient (IQ) in children.

A. Public Comments on the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule and 
EPA Response

    EPA published an economic analysis for the proposed rule in 
accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) (USEPA, 2019f and 2019g). 
The proposed rule EA and the appendices to the proposed rule EA can be 
found in the rule docket, under the docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OW-2017-
0300-0003 and EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0002 respectively). EPA solicited 
comment on all aspects of the economic analysis for the proposed LCRR. 
In particular, the Agency requested comment on the five drivers of 
costs identified in its economic analysis: (1) The existing number of 
LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the AL or TL under the 
previous rule and proposed rule monitoring requirements; (3) the cost 
of installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment; (4) the 
effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead concentrations; and (5) the 
cost of LSLR. EPA received a number of comments and data submissions 
associated with these five topics that the Agency has considered to 
reevaluate and refine the cost estimates. As a result of the new 
information submitted by commenters and additional data obtained by EPA 
in response to comments, the Agency has improved the estimates of costs 
and benefits for the final rule.
    EPA received a number of comments regarding the estimates of the 
existing number of LSLs in PWSs. Commenters provided state level 
summary data on the specific systems with LSLs from Indiana, Wisconsin, 
and Nevada. EPA has evaluated these comments and is using this data in 
combination with new data collected from states that have LSL inventory 
requirements (e.g., Michigan, Maryland, Ohio), to update the dataset of 
systems with LSLs. With this updated data, EPA has significantly 
expanded, from proposal, the number of systems with known LSL status to 
determine the baseline proportion of systems below or equal to the TL, 
above the TL and below or equal to the AL, and above the AL for both 
the low and high cost scenarios evaluated in the economic analysis. The 
impact of the expanded dataset of systems with known LSL status was 
found to have a small impact on the low and high scenario baseline 
proportion of systems that exceeded the TL or AL between the proposed 
and final rule analyses.
    EPA also received comments on the estimates of the number of water 
systems that would exceed the TL and AL in the economic analysis for 
the proposal. EPA received information from the states of Wisconsin, 
Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, North Dakota and Nevada about the expected 
number of water systems that would exceed the TL and AL in those states 
given a first liter sampling protocol. EPA revised the estimates of 
systems without LSLs that would exceed the TL and AL based upon first 
liter sample results and used data provided by these states to assess

[[Page 4244]]

the representativeness of the revised estimates for the final economic 
analysis. After considering the comments on the alternative fifth liter 
sampling technique for systems with LSLs described in section III.G of 
this document, EPA prepared revised estimates of the number of systems 
with LSLs that would exceed the AL and TL as a result of the fifth 
liter sample requirements in the final rule. EPA used the revised data 
set of systems with known LSLs to estimate the number of systems that 
will be required to collect fifth liter samples. In addition, EPA 
obtained more detailed data from the State of Michigan. The Michigan 
data represents 2019 lead tap sample compliance data that includes both 
first and fifth liter lead tap samples from homes with LSLs. EPA 
estimated the number of systems that would exceed the TL and the AL 
using the ratio between the first liter and fifth liter 90th percentile 
values from 133 Michigan systems. This new data from Michigan, along 
with the expansion of the number of systems with known LSL status, 
resulted in a larger proportion of systems with ALEs under the low cost 
scenario and a smaller proportion of systems with ALEs in the high cost 
scenario in the final rule analysis than was estimated in the proposed 
rule. This would tend to increase the estimated cost of the final rule 
low cost scenario compared to the proposal analysis and lower the cost 
for the final rule high cost scenario compared to the proposal. See 
Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of the final rule EA for additional detail 
(USEPA, 2020a).
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule's cost estimates for the 
installation and operation and maintenance of CCT. The Nevada Division 
of Environmental Protection provided cost estimates representing four 
of the state's water systems. Based on the reported information EPA was 
able to compare the capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs 
of one of the small groundwater systems that had installed a zinc 
orthophosphate feed system with the EPA Work Breakdown Structure Zinc 
Orthophosphate Model and the cost curves used in the LCR analysis. 
Capital cost of the Nevada system fell close to the mid-point of the 
range between the low and high estimated cost curves used in the 
proposed regulatory analysis, and the system's O&M costs fell well 
below the costs estimated by the EPA cost curves. After considering the 
comments, the Agency has determined that cost estimates for installing 
and operating CCT in the proposal are accurate for purposes of a 
national cost estimate and is retaining the methodology for the final 
rule.
    In response to EPA's request for comment about the effectiveness of 
CCT, the Agency received general comments that CCT is very effective 
with caveats such as: The water in the distribution system must be used 
on a regular basis, and sampling should be required to check on proper 
operation of CCT. The Agency agrees with commenters that CCT can be 
effective in reducing drinking water lead levels if carefully operated 
and monitored. The Agency did not receive any comments on how to 
improve the estimates of the effectiveness of CCT from the proposed 
economic analysis and is therefore maintaining the same assumptions 
used in the proposed rule analysis.
    EPA received comments on the cost of LSLR, primarily dealing with 
the need for more current data. EPA agrees with the commenters that new 
information has become available since the time of proposal that would 
provide better estimates of LSLR unit costs for the final rule 
analysis. In the analysis of the proposed rule EPA had developed a 
dataset of 24 utility reported estimates of LSLR costs. EPA evaluated 
this dataset along the other replacement cost survey information and 
selected the American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2011 survey 
(Cornwell et al., 2016) as the primary source of data for LSLR unit 
cost estimates for the proposed rule. Since proposal, EPA has 
identified cost data in news reports, press releases, and utility 
websites that has allowed the Agency to expand the utility data 
collected during the proposed rule analysis. The Agency's search found 
additional cost estimates from 63 utilities. EPA then selected only the 
subset of data values that represent reported actual replacement costs 
from pilot studies and/or recent or on-going LSLR projects. This 
resultant dataset provides costs estimates across full, customer-side, 
and system-side replacements from 38 systems, which represent costs and 
practices from 2016 to 2020 (only two cost values from the proposal 
dataset remain in the revised dataset). The cost information in the 
updated dataset are variable in the reported replacement costs covered 
by the various programs, but a number of the data sources specifically 
indicate they include surface restoration cost. Therefore, the cost 
analysis for the final rule includes surface restoration. The estimated 
mean costs for utility-side, customer-side, and full LSLR have 
increased by 122, 26, and 13 percent, respectively, using the newly 
developed data as compared with the AWWA 2011 values used for proposal. 
For the final rule, EPA used the 25th and 75th percentile values from 
the new dataset in the low and high cost scenarios, respectively. All 
utility-side, customer-side, and full LSLR unit costs under both the 
low and high cost scenarios are larger than those used in the proposed 
rule analysis except for full replacement in the high cost scenario.
    In addition to the more specific comments received on the cost of 
LSLR, public commenters raised concerns about the proposed rule 
requirement that systems would have to replace, within 45 days, the 
utility-owned portion of an LSL if they become aware that a customer 
has replaced their portion of the line. Commenters indicated concern 
that the number of ``customer initiated'' LSLR might at times become 
too numerous for systems to complete the replacement within the 45 days 
allowed. In response to these comments, EPA conducted a search for new 
data on the number of customer initiated LSLR occurring at water 
systems. EPA found data from DC Water (2016) that could be used to 
determine a rate of customer initiated replacements. This new data 
allowed the Agency to provide quantified costs for customer initiated 
LSLR in the final rule analysis which were not available at the time of 
proposal. See Chapter 5, section 5.3.4 of the final rule EA for 
additional detail (USEPA, 2020a). The inclusion of these new quantified 
cost categories increases final rule estimated total cost compared to 
the proposed rule's total cost.
    EPA asked for comment on the assumptions regarding labor required 
to comply with the proposed rule. The Association of State Drinking 
Water Administrators (ASDWA) provided EPA with a version of their Costs 
of States Transactions Study (CoSTS) model which estimated the first 
five years of total and incremental burden to states for implementing 
the proposed LCRR (a number of individual States and some PWSs also 
indicated in comments that EPA review the ASDWA CoSTS model). Burden 
totals from this model were significantly higher for some state 
oversight activities than those estimated by EPA for the proposed LCRR. 
EPA carefully evaluated the information and assumptions in the CoSTS 
model and used them to develop revised state burden estimates for the 
cost analysis of the final rule. EPA revised cost estimates for a 
number of state activities including: Administrative activities, 
technical assistance, review of LSLR plans and LSL inventories, 
approval of systems' LSLR goals, review and approval of tap sampling 
site plans,

[[Page 4245]]

review of school and child care testing programs, review of annual 
reports on school and child care testing programs, and review and 
approval of small system flexibility recommendations. EPA also added a 
new one-time cost element for both states and PWSs to initially confer 
on the system's 90th percentile status and new requirements under the 
LCRR based on the system's first two 6-month monitoring periods under 
the revised tap sampling requirements of the LCRR. These increases in 
burden to states will result in higher estimated total costs for the 
final rule when compared to the burden estimates used in the analysis 
of the proposed rule.
    EPA solicited peer reviewed information on the evidence relevant to 
quantifying the incremental contribution of blood lead concentrations 
(especially at blood lead level (BLL) less than 5 [mu]g/dL) to 
cardiovascular disease (and associated mortality) relative to other 
predictors such as diet, exercise, and genetics that may be useful in a 
future benefits analysis. EPA received a number of comments that cited 
studies which EPA had identified in the proposed rule analysis, as well 
as one additional study by Chowdhury et al. (2018). Chowdhury et al. is 
a systematic review on cardiovascular morbidity endpoints that 
concludes that lead is associated with an increased risk of 
cardiovascular disease. EPA has added this reference to its qualitative 
discussions on the health impacts of lead in Appendix J of the final 
rule EA.
    Although the EPA did not quantify or monetize changes in adult 
health benefits for the proposed LCRR, the Agency estimated the 
potential changes in adult drinking water exposures and thus blood lead 
levels to illustrate the extent of lead reduction to the adult 
population as a result of the proposed LCRR. Commenters indicated that 
the Agency should include quantification and monetization of the adult 
cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits associated with reductions in 
water lead concentrations in the health risk reduction and cost 
analysis (HRRCA referred to in this notice as the final rule economic 
analysis or final rule EA) for the LCRR. Some of the commenters have 
indicated that EPA has a legal obligation to include this benefit in 
the HRRCA under section 1412(b)(3) of SDWA. EPA does not agree with 
these commenters that a quantified assessment of CVD benefits is 
necessary in this HRRCA. EPA conducts a HRRCA when proposing any NPDWR, 
as required in section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) of the SDWA. SDWA 
Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(I) requires the inclusion of quantifiable and 
nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits for which there is a 
factual basis in the rulemaking record to conclude such benefits are 
likely to occur as a result of the rule. SDWA section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(iii) provides that ``[t]he Administrator may identify 
valid approaches for the measurement and valuation of benefits'' for 
the HRRCA. EPA exercised its discretion to identify the validity of the 
approaches used to measure and value CVD benefits and determined not to 
quantify CVD benefits for this rulemaking because the methodology which 
links changes in adult blood lead levels to CVD health endpoints, 
including mortality, has not yet undergone the necessary panel peer 
review. There remains uncertainty about the best quantitative 
relationship to describe the impacts of changes in current adult blood 
lead levels on the risk of CVD mortality. The studies currently 
available to the Agency which quantitatively describe the risk 
relationship attempt to control for a variety of potential confounders 
that may affect CVD risk as well as exposure to lead. EPA needs 
additional scientific guidance on which studies sufficiently control 
for potential confounding factors that might introduce bias into the 
estimated lead CVD risk relationship. The Agency will also seek input 
from an expert peer review panel on the modeling of the lead cessation 
lag (i.e., the time between the lead exposure reduction and the 
reduction in CVD risk). For additional information on the uncertainties 
associated with the assessment of the CVD mortality health endpoint 
which need to be clarified through the panel peer review process see 
Appendix J of the final rule EA. However, EPA has considered the 
substantial unquantified benefits to the rule, including those 
associated with reductions in adverse cardiovascular effects that are 
described in the HRRCA.
    Some commenters asserted that if the Agency monetized the benefits 
of CVD, the Agency would have proposed more stringent requirements 
because greater quantified benefits would justify more burdensome 
regulation. EPA disagrees. The Agency considered information from the 
HRRCA at proposal to determine, as required by SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(C) ``whether the benefits . . . justify, or do not justify, 
the costs.'' The Agency found that the quantified and non-quantified 
benefits justified the cost of the proposed rule requirements. EPA 
considered costs and benefits in its rulemaking process, as required by 
SDWA. The Agency established the treatment technique requirements in 
the rule to ``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the 
health of persons to the extent feasible'' consistent with section 
1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA, while also ensuring that ``[a]ny revision of 
a national primary drinking water regulation shall . . . maintain, or 
provide for greater, protection of the health of persons'' as required 
in section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA. EPA is not employing the 
discretionary provision of SDWA section 1412(b)(6) that allows the 
Agency to promulgate an NPDWR that ``maximizes health risk reduction 
benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits.'' Therefore, the 
Agency's decision to not monetize CVD benefits did not affect the 
stringency of the final rule. EPA conducted an analysis of quantifiable 
and non-quantifiable benefits that meets the statutory requirements and 
EPA considered both quantified and non-quantified benefits in the 
rulemaking.
    EPA received a number of comments that encouraged the Agency to 
obtain more data to better estimate the costs and benefits of the 
proposed rule. EPA engaged in additional data collection in response to 
comments improving upon the analysis conducted for the proposed rule. 
The Agency collected information post proposal from state and Federal 
websites, new reports, independent and drinking water system developed 
reports, and vendor information resulting in updates to: The number of 
systems with known LSL status; the unit cost of LSLR; the rate of 
customer initiated LSLR; the cost of scavenged pipe-loop and coupon CCT 
studies; the number of schools and child cares; and the current amount 
of state required school and child care testing.
    EPA reexamined the profile data set that was used by the Agency to 
estimate the reductions of lead levels as a result of CCT and LSLR. EPA 
reviewed the CCT designations made in the profile dataset and changed 
the designations based on new information. Re-running the model that 
simulates the water lead concentrations for various combinations of CCT 
and LSL presence for the final rule analysis resulted in increased lead 
concentrations for the no-LSL present scenarios and lower lead 
concentrations for the cases where full and partial LSLs are present 
and there is no or partial CCT present as compared to the estimated 
values used in the proposed rule analysis (see Exhibit 6-15 for the 
complete list of estimated concentrations used in the final rule 
analysis). The new estimates for lead concentration result in smaller 
changes in exposure as compared with the proposed rule. So, relative to 
the

[[Page 4246]]

proposed rule a unit improvement in CCT or LSLR will result in smaller 
changes in lead concentration reductions, BLL reductions, and monetized 
IQ benefits.
    Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the data improvements made in response to 
comments received on the proposed rule analysis that have an impact of 
the estimated costs and benefits for the final rule. These impacts are 
separate from and irrespective of changes to the regulatory 
requirements. The exhibit indicates the impact the data change had on 
estimated costs.

 Exhibit 6-1--Data Improvements Made in Response to Comments Received on
                       the Proposed LCRR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Impact on cost/benefit estimate
                  Data                            from proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanded dataset of systems with known    Small impact on
 LSL status.                              estimated cost for previous
                                          rule (baseline).
2019 State of Michigan lead compliance    Increase low cost
 data used in conjunction with expanded   scenario estimated cost.
 dataset of systems with known LSL        Decrease high cost
 status.                                  scenario estimated cost.
Lead Service Line Replacement unit        Increase estimated
 costs.                                   costs.
Estimate for customer initiated LSLR...   Increase estimated
                                          cost (only qualitatively
                                          considered in the proposal).
Updated state burden estimates based on   Increase estimated
 ASDWA CoSTS model.                       costs.
Revised tap water lead concentration      Decrease estimated
 values.                                  benefit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize the 
Sample Universe

    The entities potentially affected by the LCR revisions are public 
water systems (PWSs) that are classified as either CWSs or NTNCWSs. 
These water systems can be publicly or privately owned. In the economic 
analysis modeling performed in support of this rulemaking, EPA began 
with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWSs in the Safe Drinking Water 
Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) as its foundational 
data set.
    EPA used a variety of data sources to develop the drinking water 
industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 6-2 
lists the major data sources, describes the data used from each source, 
and explains how it was used in the final rule EA. Additional detailed 
descriptions of these data sources and how they were used in the 
characterization of baseline industry conditions can be found in 
Chapter 4 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).

  Exhibit 6-2--Major Data Sources Used To Develop the Baseline Industry
                            Characterization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Baseline data derived from the
              Data source                             source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016 ``frozen''   Public water system
 dataset \1\.                             inventory, including
                                          population served, number of
                                          service connections, source
                                          water type, and water system
                                          type. Also used to identify
                                          NTNCWSs that are schools and
                                          child care facilities.
                                          Status of CCT,
                                          including identification of
                                          water systems with CCT and the
                                          proportion of water systems
                                          serving <= 50,000 people that
                                          installed CCT in response to
                                          the previous LCR.
                                          Analysis of lead 90th
                                          percentile concentrations to
                                          identify water systems at or
                                          below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
                                          above the TL, and above the AL
                                          of 15 [micro]g/L at the start
                                          of rule implementation by LSL
                                          status, i.e., presence or
                                          absence of LSLs for the
                                          previous rule and LCRR. Used
                                          in concert with data from
                                          Michigan described below for
                                          the LCRR.2 3
                                          The proportion of
                                          water systems that are on
                                          various reduced monitoring
                                          schedules for lead and copper
                                          tap and WQP monitoring.
                                          The frequency of
                                          source and treatment changes
                                          and those source changes that
                                          can result in additional
                                          source water monitoring.
                                          Length of time that
                                          water systems replace LSLs if
                                          required under the previous
                                          LCR.
2006 CWSS (USEPA, 2009)................   Number of distribution
                                          system entry points per
                                          system.
                                          PWS labor rates.
Geometries and Characteristics of         Design and average
 Public Water Systems (USEPA, 2000a).     daily flow per water system.
1988 AWWA Lead Information Survey......   LSL inventory,
                                          including the number of water
                                          systems with LSLs, and the
                                          average number of LSLs per
                                          water system, as reported in
                                          the 1991 LCR RIA (Weston and
                                          EES, 1990).
2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of Lead        LSL inventory,
 Service Line Occurrence (as summarized   including the number of water
 in Cornwell et al., 2016).               systems with LSLs and the
                                          average number of LSLs per
                                          water system.
Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking Water       Baseline distribution
 Standards (2006-2011).                   of pH for various CCT
                                          conditions.
                                          Baseline
                                          orthophosphate dose for CCT.

[[Page 4247]]

 
2019 State of Michigan Lead and Copper    Analysis of the ratio
 Compliance Monitoring Data (Michigan     of fifth to first liter lead
 EGLE, 2019).                             tap samples to estimate the
                                          increase in lead 90th
                                          percentile levels based on the
                                          use of fifth liter samples.
                                          Ratios are applied to SDWIS/
                                          Fed lead 90th percentile data
                                          to identify systems at or
                                          below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
                                          above the TL, and above the AL
                                          of 15 [micro]g/L under the
                                          final LCRR by LSL status.
                                          Percent of individual
                                          samples exceeding 15 [micro]g/
                                          L for the final LCRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association;
  CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System
  Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LCRR = Lead and Copper Rule
  revisions; LSL = lead service line; Michigan EGLE = Michigan
  Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy; NTNCWS = non-
  transient non-community water system; public water system; RIA =
  regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water
  Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water
  quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection
  Agency.
Note:
\1\ Contains information reported through June 30, 2016.
\2\ As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Lead and
  Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), a system's lead 90th percentile
  level is a key factor in determining a system's requirements under the
  previous rule and final LCRR.
\3\ In the analysis of lead 90th percentile concentrations at PWSs EPA
  used SDWIS/Fed data for systems with known LSL status. This sub-set of
  systems with known LSL status was identified using data from 12 states
  (including data received in public comments from Indiana, Wisconsin,
  and Nevada), Region 9 tribal systems, and web searches identifying
  individual systems including the systems serving greater than
  1,000,000 persons. See Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of the Economic
  Analysis for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for
  additional detail.

C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model

    Under the regulatory provisions of the final rule, PWSs will face 
different compliance scenarios depending on the size and type of water 
system, the presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion controls. In 
addition, PWSs will also face different unit costs based on water 
system size, type, and number of entry points (e.g., labor rates and 
CCT capital, and O&M unit costs). PWSs have a great deal of inherent 
variability across the water system characteristics that dictate both 
compliance activities and cost.
    Because of this variability, to accurately estimate the national 
level compliance costs (and benefits) of the final LCR revisions, as 
well as describe how compliance costs are expected to vary across types 
of PWSs, the cost-benefit model creates a sample of representative 
``model PWSs'' by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/
Fed with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at 
the PWS category level. In some cases, the categorical data are simple 
point estimates. In this case, every model PWS in a category is 
assigned the same value. In other cases, where more robust data 
representing system variability are available the category-level data 
includes a distribution of potential values. In the case of 
distributional information, the model assigns each model PWS a value 
sampled from the distribution, in order to characterize the variability 
in this input across PWSs. The model follows each model PWS in the 
sample through each year of analysis--determining how the PWS will 
comply with each requirement of the final rule, estimating the yearly 
compliance cost, and tracking the impact of the compliance actions on 
drinking water lead concentrations. It also tracks how other events, 
such as changing a water source or treatment affect the water system's 
compliance requirements for the next year.
    The model's detailed output provides results for 36 PWS categories, 
or strata. Each PWS reporting category is defined by the water system 
type (CWS and NTNCWS), primary source water (ground and surface), and 
size category (there are nine). The following sub-sections present 
summarized national cost and benefit totals by regulatory categories. 
The detailed output across the 36 PWS categories can be found in 
Appendix C of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).
    In constructing the initial model PWS sample for the cost-benefit 
analysis, EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in SDWIS/
Fed. Also, from SDWIS/Fed, EPA knows each water system's type (CWS or 
NTNCWS); primary water source (surface water or groundwater); 
population served; CCT status (yes/no); ownership (public or private); 
and number of connections.
    The available LCR data limited EPA's ability to quantify 
uncertainty in the cost-benefit model. During the development of the 
model, it became clear that not only were many of the inputs uncertain, 
but for many LCR specific inputs, EPA only has limited midpoint, high, 
and low estimates available and does not have information on the 
relative likelihood of the available estimates. This includes major 
drivers of the cost of compliance including: The baseline number of 
systems with LSLs and the percent of connections in those system that 
are LSLs; the number of PWSs that will exceed the AL and/or TL under 
the revised tap sampling requirements; the cost of LSL replacement; the 
cost of CCT; and the effectiveness of CCT in PWSs with LSLs. Therefore, 
EPA estimated final LCRR compliance costs under low and high bracketing 
scenarios. These low and high cost scenarios are defined by the 
assignment of low and high values for the set of uncertain cost drivers 
listed above. Detailed descriptions of these five uncertain variables 
and the derivation of their values under the low and high cost 
scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.2 of the final rule 
EA (USEPA, 2020a). With the exception of the five uncertain variables 
which define the difference between the low and high cost scenarios the 
remaining baseline water system and compliance characteristics are 
assigned to model PWSs, as described above, and remain constant across 
the scenarios. This allows EPA to define the uncertainty characterized 
in the cost range provided by the low and high scenarios and maintains 
consistency between the estimation of costs for the previous and final 
rules (e.g., percentage of lead tap water samples that will be 
invalidated). Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA describe in greater 
detail the baseline and major cost driving data elements, their 
derivation, and the inherent sources of uncertainty in the developed 
data elements. Section 5.3 and 5.4 of the final rule EA discuss how 
each data element is used in the estimation of costs and provides 
examples and references to how these data were developed.
    Because PWS baseline characteristics are being assigned from 
distributional source data to capture the variability across PWS 
characteristics, EPA needed to ensure that its sample size was large 
enough that the results of the cost-benefit model were stable for each 
of the

[[Page 4248]]

36 PWS categories. To ensure stability in modeled results, EPA 
oversampled the SDWIS/Fed inventory to increase the number of water 
systems in each PWS category. For every PWS category, EPA set the 
target minimum number of model PWSs to 5,000. To calculate the total 
estimated costs for each PWS category, the model weights the estimated 
per water system costs so that when summed the total cost is 
appropriate for the actual number of water systems known to be in the 
category.
    The exception to the assignment of water system characteristics 
discussed above are the 21 very large water systems serving more than 
one million people. Because of the small number of water systems in 
this size category, the uniqueness of their system characteristics, and 
the potential large cost for these systems to comply with the 
regulatory requirements, using the methods described above to assign 
system attributes could result in substantial error in the estimation 
of the national costs. Therefore, EPA attempted to collect information 
on very large water systems' CCT practices and chemical doses, pH 
measurements and pH adjustment practices, number of LSLs, service 
populations, and average annual flow rates for each entry point to the 
distribution system. EPA gathered this information from publicly 
available data such as SDWIS/Fed facility-level data, Consumer 
Confidence Reports, and water system websites. In addition, the AWWA 
provided additional data from member water systems to fill in gaps. 
When facility-specific data was available, EPA used it to estimate 
compliance costs for the very large water systems. If data was not 
available, EPA assigned baseline characteristics using the same process 
as previously described. See Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.3 of the final 
rule EA for a summary of the data EPA collected on these very large 
systems (USEPA, 2020a).
    The cost model estimates the incremental cost of the LCR revisions 
over a 35-year period. In accordance with EPA's policy, and based on 
guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when 
calculating social costs and benefits, EPA discounted future costs (and 
benefits) under two alternative social discount rates, 3 percent and 7 
percent.
    When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs and households, EPA 
uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs, as 
this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems 
would incur over time. EPA used data from the 2006 Community Water 
System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of capital. EPA 
calculated the overall weighted average cost of capital (across all 
funding sources and loan periods) for each size/ownership category, 
weighted by the percentage of funding from each source. The cost of 
capital for each CWS size category and ownership type is shown in 
Exhibit B-3 in Appendix B of the final rule EA. Since similar cost of 
capital information is not available for NTNCWSs, EPA used the CWS cost 
of capital when calculating the annualized cost per NTNCWS. Total 
capital investment may be greater than costs water systems bear when 
complying with future regulatory revisions because financing support 
for lead reduction efforts is available from State and local 
governments, EPA programs, and other Federal agencies. The availability 
of funds from government sources, while potentially reducing the cost 
to individual PWSs, does not reduce the social cost of capital to 
society. See Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA for a discussion of 
uncertainties in the cost estimates.
    EPA projects that rule implementation activities will begin 
immediately after rule promulgation. These activities will include one-
time PWS and State costs for staff to read the revised rule, become 
familiar with its provisions, and develop training materials and train 
employees on the revised rule. States will also incur burden hours 
associated with adopting the rule into state requirements, updating 
their LCR program policies and practices, and modifying data management 
systems. PWSs will incur costs to comply with the LSL materials 
inventory requirements and develop an initial LSLR plan in years one 
through three of the 35-year analysis period. EPA expects that water 
systems will begin complying with all other LCRR rule requirements 
three years after promulgation, or in year four of the analysis.
    Some requirements of the final rule must be implemented by water 
systems regardless of their water quality and tap sampling results 
(e.g., CWS school and child care facilities sampling programs), 
however, most of the major cost drivers are a function of a water 
systems 90th percentile lead tap sample value. The 90th percentile 
value, if it exceeds the lead trigger level or action level, dictates: 
The tap sampling and water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring 
schedules, the installation/re-optimization of CCT, ``find-and-fix'' 
adjustments (triggered when a single lead tap sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/
L, which has an increasing likelihood in the model as 90th percentile 
tap sample results increase) which include potential changes to CCT, 
the installation of point-of-use filters at water systems selecting 
this treatment option as part of the small water system flexibilities 
under the final rule, the goal-based or mandatory removal of LSLs and 
water system and state administrative costs. Because of uncertainty in 
the estimation of the 90th percentile lead values the Agency developed 
low and high estimates for this cost driving variable. EPA used both 
the minimum and maximum 90th percentile tap sample values from SDWIS/
Fed over the period from 2007 to 2015, to assign a percentage of PWSs 
by size, and CCT and LSL status to each of three groups, those at the 
trigger level (TL) or below, those above the lead trigger but at or 
below the action level (AL), and those above the lead AL. These 
assignments represent the status of systems under the previous rule. 
See Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA for additional information 
(USEPA, 2020a).
    Because the tap sampling requirements for LSL water systems under 
the final LCR revisions call for 100 percent of lead tap samples to be 
taken from sites with LSLs and for those samples to be fifth liter 
samples, representing the lead concentration from the LSL, the 
likelihood that a PWS would have a lead 90th percentile greater than 
the TL or AL is higher under the final rule compared to the previous 
LCR. In order to assess this higher likelihood of TL or AL exceedances 
under the LCRR tap sampling requirements EPA used information from 
Slabaugh et al. (2015) to develop adjustment factors to capture the 
impact of taking 100 percent of lead tap samples from sites with LSLs. 
To account for the fifth liter sampling requirement at LSL sites EPA 
used 2019 State of Michigan compliance sampling data that was received 
as part of the public comment process on the proposed rule. This 
dataset had paired first and fifth liter sampling data for 133 LSL 
systems (Michigan state law requires that both first and fifth liter 
samples be taken at LSL sites) that allowed the Agency to calculate a 
set of ratios representing the relationship between first and fifth 
liter lead 90th percentile values. EPA assigned the LSL systems to the 
three 90th percentile value groups, those without a TL or AL 
exceedance, those with a TL but not an AL exceedance, and those with an 
AL exceedance utilizing the adjustment factors derived from the 
Slabaugh et al. (2015) data and the calculated ratios from the Michigan 
dataset. The use of the Michigan data results in large numbers of 
systems being assigned to

[[Page 4249]]

the AL exceedance category for the low cost scenario and fewer systems 
being assigned to the AL exceedance category in the high cost scenario 
that would have occurred using the proposed rule assignment 
methodology. A detailed discussion of the development of the 90th 
percentile value initial group placement, the adjustments made for the 
LSL water systems given the tap sampling requirements, and the 
percentages of systems assigned to the 90th percentile value groups 
under both the previous and final LCRR for the low and high cost 
scenarios are found in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA. Once water systems 
are assigned to the groupings based on their CCT and LSL status, 
individual 90th percentile lead tap sample values are assigned from the 
distribution of 90th percentile values within each grouping.
    Several regulatory compliance activities are assumed to not affect 
a water system's 90th percentile value. These include, for example, 
developing an inventory of LSLs, CWS sampling at schools and child care 
facilities, and public education. In the model, the only compliance 
activities that will change a water system's 90th percentile lead tap 
sample are installation of CCT; re-optimization of existing CCT; 
removal of LSLs; and a water system-wide ``find-and-fix'' activity 
(assumed to be equivalent to a system-wide increase in pH). In addition 
to these rule compliance activities, changing a water source or 
treatment technology can also result in a change in a water system's 
90th percentile tap sample value.
    Because a water system's 90th percentile lead value is so important 
to determining regulatory requirements and cost under the rule 
revisions, the cost model, under both the low and high cost scenarios, 
tracks each water system's 90th percentile lead value over each annual 
time step in the model. Based on the initial 90th percentile lead 
values, a number of rule compliance actions are triggered. With the 
implementation of CCT, LSLR, and ``find-and-fix'' corrections, 90th 
percentile lead tap sample values are expected to decrease. The model 
allows for future increases in 90th percentile lead values as a result 
of changes in source water and treatment. The likelihood of these 
events occurring have been derived from SDWIS/Fed data (see Chapter 4, 
Section 4.3.8 of the final rule EA). When a change in source or 
treatment occurs in a modeled year, a new 90th percentile value is 
assigned to the water system. This value may be higher or lower than 
the current value thus potentially triggering new corrective actions. 
In the model, if a water system already has ``optimized'' CCT in place, 
it is assumed that no additional action is needed and that the current 
treatment is adequate, therefore the 90th percentile will not change.

D. Cost Analysis

    This section summarizes the cost elements and estimates total cost 
of compliance for the previous LCR, the final LCR revisions and the 
incremental cost of the final rule, under both the low and high cost 
scenarios, by the major regulatory components and discounted at 3 and 7 
percent. These components include implementation and administrative 
costs, sampling costs, CCT costs, LSL inventory and replacement costs, 
POU costs, and public education and outreach costs for water systems 
and states. Note that reporting costs are represented in the cost 
totals provided in the estimates below, but a separate summary of the 
reporting costs, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, can be 
found in section VII.C of this preamble. This section also quantifies 
the potential increase in phosphates that would result from the 
increased use of corrosion inhibitors under the rule, the resulting 
cost for treating to remove the additional phosphates at downstream 
waste water treatment plants that may be constrained by nutrient 
discharge limits, and discusses the ecological impacts that may result 
from increased phosphorus loads to surface waters.
1. Drinking Water System Implementation and Administrative Costs
    All water systems will have one-time start-up activities associated 
with the implementation of the LCRR. These compliance costs include 
water system burden to read and understand the revised rule; water 
systems assigning personnel and resources for rule implementation; 
water system personnel time for attending trainings provided by the 
state; and clarifying regulatory requirements with the state during 
rule implementation. This category of cost is not impacted by the 
variables that define the low and high cost scenarios, therefore only 
one set of estimated costs exist in the category. The estimated 
annualized national PWS implementation and administrative costs for the 
LCR revisions are $2,576,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and 
$4,147,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. Since there are no costs in 
this category under the previous LCR, the PWS implementation and 
administrative incremental costs are also $2,576,000 at a 3 percent 
discount rate and $4,147,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. Additional 
information on the estimation of water system implementation and 
administrative costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the 
final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).
2. Sampling Costs
    The final LCR revisions affect most of the LCR's sampling 
requirements, including lead tap sample monitoring, lead WQP 
monitoring, copper WQP monitoring, and source water monitoring. The 
revised rule also includes new requirements for CWSs to sample at 
schools and child care facilities within their distribution systems. 
The copper tap sampling requirements of the previous rule are not 
impacted by the regulatory revisions and therefore do not appear in the 
summarized sampling costs. Additional lead WQP monitoring and lead tap 
sampling that is specifically required by the previous rule and the 
LCRR after the installation or re-optimization of corrosion control 
treatment is accounted for in the CCT costs and not in the WQP 
monitoring or tap sampling costs.
    Lead tap sampling site selection tiering requirements have been 
strengthened under the revised rule, increasing the cost to water 
systems with LSLs for the development of a tap sampling pool that 
consists of all LSL sites. Also, the sampling protocol requiring fifth 
liter samples from LSL sites will impact the cost of materials used to 
collect the tap sample at each LSL location. The other cost components 
of lead tap sampling remain generally unchanged and include sample 
collection (apart from fifth liter testing kit costs), analysis, and 
reporting cost. The frequency of required lead tap sampling will also 
increase based on lead tap sample 90th percentile values calculated 
with fifth liter tap samples.
    Both the lead and copper WQP monitoring cost totals represent 
collection and lab analysis cost of samples both at entry points to and 
taps within the distribution system, as well as PWS reporting costs. 
The schedules for conducting these activities at modeled water systems 
are dependent on a water system's projected lead 90th percentile value, 
the presence of CCT, and past tap sampling results.
    The final rule requires source water monitoring the first time a 
PWS has an action level exceedance. This monitoring is not required 
again unless the water system has a change in source water.
    Sampling at schools and child care facilities represents new 
requirements for CWSs under the LCR revisions.

[[Page 4250]]

Unlike the other sampling requirements of the rule, school and child 
care facility sampling is not affected by a water system's 90th 
percentile lead tap sample value. The final rule requires that all 
schools and child care facilities (constructed prior to January 1, 2014 
or the date the state adopted standards that meet the definition of 
lead free in accordance with Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, as amended by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, 
whichever is earlier) must be sampled once every five years (schools 
and child care facilities may refuse the sampling or be non-responsive, 
but the water system must document this refusal or non-response to the 
state) for two consecutive rounds of sampling. After the initial 
sampling at all elementary school and child care facilities in their 
service area (over a five year period) CWSs are only required to 
provide sampling upon request from the school or child care facility. 
CWSs must conduct sampling at secondary schools at any time on request. 
This program's costs are presented with sampling cost, but they also 
represent public education costs of the LCRR. The costs of complying 
with the rule include water systems: (1) Identifying schools and child 
care facilities in their service area and preparing and distributing an 
initial letter explaining the sampling program and the 3Ts Toolkit, (2) 
coordinating with the school or child care facility to determine the 
sampling schedule and the logistics of collecting the samples, (3) 
conducting a walkthrough at the school or child care facility before 
the start of sampling, (4) sample collection from the school or child 
care facility, (5) sample analysis, and (6) providing sampling results 
to the school or child care facility, the state, and the local and/or 
state health department.
    Exhibit 6-3 and 6-4 show the national annualized sampling costs for 
both the low and high estimate scenarios, under the previous LCR, the 
final LCRR, and the incremental cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 
respectively. Additional information on the estimation of sampling cost 
can be found in the Chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the final rule EA 
(USEPA, 2020a).

                                      Exhibit 6-3--National Annualized Sampling Costs--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final LCRR      Incremental    Previous LCR     Final LCRR      Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring............................     $34,536,000     $46,775,000     $12,239,000     $36,604,000     $55,386,000     $18,782,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring................       7,265,000       8,225,000         959,000       8,311,000      10,211,000       1,900,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring..............         140,000         152,000          13,000         134,000         150,000          16,000
Source Water Monitoring.................................          20,000           9,419         -11,000          50,000          31,000         -18,000
School Sampling.........................................               0      12,582,000      12,582,000               0      12,960,000      12,960,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Sampling Costs.........................      41,962,000      67,744,000      25,782,000      45,099,000      78,739,000      33,641,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      Exhibit 6-4--National Annualized Sampling Costs--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final LCRR      Incremental    Previous LCR     Final LCRR      Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring............................     $33,746,000     $47,597,000     $13,851,000     $36,573,000     $58,566,000     $21,993,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring................       6,986,000       7,980,000         995,000       8,397,000      10,683,000       2,286,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring..............         133,000         145,000          12,000         128,000         143,000          15,000
Source Water Monitoring.................................          25,000          13,000         -12,000          66,000          45,000         -20,000
School Sampling.........................................               0      14,461,000      14,461,000               0      14,969,000      14,969,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Sampling Costs.........................      40,890,000      70,197,000      29,307,000      45,164,000      84,407,000      39,243,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
    Under the LCRR, drinking water systems are required to install CCT 
or re-optimize their existing CCT if their lead tap sample 90th 
percentile exceeds the trigger level or action level. A system may be 
required to perform a ``find-and-fix'' adjustment to their CCT based on 
their current level of CCT in place if an individual lead tap samples 
exceed 15 [mu]g/L. In the cost model, 90th percentile lead tap sample 
exceedances are initially determined using SDWIS/Fed historic data 
which is adjusted to account for sampling at 100 percent LSL sites in 
LSL systems and the fifth liter sampling methodology changes. In 
subsequent model periods a 90th percentile lead tap sample exceedance 
can be triggered by a change in water system source water or treatment. 
Small CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs may also 
elect to conduct LSLR or implement a POU program as part of the 
regulatory flexibilities in the LCRR. See section III.E of this 
preamble for additional information on the compliance alternatives 
available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs, and section VI.D.5 for a 
discussion of the modeling and a summary of the number of systems 
estimated to select each alternative compliance option.
    The capital and O&M costs for water systems installing or 
optimizing CCT are based on the assumption that water systems will 
install and operate CCT that achieves finished water characteristics of 
3.2 mg/L of orthophosphate and pH at or above 7.2 (for water systems 
with starting pH values less than 8.4). For those water systems 
assigned higher initial pH values in the model, between 8.4 and 9.2, 
EPA assumed the CCT optimization would require adjusting pH to meet or 
exceed 9.2 (no orthophosphate addition would be needed). The 
distributions of water system starting values for orthophosphate and 
pH, used in the cost model, are both drawn from SDWIS/Fed and Six-Year 
Review Information Collection Request (ICR) dataset (see Chapter 4, 
section 4.3.6 of the final rule EA).
    All capital cost equations are a function of design flow, and all 
O&M costs are a function of average daily flow. Since CCT is conducted 
at the

[[Page 4251]]

water system's entry points (EPs), the cost model calculates the design 
flow and average daily flow of each EP. The cost model uses two 
different sets of unit cost functions representing the low and high 
capital cost scenarios developed in the engineering Work Breakdown 
Structure models for CCT (see EPA's report: Technologies and Costs for 
Corrosion Control to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water (USEPA, 2020b)). 
Using these bracketing capital cost values is designed to characterize 
uncertainty in the cost model estimates and when combined with O&M 
costs and EP flow values, are used to calculate the low and high CCT 
cost estimates per model PWS. Note that optimization O&M costs are 
obtained through an incremental cost assessment. The cost model 
calculated the O&M existing cost and subtracts them from the optimized 
O&M cost to obtain the incremental re-optimization costs.
    In the cost model, water systems are assumed to always install and 
optimize their CCT, to the standards described above, before making any 
adjustment to CCT as a result of being triggered into the ``find-and-
fix'' requirements of the rule. Each time a model PWS has individual 
lead tap samples exceeding 15 [mu]g/L in a monitoring period, costs for 
follow-up lead tap and WQP sampling are applied. In the case of 
corrective actions, there are four stages implemented with each 
successive ``find-and-fix'' trigger. In the first period, where a tap 
sample is above 15 [mu]g/L, the model assumes there was a site specific 
sample issue and no water quality adjustments are needed. The second 
period having an exceedance results in the implementation of a spot 
flushing program to reduce water age in affected areas of the 
distribution system. With the third ``find-and-fix'' trigger, one of 
two things are assumed to occur at a single-entry point: A water system 
that has orthophosphate dosing and the pH target of 7.2 or greater will 
increase pH to 7.5, or a water system that previously optimized to a pH 
value of 9.2 will increase pH to 9.4. If ``find-and-fix'' is triggered 
for a fourth time, a water system is assumed to adjust all EPs to the 
new target pHs of 7.5 or 9.4, depending on the current treatment in 
place.
    Using O&M cost functions estimated for ``find-and-fix'' (see the 
Technologies and Costs for Corrosion Control to Reduce Lead in Drinking 
Water (USEPA, 2020b)), the cost model, when triggered into stage 3 and 
4 CCT adjustment, first calculates the total annual O&M cost for 
treating to the ``find-and-fix'' standards previously listed as if no 
CCT was installed, then subtracts the PWS's current CCT annual O&M cost 
from the new ``find-and-fix'' annual O&M cost, to derive the share of 
the PWS's annual CCT O&M costs attributable to ``find-and-fix'' 
actions. The model also calculates the capital cost to retrofit the CCT 
water system for additional pH adjustment under both the low and high 
cost model scenarios. If a water system is triggered into a fourth 
round of ``find-and-fix'' CCT adjustment, the 7.5 or 9.4 pH 
requirements will be applied to all entry points. Individual entry 
point costs are summed to obtain total water system costs under the low 
and high model runs.
    In addition to the capital and O&M cost of CCT installation, re-
optimization, or ``find-and-fix,'' water systems will also face several 
ancillary costs associated with changes in CCT status. Before the 
installation or re-optimization of CCT at a water system, a CCT study 
may need to be conducted or revised and the water system would need to 
consult with the state on the proposed changes to CCT (these costs also 
apply to water systems undergoing source water or treatment changes). 
After the change in CCT, a water system would conduct follow-up tap 
sampling and WQP monitoring at entry points and at taps in the 
distribution system, report the results of the initial post-CCT 
adjustment findings to the state, and review WQP data with the state on 
an ongoing basis as part of the water system's sanitary surveys. See 
the final rule EA Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3.3 for additional detail on 
these requirements (USEPA, 2020a).
    Exhibits 6-5 and 6-6 show the range of estimated national costs for 
CCT under the previous LCR, the LCR revisions, and the incremental 
cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. Note that a range of 
CCT capital costs are used in this assessment, but the total range in 
Exhibits 6-5 and 6-6 is impacted by all five of the uncertain variables 
which enter the model as low and high estimates. See Section VI.C of 
this preamble and Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.2 of the final rule EA, for 
additional information on the variables that define the low and high 
cost scenarios. The CCT Operation and Maintenance (Existing) category 
in these exhibits are EPA's estimate of the ongoing cost of operating 
corrosion control at PWS where CCT was in place at the beginning of the 
period of analysis. Additional information on the estimation of CCT 
costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.3 of the final rule EA 
(USEPA, 2020a).

                            Exhibit 6-5--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing)...............    $327,171,000    $327,171,000              $0    $327,490,000    $327,490,000              $0
CCT Related Sanitary Survey and Source or Treatment            1,356,000       1,735,000         379,000       1,355,000       1,719,000         363,000
 Change Notification Activities.........................
CCT Installation........................................      13,424,000       7,138,000      -6,286,000      41,261,000      19,392,000     -21,869,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities...................          43,000         122,000          80,000         119,000         754,000         635,000
CCT Re-Optimization (Due to ALE)........................       2,479,000       6,575,000       4,096,000      15,374,000      33,425,000      18,051,000
CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to ALE)...          11,000       1,449,000       1,438,000          81,000      27,261,000      27,180,000
CCT Re-Optimization (Due to TLE)........................               0       5,452,000       5,452,000               0      20,724,000      20,724,000
CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to TLE)...               0          98,000          98,000               0         444,000         444,000
Find and Fix Installation...............................               0       8,271,000       8,271,000               0      31,688,000      31,688,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities.......................               0       5,884,000       5,884,000               0       8,190,000       8,190,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs.....     344,483,000     363,894,000      19,412,000     385,681,000     471,087,000      85,407,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4252]]


                            Exhibit 6-6--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing)...............    $306,521,000    $306,521,000              $0    $306,822,000    $306,822,000              $0
CCT Related Sanitary Survey and Source or Treatment            1,293,000       1,662,000         368,000       1,293,000       1,641,000         348,000
 Change Notification Activities.........................
CCT Installation........................................      12,499,000       6,623,000      -5,876,000      40,703,000      18,919,000     -21,783,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities...................          57,000         168,000         111,000         160,000       1,034,000         875,000
CCT Re-Optimization (Due to ALE)........................       2,299,000       5,664,000       3,365,000      15,724,000      33,041,000      17,317,000
CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to ALE)...          15,000       1,913,000       1,898,000         107,000      35,996,000      35,888,000
CCT Re-Optimization (Due to TLE)........................               0       4,784,000       4,784,000               0      20,888,000      20,888,000
CCT Re-Optimization Ancillary Activities (Due to TLE)...               0         140,000         140,000               0         633,000         633,000
Find and Fix Installation...............................               0       6,986,000       6,986,000               0      29,911,000      29,911,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities.......................               0       5,848,000       5,848,000               0       8,668,000       8,668,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs.....     322,684,000     340,307,000      17,623,000     364,809,000     457,554,000      92,745,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Costs
    The LCR revisions require all water systems to create an LSL 
materials inventory during the first three years after rule 
promulgation or demonstrate to the state and make publicly available 
the information that the water system does not have LSLs. Because many 
water systems have already complied with state inventory requirements 
(e.g., Michigan, see https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-dwehd-PDSMISummaryData_682673_7.pdf) that are at least as stringent as 
those required under the LCRR, EPA adjusted the likelihood of 
conducting a new inventory to reflect state requirements. Water system 
inventory costs also reflect the development, by all water systems with 
LSLs, of an initial LSLR plan. The LSLR plan would include a strategy 
for determining the composition of ``lead status unknown'' service 
lines in its inventory, procedures to conduct full LSLR, a strategy for 
informing customers before a full or partial LSLR, a LSLR goal rate in 
the event of a lead trigger level exceedance for systems serving more 
than 10,000 persons, a procedure for customers to flush service lines 
and premise plumbing of particulate lead, a LSLR prioritization 
strategy, and a funding strategy for conducting LSLR.
    Depending on a water system's 90th percentile lead tap sample 
value, it may be required to initiate an LSLR program. Small CWSs, 
serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and NTNCWSs have flexibility in the 
selection of a compliance option if the trigger or action levels are 
exceeded. These water systems may elect to implement either the LSLR, 
CCT, or POU compliance options. See section III.E of this preamble for 
additional information on the compliance alternatives available to 
small CWSs and NTNCWSs. Under both the low and high cost scenarios, the 
model estimates the cost for implementing LSLR, CCT, and POU for each 
water system that meets the small water system flexibility criteria and 
maintains only the cost associated with the least costly option for 
each system. The cost model under both the low and high cost scenarios 
applies the estimated LSLR costs to those CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons and any NTNCWSs for which the LSLR option is determined to be 
the least cost compliance alternative. Systems where CCT or POU are 
found to be less costly compliance alternatives than LSLR do not 
receive LSLR costs in the model. See section VI.D.5 of this preamble 
for a discussion of the modeling and a summary of the number of systems 
selecting each alternative compliance option.
    Prompted by public comment on the proposed rule indicating that the 
Agency should utilize new LSLR unit cost data that has recently become 
available, EPA collected information from state and system websites, 
and media reports. The dataset provides costs estimates across full, 
customer-side, and system-side replacements from 38 systems that have 
publicly reported actual replacement costs from pilot studies and 
recent or on-going LSLR projects. This dataset, though more 
representative of current unit costs than the survey data used for the 
proposed rule analysis, still has a small number of observations and is 
an opportunity sample based on public availability of the information 
and was not collected using a systematic sampling technique that would 
allow for a statistical assessment of representativeness. The resultant 
estimates of replacement costs based on these data are uncertain. 
Therefore, EPA developed low- and high-end LSLR cost values that are 
used in the cost model to provide a low/high cost range to inform the 
understanding of uncertainty (note: Four other factors used to produce 
the low and high cost estimates also influence the LSLR total cost 
estimates). EPA uses the 25th and 75th percentile values from the new 
dataset to develop the low/high unit costs for utility-side, customer-
side, and full LSLR. These values are larger than those used in the 
proposed rule analysis except for full replacement in the high cost 
scenario. See Chapter 5, Section 5.3.4.3 and Appendix A, Section 2 of 
the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for more information on the 
development of the LSLR unit cost range.
    LSLR cost includes not only the physical replacement of the service 
line but also the development and distribution of LSLR program outreach 
materials; contacting customers and site visits to confirm service line 
material and site conditions before replacement; providing customers 
with flushing procedures following a replacement; delivering pitcher 
filters and cartridges concurrent with the LSLR, and maintenance for 
six months; collecting and analyzing a tap sample three to six months 
after the replacement of an LSL and informing the customer of the 
results; and, reporting program results to the state.
    Under the final rule, water systems with a 90th percentile lead tap 
sample value greater than 10 [mu]g/L and less than or equal to 15 
[mu]g/L are considered to have a trigger level exceedance. These water 
systems are required to develop and implement a ``goal-based'' LSLR 
program where the annual replacement goal is set locally through a 
water system and state determination process. This program is required 
to operate for at least two annual monitoring periods after the 
system's lead 90th percentile tap sample has returned to levels at or 
below the trigger level. Ancillary costs

[[Page 4253]]

incurred by these water systems include the development and delivery of 
outreach materials to known and potential LSL households and submitting 
annual reports to the state on program activities. For water systems 
that do not meet the annual ``goal-based'' replacement rate, the final 
rule requires that additional outreach to LSL customers and other 
consumers be conducted. The additional outreach conducted is determined 
in conjunction with the state and is progressive, increasing when a 
water system misses an additional annual goal.
    The Final LCRR provides compliance flexibility to water systems 
with 90th percentile tap sample data that exceeds 15 [mu]g/L (the lead 
action level). These systems are required to implement a mandatory LSLR 
program replacing a rolling 2 year average of 3% per year using a 
baseline number of LSLs equal to the number of LSLs and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines at the time the system first 
exceeds the lead trigger or action level plus the number of unknowns at 
the beginning of each year of the system's LSLR program. This rolling 
average allows systems that experience LSLR rate fluctuation to still 
meet a 3% replacement rate on average for the prior two year period 
every year the water system is required to implement the LSLR program. 
The regulation also requires that a cumulative number of replacements 
be reached equal to 3% of the sum of known lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, and lead status unknown service lines in the initial 
inventory, times the number of years that elapsed between the system's 
first ALE and the date on which the system's 90th percentile lead 
levels are at or below the action level for 2 years (four consecutive 
6-month monitoring periods). EPA does not have information on the 
annual variation in replacement rates which systems may experience when 
required to conduct mandatory replacement, therefore, the Agency has 
assumed an annual replacement rate of 3% (which equals a 3% rolling 
average value across all two year time periods). EPA's costs capture 
all estimated replacements required under the rule, but because the 
assumed 3% annual rate may not capture the year to year variation in 
LSL replacement rate. EPA's estimated discounted costs may be under or 
over estimated.
    The LCRR also requires that CWSs replace the water system-owned 
portion of an LSL in response to receiving notification that a 
customer-owned portion of an LSL was replaced at the customer's 
initiative. The Agency developed new data in response to comments 
received on the proposed rule which allowed for the estimation of this 
category of LSLR costs for the final rule. The inclusion of this new 
cost category will increase the estimated LSLR costs in the final rule 
analysis relative to the methodology used in the proposed rule 
analysis. EPA assumes that all customer initiated LSLRs that occur in 
systems with trigger level or action level exceedances count toward the 
goal-based and mandatory removal targets and costs for those programs. 
EPA estimated costs for customer initiated LSLR are based on only those 
replacements estimated to occur at systems that are at or below the 
trigger level.
    Exhibits 6-7 and 6-8 show the estimated annualized national cost 
for both the low and high cost scenarios, discounted at 3 and 7 
percent, respectively, of water systems developing the LSL inventory, 
water systems conducting the goal-based and mandatory LSLR programs, 
costs to CWSs for removing their portion of an LSL after receiving 
notification that a customer-owned portion of an LSL was replaced 
outside of a water system replacement program and household removal 
costs for the customer-owned portion of the LSL under the previous LCR, 
the final LCRR, and the incremental cost. EPA did not estimate costs to 
households of replacing the customer-owned portion of an LSL outside of 
a goal-based or mandatory program because these replacements do not 
occur in response to these LCR revisions. Detailed information on the 
estimation of LSLR costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.4 of 
the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).

                            Exhibit 6-7--National Annualized Lead Service Line Replacement Costs--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Service Line Inventory.............................              $0      $6,318,000      $6,318,000              $0     $10,109,000     $10,109,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement Plan...............               0         304,000         304,000               0         395,000         395,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory)........         600,000      15,550,000      14,950,000      26,777,000      62,417,000      35,641,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities                27,000       1,087,000       1,060,000         500,000       3,383,000       2,882,000
 (Mandatory)............................................
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal Based).......               0       6,298,000       6,298,000               0      22,580,000      22,580,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Goal               0         755,000         755,000               0       1,524,000       1,524,000
 Based).................................................
Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Goal................               0       6,087,000       6,087,000               0      19,663,000      19,663,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Customer-                        0       6,943,000       6,943,000               0      18,946,000      18,946,000
 initiated).............................................
System Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary                         0       1,030,000       1,030,000               0       1,224,000       1,224,000
 Activities (Customer-initiated)........................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs.....         628,000      44,372,000      43,744,000      27,277,000     140,242,000     112,965,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory).....         182,000               0        -182,000       5,466,000               0      -5,466,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal based)....               0       8,100,000       8,100,000               0      19,542,000      19,542,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs.........         810,000      52,472,000      51,662,000      32,743,000     159,784,000     127,041,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4254]]


                            Exhibit 6-8--National Annualized Lead Service Line Replacement Costs--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous LCR     Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Service Line Inventory.............................              $0      $6,863,000      $6,863,000              $0     $10,593,000     $10,593,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement Plan...............               0         467,000         467,000               0         607,000         607,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory)........         638,000      16,681,000      16,044,000      37,623,000      79,869,000      42,246,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities                29,000       1,249,000       1,220,000         704,000       4,438,000       3,734,000
 (Mandatory)............................................
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal Based).......               0       6,676,000       6,676,000               0      28,204,000      28,204,000
Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities (Goal               0         824,000         824,000               0       1,956,000       1,956,000
 Based).................................................
Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Goal................               0       6,636,000       6,636,000               0      25,589,000      25,589,000
System Lead Service Line Replacement (Customer-                        0       6,442,000       6,442,000               0      17,189,000      17,189,000
 initiated).............................................
System Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary                         0         965,000         965,000               0       1,118,000       1,118,000
 Activities (Customer-initiated)........................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs.....         667,000      46,803,000      46,136,000      38,327,000     169,562,000     131,235,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Mandatory).....         193,000               0        -193,000       7,681,000               0      -7,681,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement (Goal based)....               0       8,587,000       8,587,000               0      24,409,000      24,409,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs.........         860,000      55,389,000      54,529,000      46,008,000     193,971,000     147,963,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Point-of-Use Costs
    Under the final rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons, and NTNCWSs with a 90th percentile lead value above the 
action level of 15 [mu]g/L may choose between LSLR, CCT installation, 
or POU device installation and maintenance. See section III.E of this 
preamble for additional information on the compliance alternatives 
available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs. In addition to the cost to provide 
and maintain POU devices, water systems selecting the POU compliance 
option face additional ancillary costs in the form of: (1) POU 
implementation planning for installation, maintenance, and monitoring 
of the devices, (2) educating customers on the proper use of the POU 
device, (3) sampling POU devices to insure the device is working 
correctly, and (4) coordination with, obtaining approvals from, and 
annual reporting to the state.
    The cost model applies these POU costs to those CWS serving 10,000 
or fewer persons and any NTNCWSs for which the POU option is estimated 
to be the least cost compliance alternative. The determination of the 
least cost compliance alternative is computed across each 
representative model PWS in the cost model based on its assigned 
characteristics including: The number of LSLs, cost of LSLR, the 
presence of corrosion control, the cost and effectiveness of CCT, the 
starting of WQP monitoring, the number of entry points, the unit cost 
of POU, and the number of households. For a more complete discussion on 
the assignment of system characteristics, see section VI.C of this 
preamble and Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA. These 
characteristics are the primary drivers in determining the costs once a 
water system has been triggered into CCT installation or re-
optimization, LSLR, or POU provisions. The model estimates the net 
present value for implementing each compliance alternative and selects 
the least cost alternative to retain in the summarized national rule 
costs.
    EPA estimated low and high cost scenarios, to characterize 
uncertainty in the cost model results. These scenarios are functions of 
assigning different low and high input values to a number of the 
variables that affect the relative cost of the small system compliance 
choices (see Chapter 5 section 5.2.4.2 of the final rule EA for 
additional information on uncertain variable value assignment). 
Therefore, as the model output shows, the choice of compliance 
technology is different across the low and high cost scenarios.
    Exhibits 6-9 and 6-10 show the total number of CWSs serving 10,000 
or fewer persons and NTNCWSs, the total number of systems by type and 
population size that would select one of the small system compliance 
options, the number of NTNCWSs selecting each compliance alternative in 
the model, and the number of CWSs by population size selecting each 
compliance alternative in the model, under both the low and high cost 
scenarios. The POU device implementation seems to be the least cost 
alternative when the number of households in the system is low as 
demonstrated by the decrease in the selection of the POU option as CWS 
population size increases in the model. Given the centralized nature of 
CCT, requiring installation and maintenance only at the drinking water 
treatment plant, this compliance technology can benefit from economies 
of scale. Therefore, the installation of CCT becomes more cost 
effective as system population size increases. The pattern seen in the 
selection of LSLR between the low and high cost scenarios demonstrates 
that the choice of compliance by small systems is driven by relative 
costs. Under the low cost scenario larger percentages of systems select 
LSLR given the assumed lower numbers of LSLs per system and lower cost 
of replacement under this scenario.

                              Exhibit 6-9--NTNCWS and Small CWS Counts Impacted Under Flexibility Option--Low Cost Scenario
                                                            [Over 35 year period of analysis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NTNCWS                                            CWS
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            All systems        <=100          101-500        501-1,000      1,001-3,300    3,301-10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PWS Count in System Size Category.................          17,589          12,046          15,307           5,396           8,035           4,974
Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT                    714             641             910             314             418             257
 activity...............................................

[[Page 4255]]

 
Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals..........              48             274             330              74              29               2
Number of PWSs that Install CCT.........................               4            4.33             232             134             155              82
Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT.....................              25               2             144             101             234             173
Number of PWSs that Install POU.........................             637             361             205               4               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Exhibit 6-10--NTNCWS and Small CWS Counts Impacted Under Flexibility Option--High Cost Scenario
                                                            [Over 35 year period of analysis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NTNCWS                                            CWS
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            All systems        <=100          101-500        501-1,000      1,001-3,300    3,301-10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PWS Count in System Size Category.................          17,589          12,046          15,307           5,396           8,035           4,974
Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT                  1,407           1,362           2,029             877           1,475             894
 activity...............................................
Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals..........              56              59              40               8              50              10
Number of PWSs that Install CCT.........................               7               1             346             284             349             178
Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT.....................              21              20             381             542           1,072             704
Number of PWSs that Install POU.........................           1,322           1,283           1,261              42               4               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated national annualized point-of-use device installation 
and maintenance costs for the final rule, under the low cost scenario, 
are $3,418,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $3,308,000 at a 7 
percent discount rate. The POU costs of the LCRR for the high cost 
scenario are $20,238,000 discounted at 3 percent and $19,928,000 
discounted at 7 percent. Since POU costs are zero under the previous 
LCR, the incremental costs range from $3,418,000 to $20,238,000 at a 3 
percent discount rate and from $3,308,000 to $19,928,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate, under the low and high cost scenarios respectively. 
Additional information on the estimation of POU costs can be found in 
Chapter 5, section 5.3.5 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).
6. Public Education and Outreach Costs
    In addition to the previous LCR public education requirements for 
water systems with a lead action level exceedance, the cost model 
includes final rule requirements for ongoing lead education that apply 
to all water systems and actions specifically for systems with LSLs, 
regardless of the 90th percentile level, and requirements in response 
to a single lead tap sample exceeding 15 [mu]g/L.
    The rule requires a number of updates to existing public education 
and additional outreach activities associated with LSLs. The public 
education requirements costed for all water systems, regardless of 
their lead 90th percentile tap sample levels, include: (1) Updating 
Consumer Confidence Report language, (2) developing a lead outreach 
plan and materials for new customers, (3) developing an approach for 
improved public access to lead information, (4) providing increased 
information on lead in drinking water to state and local health 
departments, and (5) providing annual documentation and certification 
to the state that public outreach on lead has been completed. The cost 
of LCR public education requirements applying to all water systems with 
LSLs are: (1) The planning, initially implementing and maintaining 
customer and public access to LSL location and tap sampling data 
information, and (2) the development of lead educational materials for 
water-related utility work and delivery of those materials to affected 
households during water-related work that could result in service line 
disturbance.
    The LCRR public education costs that are applied to water systems 
that exceed the 15 [mu]g/L action level include: (1) The development of 
lead language for public education in response to a lead action level 
exceedance, (2) delivery of education materials to customers for CWSs 
and posting of lead information for NTNCWSs, (3) water systems 
contacting public health agencies to obtain a list of additional 
community organizations that should receive public education materials, 
(4) water systems notifying public health agencies and other community 
organizations, (5) large water systems posting a lead notice on their 
website, (6) water system issuing a press release, (7) community water 
systems consulting with the state on the materials development and 
appropriate activities while the action level is exceeded, and (8) 
annually certifying public education activities have been completed.
    The rule also includes a requirement for water systems to notify 
affected customers as soon as practicable but no later than 3 days of 
becoming aware of an individual lead tap sample exceeding the 15 [mu]g/
L. The model includes the development cost of the notification and 
education materials to be delivered to affected households and the 
incremental cost of expedited delivery of the notification. In 
developing this cost, EPA assumed systems would contact customers by 
phone and NTNCWSs would email and post sample results. Note that 
materials costs related to follow-up testing when a sample exceeds 15 
[micro]g/L are included in the tap sampling costs in section VI.D.2 of 
this preamble. The estimated annualized national water system public 
education and outreach costs for the previous LCR range from $345,000 
to $1,467,000 at a 3 percent discount rate under the low and high cost 
scenarios respectively. At a 7 percent discount rate, the annualized 
estimated previous rule PE cost range is from $471,000 to $2,016,000. 
Under the LCRR low cost scenario, the estimated impacts are $37,207,000 
at a 3 percent discount rate and $36,555,000 at a 7 percent discount 
rate. Under the high scenario the estimated annualized costs are 
$45,461,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $45,628,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate. Therefore, the incremental estimated public education 
and outreach costs for water systems range from $36,861,000 to 
$43,994,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $36,084,000 to $43,612,000 
at a 7 percent discount

[[Page 4256]]

rate. See Chapter 5, section 5.3.6 of the final rule EA for additional 
detailed information on the estimation of public education and outreach 
costs (USEPA, 2020a).
7. Annualized per Household Costs
    The cost model calculates the annualized cost per household, by 
first calculating the cost per gallon of water produced by the CWS. 
This cost per gallon represents the cost incurred by the system to 
comply with the requirements of the LCRR. This includes CCT cost, LSL 
inventory creation, system funded LSLR, tap sampling, public education, 
and administrative costs. Because of uncertainty in five important LCRR 
cost driver input variables, discussed in section VI.A. of this 
preamble, the Agency developed low and high cost scenarios. These 
scenarios produce a range in the estimated cost per gallon and two 
estimates for annualized per household costs.
    The model multiplies this low and high scenario costs per gallon by 
the average annual household consumption (in gallons) to determine the 
cost per household per year associated with increased costs borne by 
the CWS. EPA then adds to both these values the low and high total 
consumer-side LSLR cost borne by households in the system, divided by 
the number of households served by the system, to derive the CWS's 
average annual household low and high scenario cost estimates. Exhibits 
6-11 and 6-12 show the distributions of incremental annualized costs 
for CWS households by primary water source and size category. (Note 
that the percentiles represent the distribution of average household 
costs across CWSs in a category, not the distribution of costs across 
all households in a CWS category.) Some households that pay for a 
customer-side LSLR will bear a much greater annual household burden. 
EPA estimates the cost of removing the customer-owned side of a service 
line range from $2,514 to $3,929, with a central tendency of $3,559. 
The percentage of customers in each water system paying the higher 
customer-side LSL costs depends on the number of LSL in the water 
system, the rate of replacement, and the details of the water systems 
LSLR program.

                      Exhibit 6-11--Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by Community Water System Category--Low Cost Scenario
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               10th            25th            50th            75th            90th
        Funding              Source  water                Size              Percentile      Percentile      Percentile      Percentile      Percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private...............  Ground................  Less than 100...........           $5.36           $7.00          $11.32          $18.48          $26.40
Private...............  Ground................  100 to 500..............            1.45            2.32            4.03            5.85            9.92
Private...............  Ground................  500 to 1,000............            0.44            0.54            0.68            0.95            2.18
Private...............  Ground................  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.16            0.22            0.32            0.42            0.98
Private...............  Ground................  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.25            0.31            0.45            0.64            1.96
Private...............  Ground................  10,000 to 50,000........            0.04            0.06            0.09            0.34            0.72
Private...............  Ground................  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.05            0.06            0.10            0.31            0.34
Private...............  Ground................  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.03            0.04            0.10            0.26            0.31
Private...............  Surface...............  Less than 100...........            4.96            7.39           12.05           19.57           34.61
Private...............  Surface...............  100 to 500..............            1.43            2.26            4.08            6.92           13.97
Private...............  Surface...............  500 to 1,000............            0.40            0.51            0.78            1.68            3.49
Private...............  Surface...............  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.16            0.21            0.35            0.77            1.16
Private...............  Surface...............  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.23            0.31            0.49            1.57            2.45
Private...............  Surface...............  10,000 to 50,000........            0.04            0.06            0.36            0.64            2.23
Private...............  Surface...............  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.03            0.05            0.19            0.30            1.26
Private...............  Surface...............  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.02            0.05            0.19            0.27            0.97
Private...............  Surface...............  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.13            0.13            0.14            0.14            0.14
Public................  Ground................  Less than 100...........            3.83            4.95            8.27           14.29           21.12
Public................  Ground................  100 to 500..............            1.00            1.37            2.36            3.89            7.28
Public................  Ground................  500 to 1,000............            0.32            0.39            0.51            0.93            1.95
Public................  Ground................  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.12            0.16            0.24            0.37            0.86
Public................  Ground................  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.20            0.26            0.36            0.52            1.63
Public................  Ground................  10,000 to 50,000........            0.03            0.05            0.07            0.42            0.57
Public................  Ground................  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.04            0.05            0.21            0.26            0.28
Public................  Ground................  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.03            0.05            0.09            0.22            0.27
Public................  Ground................  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.06            0.06            0.09            0.10            0.10
Public................  Surface...............  Less than 100...........            3.48            6.44           12.26           22.00           29.05
Public................  Surface...............  100 to 500..............            0.92            1.45            2.71            4.75            8.36
Public................  Surface...............  500 to 1,000............            0.31            0.39            0.60            1.28            2.65
Public................  Surface...............  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.12            0.16            0.26            0.57            0.97
Public................  Surface...............  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.21            0.27            0.40            1.32            1.94
Public................  Surface...............  10,000 to 50,000........            0.04            0.06            0.14            0.57            2.22
Public................  Surface...............  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.03            0.06            0.24            0.31            1.10
Public................  Surface...............  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.03            0.06            0.18            0.28            0.40
Public................  Surface...............  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.04            0.07            0.09            0.10            0.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Exhibit 6-12--Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by Community Water System Category--High Cost Scenario
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               10th            25th            50th            75th            90th
        Funding              Source  water                Size              Percentile      Percentile      Percentile      Percentile      Percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private...............  Ground................  Less than 100...........         $-10.82           $6.65          $10.86          $18.53          $30.58
Private...............  Ground................  100 to 500..............            1.28            2.31            4.31            6.81           17.50
Private...............  Ground................  500 to 1,000............            0.44            0.56            0.78            3.71            7.09
Private...............  Ground................  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.17            0.25            0.36            1.15            2.66
Private...............  Ground................  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.24            0.33            0.52            2.44            5.85
Private...............  Ground................  10,000 to 50,000........            0.05            0.07            0.10            0.49            1.45
Private...............  Ground................  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.05            0.06            0.08            0.35            1.42

[[Page 4257]]

 
Private...............  Ground................  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.04            0.08            0.36            0.64            4.51
Private...............  Surface...............  Less than 100...........            3.72            6.49           15.93           30.31           69.90
Private...............  Surface...............  100 to 500..............            1.17            2.25            6.70           13.09           44.49
Private...............  Surface...............  500 to 1,000............            0.37            0.61            3.15            4.78           19.00
Private...............  Surface...............  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.15            0.26            1.01            2.38            7.74
Private...............  Surface...............  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.17            0.37            1.96            3.35            9.98
Private...............  Surface...............  10,000 to 50,000........            0.05            0.08            0.40            1.13            5.70
Private...............  Surface...............  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.03            0.05            0.13            0.39            2.54
Private...............  Surface...............  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.03            0.09            0.36            0.95            4.36
Private...............  Surface...............  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.16            0.16            0.16            0.16            0.17
Public................  Ground................  Less than 100...........           -5.87            4.63            7.76           15.88           27.31
Public................  Ground................  100 to 500..............            0.96            1.41            2.65            6.26           14.49
Public................  Ground................  500 to 1,000............            0.32            0.41            0.62            3.17            7.14
Public................  Ground................  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.12            0.17            0.29            1.04            3.33
Public................  Ground................  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.20            0.27            0.41            1.88            4.83
Public................  Ground................  10,000 to 50,000........            0.04            0.06            0.08            0.40            1.60
Public................  Ground................  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.04            0.05            0.19            0.30            2.24
Public................  Ground................  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.04            0.06            0.30            0.44            3.97
Public................  Ground................  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.08            0.08            0.10            0.10            0.10
Public................  Surface...............  Less than 100...........            3.30            5.45           13.70           29.79           62.64
Public................  Surface...............  100 to 500..............            0.90            1.47            4.85           10.08           34.08
Public................  Surface...............  500 to 1,000............            0.30            0.44            2.61            3.98           13.98
Public................  Surface...............  1,000 to 3,300..........            0.12            0.20            0.83            1.63            5.51
Public................  Surface...............  3,300 to 10,000.........            0.21            0.33            1.66            2.64            8.76
Public................  Surface...............  10,000 to 50,000........            0.05            0.07            0.38            1.08            5.11
Public................  Surface...............  50,000 to 100,000.......            0.04            0.06            0.25            0.37            2.85
Public................  Surface...............  100,000 to 1,000,000....            0.04            0.08            0.37            0.97            4.42
Public................  Surface...............  Greater than 1,000,000..            0.04            0.08            0.09            0.12            0.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Primacy Agency Costs
    For each of the drinking water cost sections previously described, 
primacy agencies (i.e., states) have associated costs. The first of 
these groupings is implementation and administrative costs which are 
associated with rule adoption, program development, coordinating with 
the EPA, modification of data systems and data entry, training for both 
state and PWS employees, and on-going technical assistance to systems. 
The next burden category specifically for states is the sampling 
related costs resulting from the review of sampling plans, 
communications materials, collected lead tap, water quality parameter, 
source water, and school and child care monitoring data/reports, and 
waiver and sample invalidation requests. CCT costs accruing to states 
come from consultations on and review of the selection process 
(including CCT studies) and installation or re-optimization of 
corrosion control technologies, the setting of optimal water quality 
parameters, and the consultation and review of actions taken in 
response to source water, treatment changes, and ``find-and-fix'' 
sample results. Other major drivers of state cost are the LSLR 
inventory and replacement activities. States assist systems in the 
development of their LSL inventories, review the completed inventories, 
LSLR plans and outreach materials, approve the goal-based replacement 
rate for a trigger level exceedance and determine additional activities 
for PWSs not meeting this goal-based rate, and annually review LSLR 
program reports and updates to the inventory. States review, consult, 
and approve CCT re-optimization when a PWS with CCT in place has a 
trigger level exceedance. States also review, consult, and approve the 
action level exceedance compliance approach that small CWSs serving 
10,000 or fewer persons and NTNCWSs submit when the system exceeds the 
trigger level. The compliance choice set for these systems includes CCT 
installation or re-optimization, LSLR, or POU device installation. 
Costs incurred by states for CCT and LSLR are discussed above. For POU 
programs, state burden results from reviewing the POU implementation 
plan, outreach materials, annual tap site sampling plans, results, and 
certifications for customer notification, and annual required program 
reports. The final category of state costs assessed in the EPA model 
are those associated with the final rule's public education 
requirements. States must review new required CCR changes, outreach 
material to health departments, and PE materials for disturbances of 
lead service lines for CWSs with LSLs, galvanized requiring 
replacement, and service lines of unknown material. In the case of 
systems that exceed the lead action level the state must also review 
revisions to lead language in the tier-one public notification and 
consult on the other PE activities a system must conduct in response to 
the exceedance. States will also review the annual public education 
certification submissions from systems.
    In EPA's cost model, the majority of the costs associated with 
states are determined on a per water system basis. State actions and 
costs are largely driven by the rule required actions that are 
triggered for the individual water systems. The exception to this rule 
is the implementation and administrative costs which are tallied on a 
per primacy agency basis. Unit cost values for the final LCRR were 
updated based on burden information from the Association of State 
Drinking Water Administrators' Costs of States Transactions Study 
(CoSTS) model (ASDWA, 2020). These updated unit cost values are 
substantially higher that those used in the proposed rule analysis. The 
per water system costs and per primacy agency costs are summed to 
obtain aggregate costs for this category.
    The cost model estimates that primacy agencies will incur 
incremental estimated annualized costs, under the low cost scenario, 
totaling $19,707,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $20,876,000 at a 
7 percent discount rate. For the high cost scenario total estimated 
incremental cost is

[[Page 4258]]

$20,756,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $22,216,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate. Additional information on the estimation of primacy 
agency costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the final rule 
EA (USEPA, 2020a).
9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated With Additional Phosphate 
Usage
    Adding orthophosphate creates a protective inner coating on pipes 
that can inhibit lead leaching. However, once phosphate is added to the 
public water system (PWS), some of this incremental loading remains in 
the water stream as it flows into wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 
downstream. This generates treatment costs for certain WWTPs. In 
addition, at those locations where treatment does not occur, water with 
elevated phosphorus concentrations may discharge to water bodies and 
induce certain ecological impacts.
    To estimate the potential fate of the orthophosphate added at PWSs, 
EPA developed a conceptual mass balance model. EPA applied this 
conceptual model to estimate the increase in loading at WWTPs, given an 
initial loading from corrosion control at water treatment plants. WWTPs 
could incur costs because of upstream orthophosphate addition if they 
have permit discharge limits for phosphorus parameters. The percentage 
of WWTPs with phosphorus limits has increased over time. From 2007 to 
2016, in annual percentage rate terms, the growth rate in the 
percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits is 3.3 percent (see Chapter 
5, Section 5.5.1 of the Final Rule EA).
    EPA assumed this increase would continue as states transition from 
narrative to numerical nutrient criteria and set numeric permits 
limits, especially for impaired waters. EPA applied the growth rate 
observed from 2007 to 2016 to estimate the anticipated percentage of 
WWTPs with phosphorus limits in future years. This growth rate results 
in an estimated 41 percent of WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits 
after 35 years. Applied as the percentage of WWTPs that need to take 
treatment actions, this estimate is likely conservative, particularly 
given the potential availability of alternative compliance mechanisms, 
such as, individual facility variance and nutrient trading programs.
    The specific actions a WWTP might need to take, if any, to maintain 
compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) phosphorus limit will depend on the type of treatment present 
at the WWTP and the corresponding phosphorus removal provided. Based on 
a review of NPDES data, it is likely that most of the WWTPs that 
already have phosphorus limits have some type of treatment to achieve 
the limit.
    Some treatment processes can accommodate incremental increases in 
influent loading and still maintain their removal efficiency. Such 
processes might not need significant adjustment to maintain their 
existing phosphorus removal efficiency, given an incremental increase. 
Other treatment processes may need modifications to their design or 
operation to maintain their removal efficiency in the face of an 
influent loading increase.
    EPA derived a unit cost of $4.59 per pound for removing incremental 
phosphorus (see Chapter 5, section 5.5.1 of the final rule EA for 
additional information). This unit cost includes the cost of additional 
chemical consumption and the operating cost of additional sludge 
processing and disposal. The costs a WWTP could incur depend on the 
magnitude of the loading increase relative to the specific WWTP's 
effluent permit limit. WWTPs, whose current discharge concentrations 
are closer to their limit, are more likely to have to act. WWTPs whose 
current concentrations are well below their limit may not incur costs 
but might, under certain conditions, incur costs (for example, when 
phosphorus removal achieved by technology is sensitive to incremental 
phosphorus loading increases). Furthermore, future phosphorus limits 
could be more stringent than existing limits in certain watersheds.
    Therefore, EPA conservatively assumed that any WWTP with a 
discharge limit for phosphorus parameters could incur costs. 
Accordingly, in calculating costs, EPA used the anticipated percentage 
of WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits as the likelihood that 
incremental orthophosphate loading from a drinking water system would 
reach a WWTP with a limit. EPA combined this likelihood and the unit 
cost (previously estimated) with incremental phosphorus loading to 
calculate incremental costs to WWTPs for each year of the analysis 
period. The incremental annualized cost that WWTPs would incur to 
remove additional phosphorous associated with the LCRR, under the low 
cost scenario, ranges from $1,152,000 to $1,458,000 at a 3 and 7 
percent discount rate, respectively. The high cost scenario produced an 
incremental estimated impact of $1,828,000 using a 3 percent discount 
rate, and $2,607,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
    EPA estimates that WWTP treatment reduces phosphorus loads reaching 
water bodies by 59 percent but they are not eliminated. The rule's 
national-level total incremental phosphorus loads reaching water bodies 
are projected to grow over the period of analysis from the low/high 
scenario range of 161,000 to 548,000 pounds fifteen years after 
promulgation to the low/high scenario range of 355,000 to 722,000 
pounds at year 35. See Chapter 5, section 5.5.2 of the final rule EA 
for information on how loading estimates are calculated. The ecological 
impacts of these increased phosphorous loadings are highly localized: 
Total incremental phosphorus loadings will depend on the amount and 
timing of the releases, characteristics of the receiving water body, 
effluent discharge rate, existing total phosphorus levels, and weather 
and climate conditions. Detailed spatially explicit information on 
effluents and on receiving water bodies does not exist in a form 
suitable for this analysis. Rather, to evaluate the potential 
ecological impacts of the rule, EPA evaluated the significance of the 
national-level phosphorus loadings compared to other phosphorous 
sources in the terrestrial ecosystem.
    To put these phosphorus loadings in context, estimates from the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Spatially Referenced Regression On 
Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model suggest that anthropogenic sources 
deposit roughly 750 million pounds of total phosphorus per year (USEPA, 
2019b). The total phosphorus loadings from the LCRR high cost scenario 
would contribute about 1 percent (7 million/750 million) of total 
phosphorus entering receiving waterbodies in a given year, and the 
incremental amount of total phosphorus associated with the LCRR 
relative to the previous LCR grows only 0.1 percent (722,000/750 
million). At the national level, EPA expects total phosphorus entering 
waterbodies as a result of the final LCR revisions to be small, 
relative to the total phosphorus load deposited annually from all other 
sources. National average load impacts may obscure localized ecological 
impacts in some circumstances, but the existing data do not allow an 
assessment as to whether this incremental load will induce ecological 
impacts in particular areas. It is possible, however, that localized 
impacts may occur in certain water bodies without restrictions on 
phosphate influents, or in locations with existing elevated phosphate 
levels.
    An increase in phosphorus loadings can lead to economic impacts and 
undesirable aesthetic impacts. Excess

[[Page 4259]]

nutrient pollution can cause eutrophication--excessive plant and algae 
growth--in lakes, reservoirs, streams, and estuaries throughout the 
United States. Eutrophication, by inducing primary production, leads to 
seasonal decomposition of additional biomass, consuming oxygen and 
creating a state of hypoxia, or low oxygen, within the water body. In 
extreme cases, the low to no oxygen states can create dead zones, or 
areas in the water where aquatic life cannot survive. Studies indicate 
that eutrophication can decrease aquatic diversity for this reason 
(e.g., Dodds et al. 2009). Eutrophication may also stimulate the growth 
of harmful algal blooms (HABs), or over-abundant algae populations. 
Algal blooms can harm the aquatic ecosystem by blocking sunlight and 
creating diurnal swings in oxygen levels because of overnight 
respiration. Such conditions can starve and deplete aquatic species.
10. Summary of Rule Costs
    The estimated annualized low and high scenario costs, discounted at 
3 percent and 7 percent, that PWSs, households, and primacy agencies 
will incur in complying with the previous LCR, the LCRR, and 
incrementally are summarized in Exhibits 6-13 and 6-14. The total 
estimated incremental annualized cost of the LCRR range from $161 to 
$335 million at a 3 percent discount rate, and $167 to $372 million at 
a 7 percent discount rate in 2016 dollars. The exhibits also detail the 
proportion of the annualized costs attributable to each rule component.

                                        Exhibit 6-13--National Annualized Rule Costs--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                    PWS annual costs                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................     $41,962,000     $67,744,000     $25,782,000     $45,099,000     $78,739,000     $33,641,000
PWS Lead Service Line Replacement.......................         628,000      44,372,000      43,744,000      27,277,000     140,242,000     112,965,000
Corrosion Control Technology............................     344,483,000     363,894,000      19,412,000     385,681,000     471,087,000      85,407,000
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............               0       3,418,000       3,418,000               0      20,238,000      20,238,000
Public Education and Outreach...........................         345,000      37,207,000      36,861,000       1,467,000      45,461,000      43,994,000
Rule Implementation and Administration..................               0       2,576,000       2,576,000               0       2,576,000       2,576,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................     387,417,000     519,210,000     131,792,000     459,523,000     758,343,000     298,820,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Rule Implementation and Administration............       6,145,000      25,852,000      19,707,000       7,137,000      27,893,000      20,756,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement.................         182,000       8,100,000       7,918,000       5,466,000      19,542,000      14,076,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................         161,000       1,313,000       1,152,000         695,000       2,523,000       1,828,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................     393,904,000     554,475,000     160,571,000     472,821,000     808,301,000     335,481,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Exhibit 6-14--National Annualized Rule Costs--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                    PWS annual costs                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................     $40,890,000     $70,197,000     $29,307,000     $45,164,000     $84,407,000     $39,243,000
PWS Lead Service Line Replacement.......................         667,000      46,803,000      46,136,000      38,327,000     169,562,000     131,235,000
Corrosion Control Technology............................     322,684,000     340,307,000      17,623,000     364,809,000     457,554,000      92,745,000
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............               0       3,308,000       3,308,000               0      19,928,000      19,928,000
Public Education and Outreach...........................         471,000      36,555,000      36,084,000       2,016,000      45,628,000      43,612,000
Rule Implementation and Administration..................               0       4,147,000       4,147,000               0       4,147,000       4,147,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................     364,711,000     501,316,000     136,605,000     450,316,000     781,224,000     330,908,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Rule Implementation and Administration............       6,073,000      26,949,000      20,876,000       7,429,000      29,645,000      22,216,000
Household Lead Service Line Replacement.................         193,000       8,587,000       8,393,000       7,681,000      24,409,000      16,728,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................         211,000       1,669,000       1,458,000       1,097,000       3,705,000       2,607,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................     371,188,000     538,521,000     167,333,000     466,523,000     838,983,000     372,460,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Benefits Analysis

    The final LCRR is expected to result in significant health 
benefits, since both lead and copper are associated with adverse health 
effects. Lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can damage neurological, 
cardiovascular, immunological, developmental, and other major body 
systems. EPA is particularly concerned about ongoing exposure 
experienced by children because lead can affect brain development. 
Additionally, children through their physiology and water ingestion 
requirements may be at higher risk. Research shows that, on average, 
formula-fed infants and young children consume more drinking water per 
day on a body weight basis than adolescents. Using the USDA Continuing 
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) data, Kahn and Stralka 
(2009) demonstrated this trend, is most pronounced in children under 1 
year of age who drink more than double older children and adults per kg 
of body weight. Additionally, children absorb 2-4 times more lead than 
adults through the gastrointestinal tract ((Mushak, 1991, WHO, 2011, 
and Ziegler et al., 1978). No safe level of lead exposure has been 
identified (USEPA, 2013). EPA's health risk reduction and benefits 
assessment of the LCR revisions concentrates on quantification and 
monetization of the estimated impact of reductions in lead exposure on 
childhood IQ. As explained in Appendix D of the final rule Economic

[[Page 4260]]

Analysis (USEPA 2020a), there are additional non-quantified lead health 
impacts to both children and adults that will be realized as a result 
of this rulemaking.
    Although copper is an essential element for health, excess intake 
of copper has been associated with several adverse health effects. Most 
commonly, excess exposure to copper results in gastrointestinal 
symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (National Research 
Council, 2000). In susceptible populations, such as children with 
genetic disorders or predispositions to accumulate copper, chronic 
exposure to excess copper can result in liver toxicity. Because 
household level data on the change in copper concentrations that result 
from changes in CCT are not available, this analysis does not quantify 
any potential benefits from reduced copper exposure that may result 
from the rule. See Appendix E in the final rule EA for additional 
copper health impact information.
    To quantify the potential impact to exposed populations of changes 
in lead tap water concentrations as a result of the LCR revisions, EPA:
     Utilized sample data from 15 cities representing 14 water 
systems from across the United States and Canada to estimate potential 
household lead tap water concentrations under various levels of 
corrosion control treatment, LSLR, and implementation of POU devices;
     Modeled exposure using the lead tap water concentration 
data estimated from the 15 city sampling data, information on peoples' 
water consumption activities, and background lead levels from other 
potential pathways;
     Derived the potential change in BLLs that result from the 
changes in drinking water lead exposure;
     Used concentration response functions, from the scientific 
literature, to quantify estimated changes in IQ for children given 
shifts in BLLs;
     Estimated the unit value of a change in childhood IQ; and
     Applied the unit values to the appropriate demographic 
groups experiencing changes in lead tap water concentrations as a 
result of the regulatory changes across the period of analysis.
    Subsections VI.E.1 through 4 of this preamble outline the 
estimation of lead concentration values in drinking water used to 
estimate before and after rule revision implementation concentration 
scenarios, the corresponding estimated avoided IQ loss in children, and 
a summary of the monetized benefits of the LCRR.
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
    EPA determined the lead concentrations in drinking water at 
residential locations through the collection and analysis of 
consecutive sampling data representing homes pre and post removal of 
LSLs, including partial removal of LSLs, under differing levels of 
water system corrosion control treatment. The data was collected from 
multiple sources including water systems, EPA Regional Offices and the 
Office of Research and Development, and authors of published journal 
articles (Deshommes et al., 2016). This data includes lead 
concentrations and information regarding LSL status, location, and date 
of sample collection, representing 18,039 samples collected from 1,638 
homes in 15 cities representing 14 city water systems across the United 
States and Canada. EPA grouped the samples into LSL status categories 
(``LSL,'' ``Partial,'' ``No LSL''). Samples were also grouped by CCT 
treatment, assigning status as having ``None,'' ``Partial,'' or 
``Representative.'' ``Partial'' includes those water systems with some 
pH adjustment and lower doses of a phosphate corrosion inhibitor, but 
this treatment is not optimized. ``Representative'' are those water 
systems in the dataset that have higher doses of phosphate inhibitors, 
which in the model are considered optimized (see the final rule EA 
Chapter 6, section 6.2.1 for additional detail and docket number EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0300 for the data).
    In response to comments received by the Agency, the city 
assignments to CCT groupings were updated between the proposed and 
final rules. EPA reviewed the CCT designations made in the dataset and 
changed the designations for Halifax, Cincinnati before 2006, and 
Providence/Cranston.
    EPA fit several regression models (see the final rule EA Chapter 6, 
section 6.2.2 for additional detail) of tap water lead concentration as 
predicted by LSL presence (``LSL'' or ``No LSL''), LSL extent 
(``Partial''), CCT status, and ``profile liter.'' Profile liter is the 
cumulative volume a sample represented within a consecutive sampling 
series at a single location and time. Models to describe the profile 
liter accounted for the variation among sampling events, sampling 
sites, and city. The water lead concentrations exhibited a right-skewed 
distribution; therefore, the variable was log-transformed to provide a 
better modeled fit of the data. EPA selected one of the regression 
models based on its fit and parsimony and used it to produce simulated 
lead concentrations for use in the benefits analysis (Exhibit 6-8, in 
Chapter 6 of the final rule EA). The selected model suggests that 
besides water system, residence, and sampling event, the largest 
effects on lead concentration in tap water come from the presence of 
LSLs and the number of liters drawn since the last stagnation period. 
CCT produces smaller effects on lead concentration than LSLs, and these 
effects are larger in homes with LSLs.
    To statistically control for some sources of variability in the 
input data, EPA did not use summary statistics from the original data 
directly in estimating the effects of LSL and CCT status. Instead, EPA 
produced simulated mean lead concentrations for 500,000 samples, 
summarized in Exhibit 6-15, based on the selected regression model. The 
simulations were performed on the log-scale to conform to the fitted 
model (which used a log-transformed water lead concentration variable) 
and converted to the original scale to produce geometric means and 
geometric standard-deviations. Geometric means are more representative 
of the central tendency of a right-skewed distribution than are 
arithmetic means and prevent overestimation of the impact of water lead 
levels on estimated blood lead levels and resulting IQ and benefits 
values. The simulated sample concentrations represent estimates for new 
cities, sites, and sampling events not included in the original 
dataset. These simulations rely on estimates of variability and 
uncertainty from the regression model and given information on LSL and 
CCT status. Individual estimates are best thought of as the central 
tendency for a lead tap sample concentration given regression model 
parameters and estimated variance. The simulated samples represent, on 
average, the lead concentrations taken after a short flushing period of 
roughly 30 seconds for all combinations of LSL and CCT status. This 
represents a point near the average peak lead concentration for homes 
with full or partial LSLs, and a point slightly below the peak lead 
concentration for homes with no LSLs, regardless of CCT status.
    EPA estimates that improving CCT will produce significant 
reductions in lead tap water concentration overall. However, for full 
LSLRs, the final model produced predictions of drinking water 
concentrations that overlapped almost completely for all CCT 
conditions. Therefore, EPA used the pooled estimate of predicted 
drinking water concentrations for all CCT conditions in residences with 
no LSL in place for the

[[Page 4261]]

main analysis in Chapter 6 of the final rule EA.
    Because small CWSs, that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, have 
flexibility in the compliance option they select in response to a lead 
action level exceedance, some CWSs are modeled as installing POU 
devices at all residences. See section III.E of this preamble for 
additional information on the compliance alternatives available to 
small CWSs. For individuals in these systems, EPA assumed, in the 
analysis, that consumers in households with POU devices are exposed to 
the same lead concentration as residents with ``No LSL'' and 
``Representative'' CCT in place.
    Note that the simulated concentrations for the final rule analysis, 
in Exhibit 6-15, have increased lead concentrations for the ``no-LSL'' 
scenarios and lower lead concentrations for the cases where full and 
partial LSLs are present and there is no or partial CCT present as 
compared to the estimated values used in the proposed rule analysis. 
These changes from the proposal will result in lower estimated changes 
in BLLs for both children and adults as a result of LSLR and 
improvements in CCT. Estimated IQ benefit for children will also 
decrease for a change in treatment of LSLR as compared to the proposed 
rule values.

   Exhibit 6-15--LSL and CCT Scenarios and Simulated Geometric Mean Tap Water Lead Concentrations and Standard
         Deviations at the Fifth Liter Drawn After Stagnation for Each Combination of LSL and CCT Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Simulated     Simulated  SD     Simulated
                                                   mean of  log     \a\ of  log      geometric       Simulated
          LSL status               CCT status          lead            lead          mean lead     geometric  SD
                                                   ([micro]g/L)    ([micro]g/L)    ([micro]g/L)     \a\ of lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL...........................  None............            2.89            1.33           18.08            3.78
Partial.......................  None............            2.13            1.33            8.43            3.77
No LSL........................  None............        \b\-0.19        \b\ 1.35        \b\ 0.82        \b\ 3.86
LSL...........................  Partial.........            2.29            1.33            9.92            3.78
Partial.......................  Partial.........            1.55            1.32            4.72            3.75
No LSL........................  Partial.........        \b\-0.19        \b\ 1.35        \b\ 0.82        \b\ 3.86
LSL...........................  Representative..            1.70            1.33            5.48            3.77
Partial.......................  Representative..            0.97            1.32            2.64            3.76
No LSL........................  Representative..        \b\-0.19        \b\ 1.35        \b\ 0.82        \b\ 3.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard deviations reflect ``among-sampling event'' variability.
\b\ Bolded values show how simulated results were pooled to produce a common estimate for homes with no LSL
  across CCT conditions.

    In the estimation of the costs and benefits of the LCR revisions, 
each modeled person within a water system is assigned to one of the 
estimated drinking water concentrations in Exhibit 6-15, depending on 
CCT, POU, and LSL status. EPA estimated benefits under both the low 
cost and high cost scenarios used in the LCRR analysis to characterize 
uncertainty in the cost estimates.The low cost scenario and high cost 
scenario differ in their assumptions made about: (1) The existing 
number of LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the AL or TL under 
the previous and final rule monitoring requirements; (3) the cost of 
installing and/or re-optimizing corrosion control treatment (CCT);(4) 
the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead concentrations; and (5) the 
cost of LSLR (Section VI.C above and Chapter 5, section 5.2.4.2 of the 
final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a)). EPA predicted the status of each system 
under the low and high scenarios at baseline (prior to rule 
implementation) and in each year of rule implementation. Depending on 
the timing of required actions that can change CCT, POU, and LSL status 
under both the baseline and LCRR low and high scenario model runs, 
changes in lead concentration and resultant blood lead are predicted 
every year for the total population served by the systems for the 35-
year period of analysis. In the primary benefits analysis for the final 
rule, improvements to CCT and the use of installed POU devices are only 
predicted for individuals in households with LSLs prior to 
implementation of the LCRR requirements (consistent with discussion 
above about the limits of the data for predicting the impact of CCT 
when LSL are not present). In the model, LSL removals are predicted by 
water system, by year, and multiplied by the average number of persons 
per household (across demographic categories) to determine the number 
of people shifting from one LSL status to another. To predict the 
changes in exposure that result from an improvement in CCT, EPA 
predicts the entire LSL population of a water system will move to the 
new CCT status at the same time. EPA also assumes that the entire water 
system moves to the drinking water lead concentration, assigned to POU 
when this option is implemented, which implies that everyone in 
households in a distribution system with LSLs is properly using the 
POU. See Chapter 6, section 6.3 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for 
more detailed information on the number of people switching lead 
concentration categories under the low and high cost scenarios.
2. Impacts on Childhood IQ
    The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) 
states that there is a causal relationship between lead exposure and 
cognitive function decrements in children based on several lines of 
evidence, including findings from prospective studies in diverse 
populations supported by evidence in animals, and evidence identifying 
potential modes of action. The evidence from multiple high-quality 
studies using large cohorts of children shows an association between 
blood lead levels and decreased intelligence quotient (IQ). The 2012 
National Toxicology Program Monograph concluded that there is 
sufficient evidence of association between blood lead levels less than 
5 [mu]g/dL and decreases in various general and specific measures of 
cognitive function in children from three months to 16 years of age. 
This conclusion is based on prospective and cross-sectional studies 
using a wide range of tests to assess cognitive function (National 
Toxicology Program, 2012).
    EPA quantitatively assessed and monetized the benefits of avoided 
losses in IQ as a result of the LCR revisions. Modeled lead tap water 
concentrations (previously discussed in this notice) are used to 
estimate the extent to which the LCRR would reduce avoidable loss of IQ

[[Page 4262]]

among children. The first step in the quantification and monetization 
of avoided IQ loss is to estimate the likely decrease in blood lead 
levels in children based on the reductions in lead in their drinking 
water as a result of the rulemaking.
    EPA estimated the distribution of current blood lead levels in 
children, age 0 to 7, using EPA's Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose 
Simulation Multimedia (SHEDS-Multimedia) model coupled with its 
Integrated Exposure and Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. The coupled 
SHEDS-IEUBK model framework was peer reviewed by EPA in June of 2017 as 
part of exploratory work into developing a health-based benchmark for 
lead in drinking water (ERG, 2017). For further information on SHEDS-
IEUBK model development and evaluation, refer to Zartarian et al. 
(2017). As a first step in estimating the blood lead levels, EPA 
utilized the SHEDS-Multimedia model, which can estimate distributions 
of lead exposure, using a two-stage Monte Carlo sampling process, given 
input lead concentrations in various media and human behavior data from 
EPA's Consolidated Human Activity Database (CHAD) and the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES). SHEDS-Multimedia, in this case, uses 
individual time-activity diaries from CDC's NHANES and EPA's CHAD for 
children aged 0 to 7 to simulate longitudinal activity diaries. 
Information from these diaries is then combined with relevant lead 
input distributions (e.g., outdoor air lead concentrations) to estimate 
exposure. Drinking water tap concentrations for each of the modeled LSL 
and CCT scenarios, above, were used as the drinking water inputs to 
SHEDS-Multimedia. For more detail on the other lead exposure pathways 
that are held constant as background in the model, see Chapter 6, 
section 6.4, of the final rule EA.
    In the SHEDS-IEUBK coupled methodology, the SHEDS model takes the 
place of the exposure and variability components of the IEUBK model by 
generating a probability distribution of lead intakes across media. 
These intakes are multiplied by route-specific (e.g., inhalation, 
ingestion) absorption fractions to obtain a distribution of lead 
uptakes (see Exhibit 6-21 in the final rule EA Chapter 6, section 6.4). 
This step is consistent with the uptake estimation that would normally 
occur within the IEUBK model. The media specific uptakes can be summed 
across exposure routes to give total lead uptake per day. Next, EPA 
used age-based relationships derived from IEUBK, through the use of a 
polynomial regression analysis, to relate these total lead uptakes to 
blood lead levels. Exhibit 6-16 presents modeled SHEDS-IEUBK blood lead 
levels in children by year of life and LSL, CCT status, and POU. The 
blood lead levels in this exhibit represent what children's blood lead 
level would be if they lived under the corresponding LSL, POU, and CCT 
status combination for their entire lives. Note that when ``No LSL'' is 
the beginning or post-rule state, 0.82 [micro]g/L is the assumed 
concentration across all levels of CCT status (none, partial, 
representative). The extent to which changes in CCT status make 
meaningful differences in lead concentrations for those without LSLs 
cannot be determined from this exhibit.

 Exhibit 6-16--Modeled SHEDS-IEUBK Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels in Children for Each Possible Drinking Water Lead Exposure Scenario for Each Year of
                                                                          Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 GM blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) \b\ for specified year of life
         Lead service line status            Corrosion control treatment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       status              0-1 \a\     1-2       2-3       3-4       4-5       5-6       6-7     Avg.\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL.......................................  None........................      3.61      2.47      2.65      2.47      2.48      2.66      2.34      2.67
Partial...................................  None........................      2.35      1.83      1.88      1.81      1.81      1.88      1.65      1.89
No LSL....................................  None........................      0.97      1.14      1.18      1.15      1.14      1.19      0.98      1.11
LSL.......................................  Partial.....................      2.57      1.93      2.05      1.95      1.94      2.03      1.76      2.03
Partial...................................  Partial.....................      1.72      1.52      1.57      1.54      1.51      1.58      1.37      1.54
No LSL....................................  Partial.....................      0.97      1.14      1.18      1.15      1.14      1.19      0.98      1.11
LSL.......................................  Representative..............      1.85      1.57      1.64      1.60      1.57      1.63      1.43      1.62
Partial...................................  Representative..............      1.36      1.33      1.36      1.34      1.32      1.37      1.19      1.32
No LSL....................................  Representative..............      0.97      1.14      1.18      1.15      1.14      1.19      0.98      1.11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   POU                                        0.97      1.14      1.18      1.15      1.14      1.19      0.98      1.11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Due to lack of available data, blood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only.
\b\ These represent the blood lead for a child living with the LSL/CCT status in the columns to the left. Each year blood lead corresponding to actual
  modeled child is summed and divided by 7 in the model to estimate lifetime average blood lead.
\c\ This column contains calculated average lifetime blood lead levels assuming a child lived in the corresponding LSL/CCT scenario for their entire
  life. Lifetime average blood lead levels above 5 [micro]g/dL are in bold lettering.
This table presents modeled SHEDS-IEUBK blood lead levels in children by year of life.

    The blood lead levels presented in Exhibit 6-16, are used as inputs 
for the benefits modeling. The EPA benefits analysis uses lifetime 
average blood lead values to determine estimates of avoided IQ loss 
that correspond to reductions in water lead concentrations resulting 
from changes in LSL, POU and CCT status at some point in a 
representative child's life (between ages 0 and 7), and those made 
prior to the child's birth for those born 7 years after the rule is 
implemented. Therefore, the EPA cost-benefit model, in each year of the 
analysis, calculates IQ benefits based on the cohort, or percent of the 
modeled population, that turns 7 years of age in the year being 
analyzed. The EPA model, for both the baseline and LCRR, tracks PWS 
implementation over the period of analysis. This data allows the model 
to determine the number of children that fall within each of the 10 
possible LSL/CCT/POU lead exposure scenarios for each of the seven 
years prior to the year being modeled. The model then calculates a set 
of average lifetime blood lead levels for the possible LSL/CCT/POU 
exposure scenarios (the set of scenarios includes not only the change 
in LSL, CCT, and POU status but also the years, 0-7, in which the 
status changes occur) and applies these values to the appropriate 
percent of the 7 year old cohort (the percent of 7 year olds that are 
estimated to experience the scenarios represented by the average 
lifetime BLLs) for that analysis year under both the baseline and LCRR 
requirements. The change in average lifetime BLLs for the 7 year old 
cohort is then used to determine the incremental benefit of avoided IQ 
losses.
    In order to relate the child's estimated average lifetime blood 
lead level to an estimate of avoided IQ loss, EPA selected a 
concentration-response function based on lifetime blood lead from the 
independent analysis by Crump et al. (2013). This study used data from 
a 2005 paper by Lanphear et al., which has formed the basis of 
concentration-response functions used

[[Page 4263]]

in several EPA regulations (National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(USEPA, 2008a); the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Lead Repair and 
Renovation Rule (USEPA, 2008b); and Steam Electric Effluent Limitation 
Guidelines Rule (USEPA, 2015). The Crump et al. (2013) function was 
selected over Lanphear et al. (2005) to minimize issues with 
overestimating predicted IQ loss at the lowest levels of lead exposure 
(less than 1 [micro]g/dL BLL), which is a result of the use of the log-
linear function. The Crump et al. (2013) function avoids this issue by 
adding one to the estimated blood lead levels prior to log-
transformation in the analysis. Since the revisions to the LCR are 
expected to reduce chronic exposures to lead, EPA selected lifetime 
blood lead as the most appropriate measure with which to evaluate 
benefits. No threshold has been identified for the neurological effects 
of lead (Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2013; Crump et al., 2013; 
Schwartz et al., 1991; USEPA, 2013). Therefore, EPA assumes that there 
is no threshold for this endpoint and quantified avoided IQ loss 
associated with all blood lead levels. EPA, as part of its sensitivity 
analysis, estimated the BLL to IQ relationship using Lanphear et al. 
(2019) and Kirrane and Patel (2014).\1\ See Chapter 6, section 6.4.3 
and Appendix G of the final rule EA for a more detailed discussion 
(USEPA, 2020a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Lanphear et al., (2005) published a correction in 2019 that 
revised the results to be consistent with the Kirrane and Patel 
(2014) corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated value of an IQ point decrement is derived from EPA's 
reanalysis of Salkever (1995), which estimates that a one-point 
increase in IQ results in a 1.871 percent increase in lifetime earnings 
for males and a 3.409 percent change in lifetime earnings for females. 
Lifetime earnings are estimated using the average of 10 American 
Community Survey (ACS) single-year samples (2008 to 2017) and projected 
cohort life tables from the Social Security Administration. Projected 
increases in lifetime earnings are then adjusted for the direct costs 
of additional years of education and forgone earnings while in school. 
The reanalysis of Salkever (1995) estimates a change of 0.0812 years of 
schooling per change in IQ point resulting from a reduction in lead 
exposure for males and a change of 0.0917 years of schooling for 
females.
    To estimate the uncertainty underlying the model parameters of the 
Salkever (1995) reanalysis, EPA used a bootstrap approach to estimate a 
distribution of model parameters over 10,000 replicates (using random 
sampling with replacement). For each replicate, the net monetized value 
of a one-point decrease in IQ is subsequently estimated as the gross 
value of an IQ point, less the value of additional education costs and 
lost earnings while in school. EPA uses an IQ point value discounted to 
age 7. Based on EPA's reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the mean value of 
an IQ point in 2016 dollars, discounted to age 7, is $5,708 using a 7 
percent discount rate and $22,503 using a 3 percent discount rate.\2\ 
See Appendix G, of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for a sensitivity 
analysis of avoided IQ loss benefits based on Lin et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ It should be noted that these values are slightly different 
than those used in other recent rulemaking (e.g., the Lead Dust 
Standard and the proposed Perchlorate rule). This is simply due to 
the differences in the age of the child when the benefits are 
accrued in the analysis. Benefits for the LCRR are accrued at age 
seven and therefore the value of an IQ point is discounted back to 
age 7 in the LCRR analysis. This results in a slightly higher 
estimate than the values used for the Perchlorate Rule and the Lead 
Dust Standard, which are discounted to age zero and age three, 
respectively. It should also be noted, and is described in Section 
6.4.5, that the benefits in the LCRR are further discounted back to 
year one of the analysis and annualized within the EPA LCRR cost-
benefit model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used the estimated changes in lifetime (age 0 to 7) average 
blood lead levels that result from changes in LSL, CCT, or POU status 
as inputs to the concentration response function from the independent 
analysis by Crump et al. (2013). The resultant annual avoided IQ 
decrements per change in LSL, CCT, and/or POU status change are then 
summed and multiplied by the EPA reanalyzed Salkever (1995) value per 
IQ point, which represent a weighted average for males and females (3 
or 7 percent depending on the discount rate being used to annualize the 
stream of benefits across the period of analysis). This annual stream 
of benefits was annualized at 3 and 7 percent over the 35-year period 
of analysis, and further discounted to year one of the period of 
analysis. See Exhibit 6-19 (discounted at 3 percent) and Exhibit 6-20 
(discounted at 7 percent) for the estimated benefit from avoided IQ 
losses from both LSL removals and improvements to CCT at public water 
system as a result of the previous rule, the LCR revisions, and the 
incremental difference between the previous and final rule estimates 
under both the low and high cost scenarios.
3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
    EPA identified the potential adverse adult health effects 
associated with lead utilizing information from the 2013 Integrated 
Science Assessment for Lead or EPA ISA (USEPA, 2013) and the HHS 
National Toxicology Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level 
Lead (National Toxicology Program, 2012). The EPA ISA uses a five-level 
hierarchy to classify the weight of evidence for causation based on 
epidemiologic and toxicological studies, and the NTP Monograph 
conducted a review of the epidemiological literature for the 
association between low-level lead exposure (defined by blood lead 
levels <10 [micro]g/dL) and select health endpoints, and categorized 
their conclusions using a four-level hierarchy. Constraining the 
assessment to the highest/most robust two levels from each of the 
documents finds that the EPA ISA reports ``causal'' and ``likely to be 
causal'', and the NTP Monograph indicates ``sufficient'' and 
``limited'' evidence of association between lead and adult adverse 
cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects), renal 
effects, reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological 
effects, and cancer. (See Appendix D of the final rule EA).
    Although EPA did not quantify or monetize the reduction in risk 
associated with adult health effects for the LCRR, the Agency has 
estimated the potential changes in adult drinking water exposures and 
thus blood lead levels to illustrate the extent of the lead reduction 
to the adult population estimated as a result of the LCRR. EPA 
estimated blood lead levels in adults for each year of life, beginning 
at age 20 and ending with age 80. Males and females are assessed 
separately because data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate that men have higher average blood 
lead levels than women, thus the baseline from which the changes are 
estimated. To estimate the changes in blood lead levels in adults 
associated with the rule, EPA selected from a number of available 
models a modified version of its Adult Lead Methodology (ALM). The ALM 
``uses a simplified representation of lead biokinetics to predict 
quasi-steady state blood lead concentrations among adults who have 
relatively steady patterns of site exposures'' (USEPA, 2003). The model 
assumes a linear slope between lead uptake and blood lead levels, which 
is termed the ``biokinetic slope factor'' and is described in more 
detail in Chapter 6 section 6.5 of the final rule EA. Although the 
model was originally developed to estimate blood lead level impacts 
from lead in soil, based on the record, EPA finds the ALM can be 
tailored for use in estimating blood lead concentrations in any adult 
exposed population and is able to consider other

[[Page 4264]]

sources of lead exposure, such as contaminated drinking water. The 
biokinetic slope factor of 0.4 [micro]g/dL per [micro]g/day is valid 
for use in the case of drinking water since it is in part derived from 
studies that measure both adult blood lead levels and concentrations of 
lead in drinking water (Pocock et al., 1983; Sherlock et al., 1982).
    EPA estimated expected BLLs for adults with the ALM using the lead 
tap water concentration data by LSL, CCT, and POU status derived from 
the profile dataset, discussed in section VI.E.1 and shown in Exhibit 
6-15 of this preamble. For the background blood lead levels in the 
model, EPA used geometric mean blood lead levels for males and females 
for each year of life between ages 20 and 80 from NHANES 2011-2016, 
which may result in some minor double counting of exposure from 
drinking water. Exhibit 6-17 displays the estimated blood lead levels 
for adults by each LSL, POU or CCT combination summarized by age groups 
(blood lead values for each year of age are used to determine average 
BLL). EPA also estimated BLLs using output for other exposure pathways 
from SHEDS in the ALM and the All Ages Lead Model, these results are 
shown in Appendix G of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). The All Ages 
Lead Model results are not used in the primary analysis because updates 
to the model from a recent peer review have not been completed.

      Exhibit 6-17--Estimates of Blood Lead Levels in Adults Associated With Drinking Water Lead Exposures From LSL/CCT or POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Geometric mean blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) for
                                            Corrosion control                                          specified age group in years from the ALM
       Lead service line status              treatment status                 Sex            -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                20-29     30-39     40-49     50-59     60-69     70-80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL...................................  None.....................  Males....................      1.87      2.02      2.22      2.42      2.63      2.89
                                                                   Females..................      1.57      1.69      1.89      2.22      2.35      2.52
Partial...............................  None.....................  Males....................      1.31      1.44      1.64      1.84      2.03      2.25
                                                                   Females..................      1.01      1.11      1.31      1.64      1.75      1.88
No LSL................................  None.....................  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
LSL...................................  Partial..................  Males....................      1.40      1.53      1.73      1.93      2.12      2.35
                                                                   Females..................      1.10      1.20      1.40      1.73      1.84      1.98
Partial...............................  Partial..................  Males....................      1.09      1.22      1.42      1.62      1.80      2.01
                                                                   Females..................      0.79      0.89      1.09      1.42      1.52      1.64
No LSL................................  Partial..................  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
LSL...................................  Representative...........  Males....................      1.14      1.27      1.47      1.67      1.84      2.06
                                                                   Females..................      0.84      0.94      1.14      1.47      1.56      1.69
Partial...............................  Representative...........  Males....................      0.97      1.10      1.30      1.50      1.67      1.87
                                                                   Females..................      0.67      0.77      0.97      1.30      1.39      1.50
No LSL................................  Representative...........  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               POU                                 Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the analysis of childhood IQ impacts section VI.E.2 
of this preamble, the estimated BLLs in Exhibit 6-17 are average adult 
annual blood lead levels given the corresponding estimated lead tap 
water concentrations resulting from LSL, CCT, and POU status. The LCRR 
cost-benefit model, tracks the changes in LSL, CCT and POU status over 
time and the percentage of males and females in LSL households for each 
water system that are impacted by the changes in LSL, CCT, or POU 
status. These exposure histories and the corresponding BLL from the ALM 
model are then averaged across adult life spans to obtain a set of 
potential average lifetime blood lead levels for representative adults 
(average lifetime BLLs for potential exposure scenarios). Exhibit 6-18 
shows the estimated changes in average lifetime blood lead levels for 
adults that move from the set of initial LSL, CCT, and POU status 
combinations to a new status as a result of LSL removal, and/or 
installation of CCT or POU. Note that when ``No LSL'' is the beginning 
or post-rule state, 0.82 [micro]g/L is the assumed concentration across 
all levels of CCT status (none, partial, representative). The extent to 
which changes in CCT status make meaningful differences in lead 
concentrations for those without LSLs cannot be determined from this 
exhibit.

               Exhibit 6-18--Estimated Lifetime Average Blood Lead Change for Adults Moving Between LSL, CCT, and POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Pre-rule drinking water                                             Post-rule drinking water                          Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  change in the
                                                                                                                                            geometric
                                                                                                                                         means of  blood
  Lead conc.                                                           Lead conc.                                                           lead change
 ([micro]g/L)           LSL status                CCT status          ([micro]g/L)          LSL status                CCT status        ----------------
                                                                                                                                            Ages 20-80
                                                                                                                                          ([micro]g/dL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  None....................             1.03
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            5.48  LSL.....................  Representative..........             0.75
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             1.03
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    1.03
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  None....................             0.46
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            2.64  Partial.................  Representative..........             0.35

[[Page 4265]]

 
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.46
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    0.46
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.00
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Partial.................             0.54
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            5.48  LSL.....................  Representative..........             0.27
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.54
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.54
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Partial.................             0.23
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            2.64  Partial.................  Representative..........             0.12
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.23
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.23
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.00
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          5.48  LSL......................  Representative..........            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.28
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          5.48  LSL......................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.28
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          2.64  Partial..................  Representative..........            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.11
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          2.64  Partial..................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.11
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Total Monetized Benefits
    Exhibits 6-19 and 6-20 show the estimated, monetized national 
annualized total benefits, under the low and high cost scenarios, from 
avoided child IQ decrements associated with the previous LCR, the LCRR, 
and the increment of change between the two, for CCT improvements, 
LSLR, and POU device implementation discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 
respectively. The potential changes in adult blood lead levels 
estimated from changing LSL and CCT status under the LCRR can be found 
in section VI.E.3 of this preamble and Chapter 6, section 6.5, of the 
final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). The impact of lead on the risk of 
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reductions in birth weight 
are discussed in Appendix J of the final rule EA. It should also be 
noted that because of the lack of granularity in the assembled lead 
concentration profile data, with regard to CCT status when samples were 
collected (see section VI.E.1 of this preamble), the benefits of small 
improvements in CCT, like those resulting from the ``find-and-fix'' 
rule requirements, cannot be quantified in the model. For additional 
information on non-quantified benefits see section VI.F.2 of this 
preamble.

                            Exhibit 6-19--Summary of Estimated National Annual Monetized Benefits--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years).............          29,000         928,000         900,000         704,000       3,210,000       2,506,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE)......             190           3,225           3,035           5,228          17,583          12,355
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE).....      $3,344,000     $56,083,000     $52,739,000     $96,449,000    $318,322,000    $221,873,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE)......               0           3,680           3,680               0          10,463          10,463
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE).....              $0     $64,736,000     $64,736,000              $0    $190,822,000    $190,822,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory).....             128           2,620           2,492           3,106           8,204           5,097
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory)....      $2,375,000     $47,525,000     $45,150,000     $61,497,000    $156,772,000     $95,275,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)....               0           1,807           1,807               0           3,337           3,337
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)...              $0     $32,855,000     $32,855,000              $0     $63,610,000     $63,610,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Customer                      0           1,572           1,572               0           1,677           1,677
 Initiated).............................................
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Customer                    $0     $27,540,000     $27,540,000              $0     $29,198,000     $29,198,000
 Initiated).............................................
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU).................               0              17              17               0           2,214           2,214

[[Page 4266]]

 
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU)................              $0        $324,000        $324,000              $0     $44,498,000     $44,498,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits...................      $5,719,000    $229,062,000    $223,344,000    $157,946,000    $803,222,000    $645,276,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Exhibit 6-20--Summary of Estimated National Annual Monetized Benefits--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years).............          29,000         928,000         900,000         704,000       3,210,000       2,506,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE)......             190           3,225           3,035           5,228          17,583          12,355
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE).....        $581,000      $9,551,000      $8,971,000     $17,790,000     $57,148,000     $39,358,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE)......               0           3,680           3,680               0          10,463          10,463
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE).....              $0     $11,232,000     $11,232,000              $0     $34,750,000     $34,750,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory).....             128           2,620           2,492           3,106           8,204           5,097
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory)....        $451,000      $8,703,000      $8,252,000     $12,707,000     $30,776,000     $18,069,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)....               0           1,807           1,807               0           3,337           3,337
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)...              $0      $6,039,000      $6,039,000              $0     $12,469,000     $12,469,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Customer                      0           1,572           1,572               0           1,677           1,677
 Initiated).............................................
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Customer                    $0      $4,797,000      $4,797,000              $0      $5,038,000      $5,038,000
 Initiated).............................................
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU).................               0              17              17               0           2,214           2,214
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU)................              $0         $62,000         $62,000              $0      $9,417,000      $9,417,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits...................      $1,032,000     $40,385,000     $39,353,000     $30,497,000    $149,599,000    $119,102,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Cost-Benefit Comparison

    This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship 
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the final LCR 
revisions. The section also discusses both the non-monetized costs and 
benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 6-21 and 6-22 compare the 
annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the LCRR for the 
low and high cost scenarios. Under a 3 percent discount rate, the net 
annualized incremental monetized benefits, under the low and high cost 
scenarios, range from $49 to $296 million. Under the low and high cost 
scenarios and a 7 percent discount rate, the net annualized incremental 
monetized benefits range from a negative $148 to negative $273 million.

   Exhibit 6-21--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized
      Incremental Costs to Benefits of the LCRR at 3% Discount Rate
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low cost        High cost
            PWS annual costs                 scenario        scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs............    $160,571,000    $335,481,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits.........     223,344,000     645,276,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Annual Net Benefits.................      62,773,000     309,795,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Exhibit 6-22--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized
      Incremental Costs to Benefits of the LCRR at 7% Discount Rate
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low cost        High cost
            PWS annual costs                 scenario        scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs............    $167,333,000    $372,460,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits.........      39,353,000     119,102,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Annual Net Benefits.................    -127,980,000    -253,358,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4267]]

1. Non-Monetized Costs
    The LCRR is expected to result in additional phosphate being added 
to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching into water in 
the distribution system. EPA's cost model estimated that, nationwide, 
the LCRR will result in post WWTP total incremental phosphorus loads to 
receiving waterbodies increasing over the period of analysis, under the 
low cost and high cost scenarios, by a range of 161,000 to 548,000 
pounds fifteen years after promulgation, and increasing under the low 
cost and high cost scenarios by a range of 355,000 to 722,000 pounds at 
year 35. At the national level, under the high cost scenario, this 
additional phosphorous loading to waterbodies is small, less than 0.1 
percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from all other 
anthropogenic sources. However, national average receiving waterbody 
load impacts may obscure significant localized ecological impacts. 
Impacts, such as eutrophication, may occur in water bodies without 
restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with existing 
elevated phosphate levels. See Chapter 5, section 5.5 of the final rule 
EA (USEPA, 2020a) for additional information.
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    In addition to the benefits monetized in the final rule analysis 
for reductions in lead exposure, there are several other benefits that 
are not quantified. The risk of adverse health effects due to lead that 
are expected to decrease as a result of the LCRR are summarized in 
Appendix D of the final rule EA and are expected to affect both 
children and adults. EPA focused its non-quantified impacts assessment 
on the endpoints identified using two comprehensive U.S. Government 
documents summarizing the recent literature on lead exposure health 
impacts. These documents are EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for 
Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the HHS National Toxicology Program 
Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (National Toxicology 
Program (NTP), 2012). Both of these sources present comprehensive 
reviews of the literature on the risk of adverse health effects 
associated with lead exposure. EPA summarized those endpoints to which 
either EPA ISA or the NTP Lead Monograph assigned one of the top two 
tiers of confidence in the relationship between lead exposure and the 
risk of adverse health effects. These endpoints include cardiovascular 
effects, renal effects, reproductive and developmental effects, 
immunological effects, neurological effects, and cancer.
    There are a number of final rule requirements that reduce lead 
exposure to both children and adults that EPA could not quantify. The 
final rule will require additional lead public education requirements 
that target consumers directly, schools and child care facilities, 
health agencies, and specifically people living in homes with LSLs. 
Increased education will lead to additional averting behavior on the 
part of the exposed public, resulting in reductions in the negative 
impacts of lead. The rule also will require the development of LSL 
inventories and making the location of LSLs publicly accessible. This 
will give exposed consumers more information and will provide potential 
home buyers this information as well, possibly resulting in additional 
LSL removals initiated by homeowners before, during, or following home 
sale transactions. The benefits of these additional removals are not 
quantified in the analysis of the LCRR. As indicated in section VI.E.4 
of this preamble, because of the lack of granularity in the lead tap 
water concentration data available to EPA for the regulatory analysis, 
the benefits of small improvements in CCT to individuals residing in 
homes with LSLs, like those modeled under the ``find-and-fix,'' are not 
quantified.
    EPA also did not quantify the benefits of reduced lead exposure to 
individuals who reside in homes that do not have LSLs. EPA has 
determined that the revised LCR requirements may result in reduced lead 
exposure to the occupants of these buildings as a result of improved 
monitoring and additional actions to optimize CCT. In the analysis of 
the LCRR, the number of non-LSL homes potentially affected by water 
systems increasing their corrosion control during the 35-year period of 
analysis is 8 million in the low cost scenario and 17 million in the 
high cost scenario. These households, while not having an LSL in place, 
may still contain leaded plumbing materials, including leaded brass 
fixtures, and lead solder. These households could potentially see 
reductions in tap water lead concentrations. EPA has assessed the 
potential benefits to children of reducing lead water concentrations in 
these homes (see Appendix F of the final rule EA) but has determined 
that the data are too limited and the uncertainties too significant to 
include in the quantified and monetized benefit estimates of this 
regulation.
    Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with 
copper that are expected to be reduced by the LCRR are summarized in 
Appendix E of the final rule EA. These risks include acute 
gastrointestinal symptoms, which are the most common adverse effect 
observed among adults and children. In sensitive groups, there may be 
reductions in chronic hepatic effects, particularly for those with rare 
conditions such as Wilson's disease and children pre-disposed to 
genetic cirrhosis syndromes. These diseases disrupt copper homeostasis, 
leading to excessive accumulation that can be worsened by excessive 
copper ingestion (National Research Council, 2000).

G. Other Regulatory Options Considered

    The Office of Management and Budget recommends careful 
consideration ``of all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes 
or provisions of a rule (Office of Management and Budget, 2003). 
Pursuant to this guidance, EPA considered other regulatory options when 
developing the final LCRR related to:
     The lead in drinking water sampling program at schools and 
licensed child care facilities,
     the lead tap sampling protocol requirements for water 
systems with LSLs,
     LSL locational information to be made publicly available, 
and
     providing small system flexibility to CWSs that serve a 
population of 3,300 or fewer persons.
    Exhibit 6-23 provides a summary of the final LCRR requirements and 
other option considered for these four areas.

[[Page 4268]]



                      Exhibit 6-23--Summary of Other Options Considered for the Final LCRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Area                                  Final LCRR                     Other option considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead in Drinking Water Sampling        Mandatory program is, one five-year round   Mandatory program:
 Program at Schools and Licensed        of lead sampling:                           20% of schools and
 Child Care Facilities.                 20% of elementary schools and       licensed child care
                                        licensed child care facilities tested       facilities tested annually.
                                        annually.                                   5 samples per
                                        5 samples per school.               school.
                                        2 samples per licensed child care  2 samples per licensed child
                                        facility.                                   care facility.
                                       On request program is implemented for       On request program:
                                        secondary schools, and in elementary        Schools and licensed
                                        schools and child cares following the one   child care facilities would
                                        cycle of mandatory sampling:                be tested on request.
                                        Maximum required sampling under     5 samples per
                                        on request program: 20 percent of schools   school.
                                        and licensed child cares tested annually.   2 samples per
                                        5 samples per elementary and        licensed child care
                                        secondary school.                           facility.
                                        2 samples per licensed child care
                                        facility.
Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for      Systems with LSLs collect 100% of   Systems with LSLs
 Systems with Lead Service Lines        their samples from LSLs sites, if           collect 100% of their
 (LSLs).                                available.                                  samples from LSLs sites, if
                                        Samples are fifth liter,            available.
                                        collected after 6-hour minimum stagnation   Samples are first
                                        time.                                       liter, collected after 6-
                                                                                    hour minimum stagnation
                                                                                    time.
Publicly Available LSL Locational      Systems report a location identifier        Systems report the exact
 Information.                           (e.g., street, intersection, landmark)      street address of LSLs.
                                        for LSLs.
Small System Flexibility.............  CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons,    CWSs that serve 3,300 or
                                        and all NTNCWSs, are provided compliance    fewer persons, and all
                                        flexibility when they exceed the AL.        NTNCWSs, are provided
                                                                                    compliance flexibility when
                                                                                    they exceed the AL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care 
Facilities
    The final LCRR requires that all elementary schools and child care 
facilities must be sampled by CWSs once during an initial five year 
mandatory sampling period (schools and child care facilities may refuse 
the sampling, but the water system must document this refusal or non-
response to the state). The CWS must also provide the facility with the 
3Ts Toolkit. After this one cycle, or five years, of mandatory 
sampling, CWSs must provide sampling and public education though the 
3Ts, on request, to all elementary school and child care facilities in 
their service area into the future. The final LCRR also requires CWSs 
to provide on request sampling to all secondary schools receiving water 
from their distribution system. EPA assumed that 5 percent of 
elementary and secondary schools, and child care facilities would 
request sampling per year under the on request sampling program. In 
developing the final rule requirements, EPA assessed two other 
alternatives. The first was requiring that all CWSs conduct a mandatory 
sampling and public education program for schools and licensed child 
care facilities that they serve. The attributes of the mandatory 
program are consistent with the final LCRR's requirements for the five-
year round of monitoring at elementary schools and child care 
facilities, except this program continues with consecutive five-year 
monitoring rounds in perpetuity at all schools and child care 
facilities. The second alternative EPA considered was a purely on 
request program. This program would limit sampling to K-12 schools or 
child care facilities served by the water system that request sampling. 
The on request program is representative of the final rule sampling and 
public education requirements for secondary schools, and elementary 
schools and child care facilities after the cycle of mandatory testing. 
This alternative program, however, would begin on request sampling as 
part of the initial implementation of the school and child care testing 
program at all schools and child care facilities. In assessing the 
costs for the program, EPA maintained the assumption that five percent 
of schools and licensed child care facilities per year would elect to 
participate in the sampling program and that CWSs would contact each 
facility annually to determine its interest in the program in lieu of 
developing a sampling schedule for each facility. Exhibit 6-24 shows 
that the estimated costs of the final rule requirements are between 
those of the perpetual mandatory program and the on request program. 
Note that the costs of the final LCRR and on request option are highly 
dependent on the percentage of facilities that request to participate 
in the sampling program. There is a great degree of uncertainty 
regarding the percentage of facilities that will request this sampling 
and how this interest may fluctuate over time, indicating a higher 
degree of uncertainty in the estimated costs from the final LCRR and 
the on request program. The same is true for the unquantified benefits 
estimated to result from each alternative.

[[Page 4269]]



      Exhibit 6-24--National Annualized Costs for School Sampling Alternatives Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annualized cost at 3% discount  Annualized cost at 7% discount
                                                               rate                            rate
                     Option                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule:
     Elementary Schools/Licensed Child       $12,582,000     $12,960,000     $14,461,000     $14,969,000
     Cares: Mandatory Program for one round of
     monitoring followed by On Request Program..
     Secondary Schools: On Request
     Program.
Proposed LCRR: Mandatory Program................      27,751,000      28,268,000      27,221,000      27,875,000
Other Option Considered: On Request Program.....       9,501,000       9,729,000       9,279,000       9,567,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead Service 
Lines
    The final LCRR requires that water systems with LSLs collect all 
compliance tap samples from sites served by LSLs as opposed to a 
minimum of 50 percent as required by the previous rule. As noted in 
section III.G of this preamble, tap sample sites served by an LSL are 
at the highest risk for elevated lead levels in drinking water, 
therefore, EPA revised the tap sample site selection criteria to ensure 
water systems with LSLs use those sites for lead tap sampling. The 
final rule requires that fifth liter sample be collected and analyzed 
at LSL tap sampling sites. EPA determined that a fifth liter tap sample 
better captures water that has been in contact with the LSL, and sample 
results would result in more protective measures. The sampling 
methodology associated with collecting a fifth liter sample (using five 
one-liter bottles returning the first, for copper analysis, and the 
fifth, for lead analysis) is more complicated and may introduce error, 
such as misidentifying the correct liter to be analyzed. Thus, EPA also 
considered requiring the collection of a first liter sample, 
essentially retaining the sampling procedure from the 1991 LCR because 
the first draw approach has been effectively implemented by water 
systems.
    Exhibits 6-25 and 6-26 provide the national annualized rule costs 
and benefits, under the low cost scenario, discounted at 3 and 7 
percent, for the previous rule, the final LCRR, and the first liter 
option. Exhibits 6-27 and 6-28 provide the high cost scenario national 
annualized rule costs and benefits at the 3 and 7 percent discount 
rates. At a 3 percent discount rate, EPA estimates lower total 
benefits, based on estimated avoided IQ point decrements, under the 
first liter option ($121 to $699 million) compared to the final LCRR 
($229 to $803 million). The first liter option provides greater 
benefits than the previous rule ($6 to $158 million). EPA estimates 
that the total cost of the rule will be lower under the first liter 
option ($521 to $756 million) compared to the final LCRR ($554 to $808 
million) but still greater than the previous rule ($394 to 473 
million). The lower cost and benefit of the first liter option, 
compared to the fifth liter final rule requirement, is primarily the 
result of fewer water systems with LSLs exceeding the trigger and 
action levels and being required to conduct additional tap sampling and 
treatment requirements in the EPA cost-benefit model. In addition to 
lower quantified benefits, the first liter option is expected to result 
in lower unquantified benefits than the fifth liter option as the 
overall expected reductions in exposure to lead in drinking water would 
be less.
    At a 7 percent discount rate, EPA estimates lower total benefits, 
based on estimated IQ point decrements, under the first liter option 
($21 to $131 million) compared to the final LCRR ($40 to $150 million). 
Benefits of the first liter option are higher than the previous rule 
($1 to $30 million). EPA estimates that the total cost of the rule will 
be lower under the first liter option ($502 to $780 million) compared 
to the final LCRR ($539 to $839 million) but greater than the previous 
rule ($371 to $467 million). Again, fewer water systems under the first 
liter option are required to conduct additional tap sampling and 
treatment requirements in response to trigger and action level 
exceedances producing lower costs and benefits as compared to the fifth 
liter requirement. And, the fifth liter option is expected to result in 
higher unquantified benefits resulting from greater reductions exposure 
to lead in drinking water.

  Exhibit 6-25--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the Low Cost Scenario at 3% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $393,904,000    $554,475,000    $160,571,000    $520,724,000    $126,819,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     387,417,000     519,210,000     131,792,000     489,058,000     101,641,000
Total Annual Benefits...........       5,719,000     229,062,000     223,344,000     120,792,000     116,828,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4270]]


  Exhibit 6-26--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the Low Cost Scenario at 7% Discount
                                Rate Previous Rule, LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $371,188,000    $538,521,000    $167,333,000    $502,337,000    $131,149,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     364,711,000     501,316,000     136,605,000     469,123,000     104,412,000
Total Annual Benefits...........       1,032,000      40,385,000      39,353,000      21,059,000      20,353,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Exhibit 6-27--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the High Cost Scenario at 3% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $472,821,000    $808,301,000    $335,481,000    $756,384,000    $283,609,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     459,523,000     758,343,000     298,820,000     699,766,000     241,286,000
Total Annual Benefits...........     157,946,000     803,222,000     645,276,000     699,463,000     566,338,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Exhibit 6-28--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the High Cost Scenario at 7% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $466,523,000    $838,983,000    $372,460,000    $780,202,000    $313,725,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     450,316,000     781,224,000     330,908,000     713,442,000     261,177,000
Total Annual Benefits...........      30,497,000     149,599,000     119,102,000     131,155,000     105,772,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information
    EPA is requiring in the final LCRR that water systems make their 
inventory publicly available and systems with LSLs must include a 
locational identifier associated with each LSL. EPA is not requiring 
that address-level information be provided (see section III.C.3 of this 
preamble). Public disclosure of the LSL inventory would increase 
transparency and consumer awareness of the extent of LSLs in the 
distribution system. EPA, during the development of the final rule, 
considered an additional option in which systems with LSLs would be 
required to make the address associated with each LSL publicly 
available. Available information indicates that prospective buyers and 
renters value reductions in risks associated with LSLs. Public 
disclosure of LSL locations can create an incentive, through increased 
property values or home sale incentives, to replace LSLs.
    EPA anticipates that the costs between the final rule requirement 
and this option would be similar because the system would use the same 
method for publicly providing and maintaining information regarding its 
LSL information and LSL locational information, e.g., posting 
information to the water system's website. EPA anticipates the benefits 
between the address-level option and location identifier rule 
requirement would be similar. EPA expects that unquantified benefits of 
the address-level option may be higher due to the potential impacts on 
real estate transactions, although this is uncertain.
4. Small System Flexibility
    As discussed in section III.E of this preamble, the final LCRR 
includes significant flexibility for CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer 
persons, and all NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an action level 
exceedance, they can choose from four options to reduce the 
concentration of lead in their water. The first three options which are 
modeled in the cost-benefit analysis are: (1) Replace seven percent of 
their baseline number of LSLs per year until all LSLs are replaced; (2) 
optimize existing CCT or install new CCT; (3) Provide POU devices to 
all customers. The LCRR provides a fourth option (not modeled), for 
CWSs and NTNCWSs that do not have LSLs and have control of all of the 
plumbing materials in their system. PWSs meeting these criteria may 
choose to replace all lead bearing plumbing on a schedule specified by 
the state and not to exceed one year. This additional option will give 
small entities more flexibility but because of the requirement that a 
system must have control of all plumbing materials it is unlikely large 
numbers of PWSs would select this compliance alternative. EPA, 
therefore, does not model this option in the cost analysis.
    As part of the development of the final rule EPA also considered 
limiting small system flexibility to CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer 
people and all NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6-29 and 6-30 provide the range of the 
estimated incremental annualized rule costs and benefits, under both 
the low and high cost scenarios, for the final LCRR and the alternative 
small system flexibility threshold option at a 3 percent and 7 percent 
discount rate, respectively.

[[Page 4271]]



   Exhibit 6-29--Estimated National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs and Benefits at 3% Discount Rate for the
         Final LCRR and the Alternative Small System Flexibility Threshold Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Final LCRR: Small system     Small system flexibility: CWSs
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving     serving <= 3,300 people and
                                                     <= 10,000 people and all               all NTNCWSs
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs            -------------------------------
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $160,571,000    $335,481,000    $163,460,000    $363,607,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     131,792,000     298,820,000     134,013,000     322,711,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................     223,344,000     645,276,000     226,970,000     675,533,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exhibit 6-30--National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs and Benefits at 7% Discount Rate for the Final LCRR and
                 the Alternative Small System Flexibility Threshold Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Final LCRR: Small system     Small system flexibility: CWSs
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving     serving <= 3,300 people and
                                                     <= 10,000 people and all               all NTNCWSs
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs            -------------------------------
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $167,333,000    $372,460,000    $170,418,000    $408,500,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     136,605,000     330,908,000     138,993,000     361,732,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................      39,353,000     119,102,000      40,038,000     125,285,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that 
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 
Any changes made during interagency review in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action. This analysis, the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), is available in the docket and is 
summarized in section VI of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Cost

    This action is an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. Details 
on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in EPA's 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action summarized in section VI.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the Office of Mission Support's 
Information Collection Request Center) (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned 
the control number 2040-0297. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300), and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The burden reflects the time needed to conduct state and public 
water system information collections and recordkeeping during the first 
three years after promulgation, as described in Chapter 8 from the 
Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 
2020a).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The PRA requires EPA to estimate the burden for public water 
systems and primacy agencies to comply with the final rule. EPA assumes 
there is one response per respondent per requirement. EPA anticipates 
public water systems will be involved in several implementation 
activities for the first three years after publication of the final 
LCRR. During the implementation period, one of the burdens that public 
water systems will incur is the burden to read and understand the LCRR. 
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to 
read and understand the LCRR to be 4 hours. Another burden public water 
systems will incur is the burden of assigning personnel and devoting 
resources necessary to carry out the implementation of the final rule. 
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to 
assign personnel and devote resources to be 8 hours. In addition, 
public water systems will need to participate in training sessions and 
receive technical assistance from their state during implementation of 
the LCRR. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per 
respondent to conduct training and receive technical assistance to be 8 
hours. Furthermore, public water systems will have to develop an LSL 
inventory or submit a demonstration to

[[Page 4272]]

the state that they do not have LSLs. EPA estimates the average burden 
hours per response per respondent to develop an LSL inventory to be 20 
to 400 hours. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per 
respondent to submit a demonstration of no LSLs to be 5 to 40 hours. 
Public water system systems will also have to confer with their primacy 
agency on initial planning for LSLR and prepare a LSLR plan. EPA 
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent for 
initial planning and preparing a LSLR plan to be 12 to 52 hours.
    Likewise, primacy agencies will face burdens due to the 
promulgation of the final rule. Primacy agencies will have to adopt the 
more stringent portions of the rule and develop programs to implement 
the LCRR. Primacy agencies are allowed to implement and develop more 
stringent requirements than the LCRR. EPA estimates the average burden 
hours per response per respondent to adopt the rule and develop a 
program for LCRR to be 1,920 hours. While primacy agencies are 
implementing the LCRR, there may be a need to modify their data system. 
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to 
modify the data system to implement the LCRR to be 2,220 hours. Also, 
primacy agencies will need to provide training and technical assistance 
for their internal staff as well as for the staff of public water 
systems. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per 
respondent to provide internal primacy agency staff with training for 
implementation of the LCRR to be 588 hours. EPA estimates the average 
burden hours per response per respondent to train and provide technical 
assistance to the staff of public water systems to be 2,400 hours. The 
primacy agencies are also responsible for assisting public water 
systems in developing an LSL inventory and reviewing submissions. EPA 
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to 
assist with developing a LSL inventory and review submissions to be 4 
to 8 hours. In addition, primacy agencies will also have to review 
demonstrations of no LSLs from public water systems. EPA estimates the 
average burden hours per response per respondent to review 
demonstrations to be 2 hours. Primacy agencies will also have to confer 
on and review the initial LSLR plan from public water systems. EPA 
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to 
review demonstrations to be 6 to 26 hours.
    The information collected under the ICR is critical to states and 
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary 
enforcement authority) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). These 
authorized entities are responsible for overseeing the LCR 
implementation by certain public water systems within their 
jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would utilize these data to determine 
compliance, designate additional treatment controls to be installed, 
and establish enforceable operating parameters. The collected 
information is also necessary for public water systems. Public water 
systems would use these data to demonstrate compliance, assess 
treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment equipment, 
and communicate water quality information to consumers served by the 
water system. Primacy agencies would also be required to report a 
subset of these data to EPA. EPA would utilize the information to 
protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCR, measuring 
progress toward meeting the LCR's goals, and evaluating the 
appropriateness of state implementation activities. No confidential 
information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this final ICR 
would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and by 
Federal and state governments. Respondents would include owners and 
operators of public water systems, who must report to their primacy 
agency(s).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Under this rule the 
respondent's obligation to respond is mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that ``criteria and 
procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably 
complies with such maximum contaminant levels [or treatment techniques 
promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; including accepted 
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance 
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the 
system . . .'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1)(A) of the SDWA requires 
that ``[e]very person who is subject to any requirement of this 
subchapter or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain such 
records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such 
information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation 
to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under this 
subchapter, in determining whether such person has acted or is acting 
in compliance with this subchapter . . .'' In addition, section 
1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires states to ``keep such records and make 
such reports . . . as the Administrator may require by regulation.''
    Estimated number of respondents: The total number of respondents 
for the ICR would be 67,712. The total reflects 56 primacy agencies and 
67,656 public water systems.
    Frequency of Response: During the initial three year period, public 
water systems will conduct one-time startup activities. The one-time 
burden associated with reading and understanding the rule, assigning 
personnel and resources, and attending training is estimated to be an 
average of 20 hours per system. These activities will be undertaken by 
all 67,656 CWSs and NTNCWSs that must comply with the LCRR. The total 
burden for these activities, for the three year period, for all systems 
is estimated to be 1,353,120 hours. During the initial three year 
period, primacy agencies will incur burdens associated with one-time 
startup activities. The burden associated with adopting the rule, 
modifying data systems, and providing training for internal staff and 
the staff of public water systems during the first three years is 
estimated at an average of 7,128 hours per primacy agency. The total 
burden for these activities, for the three year period, for the 56 
primacy agencies is estimated to be 399,168 hours.
    Average estimated burden: The average burden per response (i.e., 
the amount of time needed for each activity that requires a collection 
of information) is estimated to be 9.16 to 9.63 hours; the average cost 
per response is $333-351.
    Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final 
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement 
several requirements. Since the first three years of the rule focuses 
on the creation of inventories for LSLs, households are not faced with 
costs. The public water systems burden will include the following 
activities: Reading and understanding the revised rule, personnel time 
for attending trainings, clarifying regulatory requirements with the 
primacy agency during rule implementation. Public water systems will 
also be required to create an LSL materials inventory and develop an 
initial LSLR plan. The total burden hours for public water systems 
ranges from 2.51 to 2.69 million hours. The total cost for public water 
systems ranges from $77.5 to $83.4 million. For additional information 
on the public water systems activity burden see sections VI.D of this 
preamble.
    The state burden for the first three years of rule implementation 
would include the following: Adopting the rule

[[Page 4273]]

and developing an implementation program; modifying data recording 
systems; training staff; providing water system staff with initial and 
on-going technical assistance and training; coordinating annual 
administration tasks with EPA; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing 
public water system (PWS) inventory data; and conferring with LSL water 
systems on initial planning for LSLR program activities. The total 
burden hours for primacy agencies is 657,034 to 698,096 hours. The 
total cost for primacy agencies is $37.6 to $40.0 million. See section 
VI.D.8 of this preamble for additional discussion on burden and cost to 
the primacy agency.
    The net change burden associated with moving from the information 
requirements of the previous rule to those in the final LCRR over the 
three years covered by the ICR is 3.17 to 3.4 million hours, for an 
average of 1.06 to 1.13 million hours per year. The range reflects the 
upper- and lower-bound estimates of the number of systems that need to 
develop LSL inventories. The total net change in costs over the three-
year clearance period are $115.2 to $123.3 million, for an average of 
$38.4 to $41.1 million per year (simple average over three years).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves 
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal 
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 
the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, EPA prepared an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule 
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain 
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that 
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of 
the IFRA and Panel recommendations are presented in the proposed rule 
at 84 FR 61684, November 13, 2019. As required by section 604 of the 
RFA, EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for 
this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on 
the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for 
review in Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final rule EA and is summarized 
here.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, EPA considered small entities to be water systems serving 
10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by Congress in 
the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA for small water system flexibility 
provisions. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative 
definition in the Federal Register (FR) (US EPA, 1998b, 63 FR 7620, 
February 13, 1998), sought public comment, consulted with the Small 
Business Administration, and finalized the small water system threshold 
in the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (USEPA, 1998a, 63 
FR 44524, August 19, 1998). As stated in that document, the alternative 
definition would apply to this regulation.
    Under the SDWA, EPA sets public health goals and enforceable 
standards for drinking water quality. As previously described, the LCR 
requires water systems to take actions to address lead and copper 
contamination in drinking water, including corrosion control treatment, 
public education, and LSLR. EPA regulatory revisions in the final rule 
strengthen public health protection and improve implementation in the 
following areas: Tap sampling, corrosion control treatment, LSLR, 
public notification and public education.
    EPA took a number of steps to solicit small entity stakeholder 
input during the development of the final LCRR. Chapter 2, Section 2.2 
of the final rule EA contains detailed information on stakeholder 
outreach during the rulemaking process, including material on the 
Federalism and Tribal consultation processes (also outlined in Sections 
VII.F and VII.G of this preamble). EPA also specifically sought input 
from small entity stakeholders through the Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel (SBAR) process under Section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended 
by the SBREFA. On August 14, 2012, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy 
Chairperson convened an SBAR Panel. In addition to its chairperson, the 
SBAR Panel consisted of the Director of the Standards and Risk 
Management Division within the EPA's Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water, the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs within the OMB, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA. Detailed information on the overall panel process can be 
found in the panel report titled, The Small Business Advocacy Review 
Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule to Public Water System 
Requirements available in the LCRR docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300). The 
Agency also received comment on the proposed rule revisions that 
provided small CWSs, serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWSs 
greater flexibility to comply with the requirements of the LCRR. The 
detailed public comment summaries including EPA's detailed responses 
are provided in Section III.E.2 of this preamble.
    EPA identified over 63,324 small public water systems that may be 
impacted by the final LCR revisions. A small public water system serves 
between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems include over 45,758 
CWSs that serve year-round residents and more than 17,566 NTNCWSs that 
serve the same persons over six months per year (e.g., a public water 
system that is an office park or church). The final rule revisions to 
the LCR include requirements for: Conducting an LSL inventory that is 
updated annually; installing or re-optimizing corrosion control 
treatment when water quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter 
monitoring; establishment of a ``find-and-fix'' provision to evaluate 
and remediate elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the 
lead action level; and improved customer outreach. These final rule 
revisions also include reporting and recordkeeping requirements. States 
are required to implement operator certification (and recertification) 
programs under SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of CWSs and 
NTNCWSs, including small water system operators, have the appropriate 
level of certification.
    As a mechanism to reduce the burden of the final rule requirements 
on small entities EPA has promulgated compliance flexibilities for 
small CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWS with a 90th 
percentile lead value above the lead trigger level or action level. 
These systems may choose between LSLR; CCT installation; POU device 
installation and maintenance; and replacement of lead-bearing materials 
as the compliance option. As part of the FRFA analysis, EPA is 
estimating low and high cost scenarios to characterize uncertainty in 
the cost model results. These scenarios are functions of assigning 
different, low and high, input values to a number of variables that 
affect the relative cost of the small system compliance options. As 
indicated in Exhibit 7-1, under the previous LCR, EPA estimates that, 
under the low cost scenario, 26,013 small CWSs will have annual total 
LCR related costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that 13,339 
of these

[[Page 4274]]

small CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or greater of 
revenue. Under the final LCRR, the number of small CWSs that will 
experience annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues 
increases by 11,873 to 37,885 and the number of small CWSs that will 
have annual total costs exceeding three percent of revenues increases 
by 8,521 to 21,860. Under the high cost scenario, EPA estimates that 
under the previous LCR, 27,719 small CWSs will have annual total costs 
of more than one percent of revenues, and that 15,472 of these small 
CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or greater of 
revenue. Under the final LCRR, the number of small CWSs that will 
experience annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues 
increases by 13,221 to 40,940 and the number of small CWSs that will 
have annual total costs of more than three percent of revenues 
increases by 9,994 to 25,466.

  Exhibit 7-1--Number of Small Community Water Systems With Annual LCR-
 Related Costs of Above 1 Percent or 3 Percent of Annual Revenue for the
 Previous Rule and Final LCRR Under the Low Cost and High Cost Scenarios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Number of small CWSs with:          Previous rule    Final LCRR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Low Cost Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of            26,013          37,885
 revenue................................
Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of            13,339          21,860
 revenue................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           High Cost Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of            27,719          40,940
 revenue................................
Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of            15,472          25,466
 revenue................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also assessed the degree to which the final LCRR small system 
flexibilities would mitigate compliance costs. The Agency estimated the 
cost of the LCRR if no compliance alternatives were available to small 
systems. The annual incremental cost of the LCRR without the small 
system compliance alternatives ranges from $174 to $419 million at a 3 
percent discount rate, and from $180 to $474 million at a 7 percent 
discount rate in 2016 dollars. This demonstrates a cost savings, from 
allowing CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWSs 
compliance flexibilities, of between $13 million and $101 million 
across discount rates and low/high cost scenarios.
    See Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2020a) for more information on the characterization of the 
impacts under the final rule. EPA has considered an alternative 
approach to provide regulatory flexibility to small water systems. 
Section 8.4 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis contains an assessment 
of impacts for an alternative option that sets the threshold for system 
compliance flexibility at systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. See 
section III.E of this preamble for the detailed explanation of the 
rationale for EPA's selection of systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons for the CWS small systems flexibilities threshold.
    In addition, EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to 
help small entities comply with this rule. The Small System Compliance 
Guide would be developed the first 3 years after promulgation.

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written 
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included 
in the docket for this action (see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis 
of the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a)) and is 
briefly summarized here.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
UMRA section 204, EPA consulted with governmental entities affected by 
this rule. EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue and 
comments from state, local, and tribal governments in section VII.F 
Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section VII.G Executive Order 
13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments of 
this preamble.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, EPA identified and analyzed a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment 
technique requirements in the final LCR revisions. Sections III, IV, 
and V of this preamble describe the final options. See section VI.F of 
this preamble and Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for alternative options that 
were considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
EPA consulted with small governments concerning the regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. EPA 
describes this consultation above in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA), section VIII.D of this preamble.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has Federalism implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state or 
local governments. EPA provides the following federalism summary impact 
statement. EPA consulted with state and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have 
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA held federalism 
consultations on November 15, 2011, and on January 8, 2018. EPA invited 
the following national organizations representing state and local 
elected officials to a meeting on January 8, 2018, in Washington DC: 
The National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of 
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of 
Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the 
National Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of 
America, and the Environmental Council of the States. Additionally, EPA 
invited the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the

[[Page 4275]]

National Rural Water Association, the American Water Works Association, 
the American Public Works Association, the National School Board 
Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the 
Western Governors' Association to participate in the meeting. EPA also 
provided the associations' membership an opportunity to provide input 
during follow-up meetings. EPA held five follow up meetings between 
January 8, 2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to input received 
during the meetings, EPA provided an opportunity to receive written 
input within 60 days after the initial meeting. A summary report of the 
views expressed during Federalism consultations is available in the 
Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications, since it may impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, and the 
Federal Government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those 
costs. There are 996 public water systems serving tribal communities, 
87 of which are federally owned. The economic analysis of the final 
LCRR requirements estimated that the total annualized incremental costs 
placed on all systems serving tribal communities ranges from $1-$2.4 
million. While the average annual incremental cost increase per tribal 
system is estimated to range from $1,027 to $2,362, EPA notes that 
these estimated impacts will not fall evenly across all tribal systems. 
The final LCRR does offer regulatory relief by providing flexibility 
for CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs to choose CCT, 
LSLR, POU devices, and replacement of lead-bearing materials to address 
lead in drinking water. This flexibility may result in LCR 
implementation cost savings for many tribal systems since 98 percent of 
tribal CWSs serve 10,000 or fewer people and 17 percent of all tribal 
systems are NTNCWSs. EPA consulted with tribal officials under EPA's 
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the 
process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful 
and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation 
is provided in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300). EPA held consultations 
with federally-recognized Indian Tribes in 2011 and 2018. The 2018 
consultations with federally-recognized Indian Tribes began on January 
16, 2018 and ended March 16, 2018. The first national webinar was held 
January 31, 2018, while the second national webinar was held February 
15, 2018. A total of 48 tribal representatives participated in the two 
webinars. Updates on the consultation process were provided to the 
National Tribal Water Council upon request at regularly scheduled 
monthly meetings during the consultation process. Also, upon request, 
informational webinars were provided to the National Tribal Toxics 
Council's Lead Subcommittee on January 30, 2018, and EPA Region 9's 
Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) on February 8, 2018. 
Additionally, EPA received written comments from the following Tribes 
and tribal organizations: The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, the 
National Tribal Water Council, the United South and Eastern Tribes 
Sovereignty Protection Fund, and the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed 
Council.
    EPA has reviewed the estimated cost data, the comments received 
from tribal groups, and the quantified and non-quantified benefits 
associated with the revision to the LCR and determined that the 
regulatory burden placed on tribes is outweighed by the positive 
benefits. Given that the majority of tribal systems serve fewer than 
10,000 persons, EPA has provided regulatory relief in the form of small 
system compliance flexibilities. For additional information on these 
compliance flexibilities and their estimated impacts see sections III.E 
and VII.D of this preamble and Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final LCRR 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020a).
    As required by section 7(a) of the Executive order, EPA's Tribal 
Official has certified that the requirements of the executive order 
have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the 
certification is included in the docket for this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and, based on the record, EPA finds that the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate 
effect on children. Accordingly, EPA has evaluated the environmental 
health and safety effects of lead found in drinking water on children 
and estimated the exposure reduction, risk reduction and health 
endpoint impacts to children associated with the adoption and 
optimization of corrosion control treatment technologies and the 
replacement of LSLs. There are non-quantified lead health benefits to 
children that will be realized as a result of this rulemaking, 
including from testing in schools and child care facilities. EPA 
assessed benefits of the LCRR in terms of avoided losses in the 
intelligence quotient (IQ) in children that result from the additional 
actions required under the LCRR. The results of these evaluations are 
contained in the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) and described in section VI.D.2 of this 
preamble. Copies of the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper 
Rule Revisions and supporting information are available in the Docket 
(EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. The public and private water systems 
affected by this action do not, as a rule, generate power. This action 
does not regulate any aspect of energy distribution as the water 
systems that are regulated by the LCR already have electrical service. 
Finally, EPA has determined that the incremental energy used to 
implement corrosion control treatment at drinking water systems in 
response to the final regulatory requirements is minimal. As such, EPA 
does not anticipate that this rule will have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This action involves technical standards. EPA may use existing 
voluntary consensus standards as it relates to additional monitoring 
for lead and copper, since monitoring and sample analysis methodologies 
are often based on voluntary consensus standards. However, the final 
LCRR does not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or 
sample analysis. EPA's approved monitoring and sampling protocols 
generally include voluntary consensus standards that are in accordance 
with applicable standards established by an organization accredited for 
that purpose such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 
and other such accrediting bodies deemed appropriate for compliance 
monitoring by the Administrator. EPA notes that in some cases, this 
rule revises the required frequency and number of lead tap samples.

[[Page 4276]]

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in the Environmental 
Justice Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Revision Rule Report, 
which can be found in the docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300. Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies must 
do this by identifying and addressing as appropriate any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    In evaluating baseline exposure to lead in drinking water, data 
indicate that the possibility of a disproportionately high and adverse 
human health risk among minority populations and low-income populations 
exist. Higher than expected proportions of children in minority 
households and/or low-income households live in housing built during 
decades of higher LSL usage. The final rule seeks to reduce the health 
risks of exposure to lead in drinking water provided by CWSs and 
NTNCWSs. Since water systems with LSLs are more likely to have an 
action level exceedance or a trigger level exceedance and, therefore, 
engage in actions to reduce lead concentrations, the final rule should 
help improve the baseline environmental justice concerns. The final 
rule is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 
populations. The final rule should result in CCT and LSLR changes at 
water systems with higher baseline lead concentrations. It increases 
the level of health protection for all affected populations. The LSLR 
provision may be less likely than the CCT provision to address baseline 
health risk disparity among low-income populations because LSLR may not 
be affordable for low-income households.
    However, there are Federal and state programs that may be used to 
fund LSLR programs including the cost of LSLR for customer-owned LSLs. 
These include but are not limited to the Drinking Water State Revolving 
Fund (DWSRF), Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) 
Program, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 
2016 grant programs, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. 
The benefit-cost analysis of the final rule indicates that CCT changes 
will account for most of the benefits. Therefore, health risk reduction 
benefits will be more uniformly distributed among populations with high 
baseline health risks including minority and low-income households. 
Also, given the availability of Federal and state funding sources to 
support full LSLR, the final rule meets the intent of the Federal 
policy requiring incorporation of environmental justice into Federal 
agency missions.

L. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board and the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council

1. Consultation With the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Under SDWA 
Section 1412(e)
    As required by section 1412(e) of the SDWA, in 2011, EPA sought an 
evaluation of current scientific data to determine whether partial LSLR 
effectively reduce water lead levels. When the LCR was promulgated in 
1991, large water systems, serving greater than 50,000 people, were 
required to install CCT and small and medium water systems, serving 
50,000 or fewer people if samples exceeded the action level for lead. 
If the action level was not met after installing CCT, water systems are 
required to replace 7 percent of its LSLs annually. However, in 2000, 
revisions to the LCR allowed water systems, if they exceeded the action 
level, to replace only the portion of the LSL that the water system 
owned and to replace the customer's portion of the LSL at the 
customer's expense. This practice is known as a partial LSLR.
    EPA asked the SAB to evaluate the current scientific data on the 
following five partial LSLR issues: (1) Associations between partial 
LSLR and blood lead levels in children; (2) lead tap water sampling 
data before and after partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between partial and 
full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR techniques; and (5) the impact of galvanic 
corrosion. EPA identified several studies for the SAB to review while 
the SAB selected additional studies for their evaluation. The SAB 
deliberated and sought input from public meetings held on March 30 and 
31, 2011, and during a public conference call on May 16, 2011. The 
SAB's final report, titled ``SAB Evaluation of the Effectiveness of 
Partial Lead Service Line Replacements'' was approved by the SAB on 
July 19, 2011, and transmitted to the EPA Administrator on September 
28, 2011.
    The SAB determined that the quality and quantity of data was 
inadequate to fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial LSLR in 
reducing drinking water lead concentrations. Both the small number of 
studies and the limitations within these studies (i.e., lack of 
comparability between studies, small sample size) barred a 
comprehensive assessment of partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite the 
limitations, the SAB concluded that partial LSLR's have not been shown 
to reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the short-term of days 
to months, and potentially even longer. Additionally, partial LSLR is 
often associated with elevated drinking water lead levels in the short-
term. The available data suggested that the elevated drinking water 
lead levels after the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over time to lower 
than or to levels similar to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, the 
SAB concluded that available data suggest that partial LSLR's may pose 
a risk to the population due to short-term elevations in drinking water 
lead concentrations after a partial LSLR, which last for an unknown 
period. Considering the SAB's findings on partial LSLR, EPA determined 
that partial replacements should no longer be required when water 
systems exceed the action level for lead, but EPA still considers full 
replacement of the LSL as beneficial (USEPA, 2011b).
    Following the proposal, the SAB elected to review the scientific 
and technical basis of the proposed rule, on March 30, 2020. A work 
group took the lead in SAB deliberations on this topic at a public 
teleconference held on May 11, 2020. The SAB provided advice and 
comments in its June 12, 2020 report. Similar comments that were raised 
by the SAB were also raised by public commenters. As a result, the 
comments have been addressed by EPA in the final rule, supporting 
documents and throughout this notice.
2. Consultation With National Drinking Water Advisory Council Under 
SDWA Section 1412(d)
    The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal 
Advisory Committee that supports EPA

[[Page 4277]]

in performing its duties and responsibilities related to the national 
drinking water program and was created as a part of SDWA in 1974. EPA 
sought advice from the NDWAC as required under Section 1446 of the 
SDWA. EPA consulted with NDWAC on July 21-22, 2011, to provide updates 
on the proposed LCR revisions and solicit feedback on potential 
regulatory options under consideration. In November 2011, NDWAC held 
deliberations on LSLR requirements after they received the SAB's final 
report on the effectiveness of partial LSLR. In December 2011, a public 
meeting was held where NDWAC provided EPA with major recommendations on 
the potential LCR regulatory revisions, which are outlined in a letter 
dated December 23, 2011.
    In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group 
(LCRWG) to provide additional advice to EPA on potential options for 
long-term regulatory revisions. EPA held meetings from March of 2014 
until June 2015 where NDWAC LCRWG members discussed components of the 
rule and provided EPA with advice for addressing the following issues: 
Sample site collection criteria, lead sampling protocols, public 
education for copper, and measures to ensure optimal CCT and LSLR. 
NDWAC provided the Agency with their final recommendations and findings 
in a report submitted to the Administrator in December 2015. In the 
report, NDWAC acknowledged that reducing lead exposure is a shared 
responsibility between consumers, the government, public water systems, 
building owners, and public health officials. In addition, they 
recognized that creative financing is necessary to reach the LSL 
removal goals, especially for disparate and vulnerable communities. The 
NDWAC advised EPA to maintain the LCR as a treatment technique rule but 
with enhanced improvements. NDWAC qualitatively considered costs before 
finalizing its recommendations, emphasizing that public water systems 
and states should focus efforts where the greatest public health 
protection can be achieved, incorporating their anticipated costs in 
their capital improvement program or the requests for Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds. The LCRWG outlined an extensive list of 
recommendations for the LCR revisions, including establishing a goal-
based LSLR program, strengthening CCT requirements, and tailoring water 
quality parameters to the specific CCT plan for each water system.
    The report NDWAC provided for EPA also included recommendations for 
renewed collaborative commitments between government and all levels of 
the public from state and local agencies, to other stakeholders and 
consumers while recognizing EPA's leadership role in this area. These 
complementary actions as well as a detailed description of the 
provisions for NDWAC's recommendations for the long-term revisions to 
the LCR can be found in the ``Report of the Lead and Copper Rule 
Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council'' (NDWAC, 
2015). EPA took into consideration NDWAC's recommendations when 
developing these revisions to the LCR.
    On December 4-5, 2019, EPA held a NDWAC meeting in Washington, DC 
where EPA presented the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). 
In the presentation, the major LCRR revisions were highlighted such as 
the LSL inventory, the new trigger level of 10 ppb, and new sampling 
protocols. The presentation focused on six key areas: Identifying areas 
most impacted, strengthening treatment requirements, replacing LSLs, 
increasing sampling reliability, improving risk communication, and 
protecting children in schools. EPA reiterated that the LCRR was 
developed with extensive consultation from state, local and tribal 
partners to identify avenues that would reduce elevated levels of lead 
in drinking water. EPA reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and 
improved communication to the public.

M. Consultation With the Department of Health and Human Services Under 
SDWA Section 1412(d)

    On June 12, 2019, EPA consulted with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) on the proposed LCRR. On July 22, 2020, EPA 
consulted with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the 
final rule. EPA received and considered comments from the HHS for both 
the proposal and final rules through the inter-agency review process 
described in section VII.A of this preamble.

N. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

VIII. References

AAP COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 2016. Prevention of Childhood 
Lead Toxicity. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1):e20161493
ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service 
Lines. AWWA C810-17 43810. First Edition. Denver, CO: AWWA, 2017.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2020. 
Costs of States Transactions Study (CoSTS) for EPA's Proposed LCRR. 
February 6, 2020.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. (August 2019). 
Developing Lead Service Line Inventories Presented by the 
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. Retrieved August 
2019, from: https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ASDWA_Developing-Lead-Service-Line-Inventories.pdf.
AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line Management. Retrieved September 3, 
2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-Policy-Statements/Lead-Service-Line-Management.
AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to 
Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion 
of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 90508. 
Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research 
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.
Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen, E., Bellinger, D., Lanphear, B., & 
Grandjean, P. (2013). An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining 
a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children. Risk 
Analysis, 33(3), 450-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01882.x.
Chin, D., Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985. Lead product use survey of public 
water supply distribution systems throughout the United States. In: 
Plumbing Materials and Drinking Water Quality: Proceedings of a 
Seminar Held at Cincinnati, Ohio, May 16-17, 1984. EPA 600/9-85-007, 
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 132-146.
Chislock, M. F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R. A. and A.E. Wilson. 2013. 
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic 
Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10.
Chowdhury, R., Ramond, A., O'Keeffe, L. M., Shahzad, S., Kunutsor, 
S. K., Muka, T., . . . Di Angelantonio, E. 2018. Environmental toxic 
metal contaminants and risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic 
review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 362, k3310. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3310.
Cornwell, D.A, R.A. Brown, and S.H Via. 2016. National Survey of 
Lead Service Line Occurrence. Journal American Water Works 
Association. 108(4):E182-E191.
Crump, K. S., Van Landingham, C., Bowers, T. S., Cahoy, D., & 
Chandalia, J. K. (2013). A statistical reevaluation of the data used 
in the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled-analysis that related low 
levels of blood lead to intellectual deficits in children. Crit Rev 
Toxicol, 43(9), 785-799. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726.
DC Water. 2016. DC Water Service Information. Retrieved August 12, 
2019, from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/.
De Rosa and Williams. 1992. Particulate lead in water supplies 
(TMU9024). Final

[[Page 4278]]

Report to the Department of the Environment. Swindon, England: Water 
Research Center (1992).
Del Toral, Miguel A. Del. Et al. ``Detection and Evaluation of 
Elevated Lead Release from Service Lines: A Field Study.'' 
Environmental Science and Technology; vol. 47, no. 16, 2013, pp. 
9300-9307.
Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., Nour, S., & Prevost, M. 
2016. Monitoring-based framework to detect and manage lead water 
service lines. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 
108(11), E555-E570.
Dodds, W.K., Bouska, W.W., Eitzmann, J.L., Pilger, T.J., Pitts, 
K.L., Riley, A.J., Schloesser, J.T., and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009. 
Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic 
Damages. Environmental Science Technology 43 (1).
EDF. 2019. Recognizing efforts to replace lead service lines. 
Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-efforts-replace-lead-service-lines.
Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007. M. Edwards, S. Triantafyllidou, 
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio and lead leaching to water. J. Water 
Works Assoc. 2007, 99, 96.
Elfland et al. 2010. Lead-contaminated water from brass plumbing 
devices in new buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11.
ERG, 2017. Summary Report of the Peer Review Meeting for EPA's Draft 
Report, Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-based Benchmark 
for Lead in Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/lcr_peer_review_summary_report_final_10-25-17_508.pdf.
Galesburg, 2016. Lead Service Line Replacement Grant Program 
Application. Accessed 9/12/2019. https://www.ci.galesburg.il.us/assets/1/22/LEAD_SERVICE_LINE_REPLACEMENT_GRANT_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.pdf.
GAO-17-424, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water, 
Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's Oversight 
of the Lead and Copper Rule. September, 2017.
GAO-18-328, U.S. Government Accountability Office. K-12 Education, 
Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit from Improved 
Federal Guidance. July 2018.
GAO-18-620, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water, 
Approaches for Identifying Lead Service Lines Should be Shared With 
All States. September 2018.
Glibert, P. M., Anderson, D. M., Gentien, P., Graneli, E. and K. G. 
Sellner. 2005. The Global, Complex Phenomena of Harmful Algal 
Blooms. Oceanography 18:2.
Great Lakes--Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial 
Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2018. Recommended 
standards for water works 2018 edition: Policies for the review and 
approval of plans and specifications for public water supplies. 
Minnesota's Bookstore Communications Media Division.
Gregory and Jackson, 1984; Gregory, R. and Jackson, P.J. Central 
Water Treatment to Reduce Lead Solubility. Water Research Center. 
Prepared for the AWWA Annual Conference. Dallas, TX (1984).
HDR. (2009). An Analysis of the Correlation between Lead Released 
from Galvanized Iron Piping and the Contents of Lead in Drinking 
Water. Retrieved August 13, 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/galvanizedprojectreport.pdf.
Hill, C.P., and Cantor, A.F. 2011. Internal Corrosion Control in 
Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Manual M58, First Edition. American 
Water Works Association. Denver, CO.
Kahn, H.D. and K. Stralka. 2009. Estimated daily average per capita 
water ingestion by child and adult age categories based on USDA's 
1994-1996 and 1998 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals. 
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 19(4):396-
404.
Kane, J., and Tomer, A. 2018. Renewing the water workforce: 
Improving water infrastructure and creating a pipeline to 
opportunity. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
Katner, Adrienne, et al. Effectiveness of Prevailing Flush 
Guidelines to Prevent Exposure to Lead in Tap Water. MDPI, 
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 20 July 2018, 
www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1537.
Kirrane, E. F., & Patel, M. M. (2014). Memorandum from EPA NCEA to 
ISA for Lead Docket: Identification and consideration of errors in 
Lanphear et al. (2005), ``Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and 
Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled 
Analysis.''
Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P. 
A., Bellinger, D. C., . . . Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level 
Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An 
International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
113(7), 894-899. doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
Lanphear, B.P. 2016. Prevention of Childhood Lead Toxicity. 
Pediatrics. August 2016. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/138/1/e20161493.full.pdf.
Lanphear, B.P., R. Hornung, J. Khoury, K. Yolton, P.A. Baghurst, DC 
Bellinger, R. Roberts. 2019. Erratum: Low-level environmental lead 
exposure and children's intellectual function: An international 
pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7):894-899.
Lin, D., Lutter, R., & Ruhm, C. J. 2016. Cognitive performance and 
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51, 121-135.
Lyon and Lenihan, 1977. Lyon, T.D.B. and Lenihan, J.M.A. Corrosion 
in Solder Jointed Copper Tubes Resulting in Lead Contamination of 
Drinking Water. Br. Corros. J. (March 1977), Vol. 12, No. 1.
Lytle, D.A. and Schock, M.R. (1996). Stagnation time, composition, 
pH and orthophosphate effects on metal leaching from brass. EPA/600/
R-96/103 September 1996.
Lytle, D.A. Et al. 2019. Sequential Drinking Water Sampling as a 
Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research; Vol. 
157, pp 40-54.
McFadden, M., et al. 2011. Contributions to Drinking Water Lead from 
Galvanized Iron Corrosion Scales. Journal American Water Works 
Association; 103(4), pp 76-89. DOI: 10.1002/j.1551-
8833.2011.tb11437.x.
Michigan EGLE. 2020. Preliminary Distribution System Material 
Inventory. Available online at: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-dwehd-PDSMISummaryData_682673_7.pdf.
Ministry of Ontario. Regulation 170/03. Schedule 15.1 Lead, under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Guidance Document for Preparing 
Corrosion Control Plans for Drinking Water Systems. PIBs # 7463. 
December 2009.
Mushak, P. 1991. Gastro-intestinal absorption of lead in children 
and adults: Overview of biological and biophysico-chemical aspects. 
Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 3(3-4):87-104.
NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group. (2015). Report of the Lead and 
Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council--Final. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
National Research Council. (2000). Copper in Drinking Water. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program. (2012). NTP Monograph on Health Effects 
of Low-Level Lead. Durham, NC.
Nguyen et al., 2010. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. Stone, A. Dudi, M. A. 
Edwards, Corrosive microenvironments at lead solder surfaces arising 
from galvanic corrosion with copper pipe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 
2010, 44, 7076.
Nguyen et al., 2011. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. Stone, M. A. Edwards, 
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio: practical studies in galvanic 
corrosion of lead solder. J. Water Works Assoc. 2011, 103, 81.
Office of Management and Budget. (2003) Circular A-4. Washington, 
DC.
Office of Inspector General (EPA). ``Drinking Water: EPA Needs to 
Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small Community Water Systems 
Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance.'' Report No. 16-
P-0108. March 22, 2016.
Oliphant, 1982. Oliphant, R.J. Lead Contamination of Potable Water 
Arising from Soldered Joints. Water Research Center (1982).
Perrin Lanphear, B., MD, MPH, FAAP. (2016, July). Prevention of 
Childhood Lead Toxicity. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/138/1/e20161493.full.pdf.
Pocock, S. J., Shaper, A. G., Walker, M., Wale, C. J., Clayton, B., 
Delves, T., . . . Powell, P. (1983). Effects of tap water lead, 
water hardness, alcohol, and cigarettes on blood lead 
concentrations. J Epidemiol Community Health, 37(1), 1-7.

[[Page 4279]]

President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children (Task Force). 2018. Federal Action Plan to Reduce 
Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts. December 
2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_final.pdf.
Salkever, D. S. (1995). Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from 
Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental 
Research, 70, 1-6. doi:doi: 0013-9351/95.
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, P.E., G. Kirmeyer, P.E., Dr. B. Maynard, Dr. 
D. Mast, Dr. R. R. Trussell, P.E., Dr. S. Trussell, P.E., A. Cantor, 
P.E., MCSD, and A. Prescott. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and 
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver, 
Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation. Peer reviewed by AwwaRF Project 
Advisory Committee.
Schock, M.R., and Lytle, D.A. 2011. Chapter 20: Internal Corrosion 
and Deposition Control. In Water Quality and Treatment. 6th Edition. 
AWWA and McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991). Lead and minor hearing impairment. 
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 46(5), 300-305. 
doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391.
Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G. I., Moore, M. R., Patterson, W. 
J., Richards, W. N., & Wilson, T. S. (1982). Assessment of lead 
intakes and dose-response for a population in Ayr exposed to a 
plumbosolvent water supply. Hum Toxicol, 1(2), 115-122.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. 2015. 
National Cost Implications of Potential Long[hyphen]Term LCR 
Requirements. Journal American Water Works Association. 107(8):E389-
E400.
State of California. 2016. Public water systems: lead user service 
lines. SB-1398.
State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General Assembly. PA 99-0922.
State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to the Public, 2017-008 EQ.
State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. Adoption of Rules 
Relating to Water System Testing.
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018. Public Law 
115-270, 132 Stat. 3765, Title II (Oct. 23, 2018).
United States. Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. 
2016. Public Law 114-322, 130 Stat. 1628, Title II (December 16, 
2016).
United States. 1981. Community Economic Development. U.S. Code 42. 
Chapter 105, Subchapter 1. August 13, 1981.
United States. 2002. Improving the Academic Achievement of the 
Disadvantaged. U.S. Code 20. Chapter 70, Subchapter 1. January 8, 
2002.
United States. 2010a. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. U.S. Code 42. 
Chapter 13, Section 1758. December 13, 2010.
United States. 2010b. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. U.S. Code 42. 
Chapter 13, Section 1766. December 13, 2010.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. School 
Breakfast Program. Economic Research Service. https://
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-
programs/school-breakfast-program/
#:~:text=In%20FY%202018%2C%2014.69%20million,were%20provided%20at%20r
educed%20price.
USEPA. 1973. Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives; Control of Lead 
Additives in Gasoline. Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR part 80. 
Vol. 38, No. 234. December 6, 1973.
USEPA. 1977. Lead-Containing Paint and Certain Consumer Products 
Bearing Lead-Containing Paint. Code of Federal Regulations 16 CFR 
part 1303. Vol. 42, No. 170. September. 1, 1977.
USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum to 
Arthur Perler, Science and Technology Branch from Jon Longtin, Water 
Supply Technology Branch regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS 
Results (February 23, 1988).
USEPA. 1990a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Impact of Lead 
and Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality. Prepared by N.E. 
Murrell for USEPA (February 1990).
USEPA. 1990b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update of the 
National Inorganic and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) for Lead. From 
Jeff Cohen to Docket (July 1990).
USEPA. 1991. ``Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level 
Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and 
Copper; Final Rule.'' Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. 
Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. 1995. Lead solders. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR. 
Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 189, Subpart D, Section 189.240. June 
27, 1995.
US EPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Reports; Final rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 44524. 
August 19, 1998.
US EPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Reports; Proposed rule and notice of alternative 
definition. Federal Register. 63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-
Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. September 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Consumer Confidence Report Regulation. Federal 
Register 63(160):44524. August 19, 1998. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of 
Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the 
Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA 815-R-99-016. April 
1999. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=200022MT.txt.
USEPA. 2000a. Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water 
Systems. EPA 815-R-00-024. December 2000.
USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public 
Notification Rule. Federal Register 65(87):25982. May 4, 2000. 
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2000c. Report of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council 
Small Systems Implementation Working Group. EPA-816-R-00-012. April 
2000.
USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and 
Copper Control Strategies. Report No. EPA-816-R-03-001. US 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-compliance-help-primacyagencies.
USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for 
Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult 
Exposures to Lead in Soil. Retrieved from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf.
USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical 
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1 (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf).
USEPA. 2004b. US EPA Lead Service Line Replacement Workshop Summary 
Report.
USEPA. 2008a. ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.'' 
73 FR 66964. Pages 66964-67062. November 2008 (to be codified at 40. 
CFR parts 51, 51, 53, and 58).'' Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-lead.
USEPA 2008b. Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair 
and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water 
Systems. EPA 815-R-08-015. October 2008. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_survey_guidance.pdf.
USEPA 2009. 2006 Community Water System Survey. EPA 815-R-09-001. 
February 2009. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/community-water-system-survey.
USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance 
for Public Water Systems. EPA 816-R-10-004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt.
USEPA. 2011a. National Characteristics of Drinking Water Systems 
Serving 10,000 or Fewer People. EPA 816-R-10-022. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/epa816r10022.pdf.
USEPA. 2011b. Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee 
Augmented for the Review of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead 
Service Line Replacements. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. Office of 
Research and

[[Page 4280]]

Development. (EPA/600/R-10/075F). Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating 
Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-005. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/steam-electric_benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf.
USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment 2012: A Collaborative Survey 
of Lakes in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nla_report_dec_2016.pdf.
USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 Fact 
Sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/fact_sheet_draft_variation_march_2016_revision.pdf.
USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation 
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water 
Systems (EPA-816-B-16-003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Version 
(SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water. March 2016.
USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Memorandum to Water Division Directions, Regions I-X, from Peter C. 
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Clarification of 
Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures for Purposes of the Lead and 
Copper Rule (February 29, 2016).
USEPA. 2018a. Summary Report on Federalism: Lead and Copper Rule.
USEPA. 2018b. 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and 
Child Care Facilities: A Training, Testing, and Taking Action 
Approach (Revised Manual). October 2018. Office of Water. EPA 815-B-
18-007. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water-toolkit.
USEPA. 2019a. America's children and the environment. EPA-100K19004. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/ace2019-v17s.pdf.
USEPA. 2019b. Review of Dust-Lead Standards and the Definition of 
Lead-Based Paint. Federal Register 84(131):32632. July 9, 2019. 
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-09/pdf/2019-14024.pdf.
USEPA. 2019c. Learn About Lead and Copper Rule Compliance. Office of 
Water. EPA-815-F-19-007 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/lcr_data_factsheet_10-9-2019.pdf.
USEPA. 2019d. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed 
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Federal Register 84(219):61684. 
November 13, 2019. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2019e. Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line 
Replacement. October 2019. Office of Water. EPA 810-R-19-003 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/strategies_to_achieve_full_lead_service_line_replacement_10_09_19.pdf
.
USEPA. 2019f. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper 
Rule Revisions. October 2019. Office of Water. EPA docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0300-0003.
USEPA. 2019g. Economic Analysis Appendices for the Proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions. October 2019. Office of Water. EPA docket ID: 
EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0002.
USEPA. 2019h. Lead Service Line Replacement Rate Analysis Workbook. 
Unpublished raw data.
USEPA. 2019i. Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line 
Replacement.
USEPA, 2019j. Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead in 
Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities. September 2019. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/mou_reducing_lead_in_drinking_water_in_schools_final.pdf.
USEPA. 2020a. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions. December 2020. Office of Water.
USEPA. 2020b. Technologies and Costs for Corrosion Control to Reduce 
Lead in Drinking Water. December 2020. Office of Water.
Weston, Roy F. and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 1990. 
Final Report: Lead Service Line Replacement A Benefit-to-Cost 
Analysis. Denver, Colorado: American Water Works Association.
WHO. 2011. Lead in Drinking Water: Background Document for 
Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World 
Health Organization Press. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/lead.pdf.
The White House. 1994. Executive Order 12898. Environmental Justice 
Strategy. Federal Register 59(32):7629. February 16, 1994. 
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
The White House. 1999. Executive Order 13132. Federalism. Federal 
Register 64(153):43255. August 10, 1999. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
The White House. 2000. Executive Order 13175. Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Federal Register 
65(218):67249. November 9, 2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing 
Office.
The White House. 2019a. 2020 Budget Fact Sheet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FY20-Fact-Sheet_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf.
The White House. 2019b. Remarks by President Trump on America's 
Environmental Leadership. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-americas-environmental-leadership/.
Wilczak, A.J., Hokanson, D.R., Rhodes Trussel, R., Boozarpour, M., 
and Degraca, A. 2010. Water Conditioning For LCR Compliance and 
Control Of Metals Release In San Francisco's Water System. J. AWWA, 
102(3):52-64.
Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 2017. 
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide 
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
125(9). doi:10.1289/EHP1605.
Ziegler, E.E., B.B. Edwards, R.L. Jensen, K.R Mahaffey, and S.J. 
Fomon. 1978. Absorption and retention of lead by infants. Pediatric 
Research 12(1):29-34.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Lead service line, National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead service 
line, National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Action level'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Aerator'', ``Child 
care facility'', ``Elementary schools'', ``Fifth liter sample'', and 
``Find-and-fix'';
0
c. Revising the definition for ``First draw sample'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Full lead service 
line replacement,'' ``Galvanized service line'', and ``Gooseneck, 
pigtail, or connector'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Lead service line'';

[[Page 4281]]

0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Lead status 
unknown service line'' and ``Lead trigger level'';
0
g. Revising the definition of ``Medium-size water system'';
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Method detection 
limit (MDL)'', ``Partial lead service line replacement'', and ``Pitcher 
filter'';
0
i. Removing the definition of ``Point-of-use treatment device (POU)'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions ``Point-of-use 
treatment device or point of use device (POU),'' ``Practical 
quantitation limit (PQL)'', ``Pre-stagnation flushing'', ``School'', 
and ``Secondary school''.
0
k. Removing the definition ``Service line sample''.
    l. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions ``System without 
corrosion control treatment'', ``Tap sampling monitoring period'', 
``Tap sampling period'', ``Tap sampling protocol'', and ``Wide-mouth 
bottles''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Action level means the concentrations of lead or copper in water as 
specified in Sec.  141.80(c) which determines requirements under 
subpart I of this part. The action level for lead is 0.015 mg/L and the 
action level for copper is 1.3 mg/L.
    Aerator means the device embedded in the water faucet to enhance 
air flow with the water stream and to prevent splashing.
* * * * *
    Child care facility means a location that houses a licensed 
provider of child care, day care, or early learning services to 
children, as determined by the State, local, or tribal licensing 
agency.
* * * * *
    Elementary school, for the purposes of subpart I of this part only, 
means a school classified as elementary by state and local practice and 
composed of any span of grades (including pre-school) not above grade 
8.
* * * * *
    Fifth liter sample, for purposes of subpart I of this part, means a 
one-liter sample of tap water collected in accordance with Sec.  
141.86(b).
* * * * *
    Find-and-fix means the requirements under subpart I of this part 
that water systems must perform at every tap sampling site that yielded 
a lead result above 15 [mu]g/L.
* * * * *
    First draw sample means the first one-liter sample of tap water 
collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b)(2).
* * * * *
    Full lead service line replacement means the replacement of a lead 
service line (as well as galvanized service lines requiring 
replacement), as defined in this section, that results in the entire 
length of the service line, regardless of service line ownership, 
meeting the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Section 1417 definition of 
lead free applicable at the time of the replacement. A full lead 
service line replacement includes a replacement where only one portion 
of the service line is lead, such as where a partial lead service line 
was previously conducted, as long as, upon completion of the 
replacement, the entire service line meets the SDWA Section 1417 
definition of lead-free applicable at the time of the replacement. 
Galvanized service lines that are or were downstream of a lead service 
line must also be replaced for a service line to be a full lead service 
line replacement. A lead service line that is left in place in the 
ground but remains out-of-service may be full lead service line 
replacement where a new non-lead service line is installed for use 
instead of the out-of-service lead service line.
* * * * *
    Galvanized service line means iron or steel piping that has been 
dipped in zinc to prevent corrosion and rusting.
    Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector is a short section of piping, 
typically not exceeding two feet, which can be bent and used for 
connections between rigid service piping. For purposes of this subpart, 
lead goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors are not considered to be part 
of the lead service line but may be required to be replaced pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(c).
* * * * *
    Lead service line means a portion of pipe that is made of lead, 
which connects the water main to the building inlet. A lead service 
line may be owned by the water system, owned by the property owner, or 
both. For the purposes of this subpart, a galvanized service line is 
considered a lead service line if it ever was or is currently 
downstream of any lead service line or service line of unknown 
material. If the only lead piping serving the home is a lead gooseneck, 
pigtail, or connector, and it is not a galvanized service line that is 
considered a lead service line the service line is not a lead service 
line. For purposes of Sec.  141.86(a) only, a galvanized service line 
is not considered a lead service line.
    Lead status unknown service line means a service line that has not 
been demonstrated to meet or not meet the SDWA Section 1417 definition 
of lead free. It is not necessary to physically verify the material 
composition (for example, copper or plastic) of a service line for its 
lead status to be identified (e.g., records demonstrating the service 
line was installed after a municipal, State, or Federal lead ban).
    Lead trigger level means a particular concentration of lead in 
water that prompts certain activities under subpart I of this part. The 
trigger level for lead is a concentration of 10 [mu]g/L.
* * * * *
    Medium-size water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means a water system that serves greater than 10,000 persons and 
less than or equal to 50,000 persons.
* * * * *
    Method detection limit (MDL) means the minimum concentration of a 
substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence 
that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined 
from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
* * * * *
    Partial lead service line replacement means replacement of any 
portion of a lead service line or galvanized service line requiring 
replacement, as defined in this section, that leaves in service any 
length of lead service line or galvanized service line requiring 
replacement upon completion of the work. Partial lead service line 
replacements are permitted under limited circumstances under Sec.  
141.84(d) but do not count towards the mandatory or goal-based lead 
service line replacement rate.
* * * * *
    Pitcher filter means a non-plumbed water filtration device which 
consists of a gravity fed water filtration cartridge and a filtered 
drinking water reservoir that is certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in drinking 
water.
* * * * *
    Point-of-use treatment device or point of use device (POU) is a 
water treatment device physically installed or connected to a single 
fixture, outlet, or tap to reduce or remove contaminants in drinking 
water. For the purposes of subpart I of this part, it must be certified 
by an American National Standards Institute accredited certifier to 
reduce lead in drinking water.
    Practical quantitation limit (PQL) means the minimum concentration 
of an analyte (substance) that can be

[[Page 4282]]

measured with a high degree of confidence that the analyte is present 
at or above that concentration.
* * * * *
    Pre-stagnation flushing is the opening of tap(s) to flush standing 
water from plumbing prior to the minimum 6-hour stagnation period in 
anticipation of lead and copper tap sampling under subpart I of this 
part.
* * * * *
    School, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, means any 
building(s) associated with public, private, or charter institutions 
that primarily provides teaching and learning for elementary or 
secondary students.
* * * * *
    Secondary school, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a school comprising any span of grades beginning with the next 
grade following an elementary or middle school (usually 7, 8, or 9) and 
ending with or below grade 12. Both junior high schools and senior high 
schools are included.
* * * * *
    System without corrosion control treatment means a public water 
system that does not have or purchases all of its water from a system 
that does not have:
    (1) An optimal corrosion control treatment approved by the State; 
or
    (2) Any pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, and/or corrosion 
inhibitor addition resulting from other water quality adjustments as 
part of its treatment train infrastructure.
    Tap sampling monitoring period, for the purposes of subpart I of 
this part, means the period of time during which each water system must 
conduct tap sampling for lead and copper analysis. A tap sampling 
monitoring period is determined by lead and copper concentrations in 
tap samples and the frequency can range from every six months (i.e., 
semi-annual) up to once every nine years. Water systems on semi-annual 
tap sampling monitoring must collect samples no less frequently than 
every six months while those on annual monitoring must sample no less 
frequently than every year. Water systems on triennial monitoring must 
collect samples no less frequently than every three years; and those on 
monitoring waivers must sample no less frequently than every nine 
years. The start of each new tap sampling monitoring period, with the 
exception of semi-annual monitoring, must begin on January 1.
    Tap sampling period, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means the time period, within a tap sampling monitoring period, 
during which the water system is required to collect samples for lead 
and copper analysis. For systems monitoring at a reduced frequency, the 
tap sampling period must be between the months of June and September, 
unless a different 4-month period of time is approved in writing to be 
more appropriate by the State.
    Tap sampling protocol means the instructions given to residents or 
those sampling on behalf of the water system to conduct tap sampling 
under subpart I of this part.
* * * * *
    Wide-mouth bottles, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means bottles configured with a mouth that is at least 55 mm wide that 
are one liter in size.

0
3. Amend Sec.  141.28 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.28  Certified laboratories.

    (a) For the purpose of determining compliance with Sec.  141.21 
through 141.27, 141.30, 141.40, 141.74, 141.89 and 141.402, samples may 
be considered only if they have been analyzed by a laboratory certified 
by the State except that measurements of alkalinity, disinfectant 
residual, orthophosphate, pH, silica, temperature, and turbidity may be 
performed by any person acceptable to the State.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  141.31 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.31  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) The public water system, within 10 days of completing the 
public notification requirements under subpart Q of this part for the 
initial public notice and any repeat notices, must submit to the 
primary agency a certification that it has fully complied with the 
public notification regulations. For Tier 2 and 3 notices, the public 
water system must include with this certification a representative copy 
of each type of notice distributed, published, posted, and made 
available to the persons served by the system and to the media.
    (2) For Tier 1 notices for a lead action level exceedance, public 
water systems must provide a copy of any Tier 1 notice to the 
Administrator and the head of the primacy agency as soon as 
practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water system 
learns of the violation or exceedance.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  141.80 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) and (4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (k); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.80  General requirements.

    (a) Applicability, effective date, and compliance deadlines. The 
requirements of this subpart constitute the national primary drinking 
water regulations for lead and copper.
    (1) The provisions of this subpart apply to community water systems 
and non-transient, non-community water systems (in this subpart 
referred to as ``water systems'' or ``systems'') as defined at Sec.  
141.2.
    (2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of March 16, 
2021.
    (3) Community water systems and non-transient, non-community water 
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than 
January 16, 2024, except where otherwise specified at Sec. Sec.  
141.81, 141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, has been established 
by the Administrator.
    (4)(i) Between March 16, 2021 and January 16, 2024, community water 
systems and non-transient, non-community water systems must comply with 
40 CFR 141.80 through 141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020.
    (ii) If an exemption from subpart I of this part has been issued in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, prior to March 16, 
2021, then the water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through 
141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020, until the expiration of that 
exemption.
    (b) Scope. The regulations in this subpart establish a treatment 
technique that includes requirements for corrosion control treatment, 
source water treatment, lead service line inventory, lead service line 
replacement, public notice, monitoring for lead in schools and child 
care facilities, and public education. Several of the requirements in 
this subpart are prompted by the lead and copper action levels or the 
lead trigger level, specified in paragraph (c) of this section, as 
measured in samples collected at consumers' taps. The requirements for 
sampling for lead in schools and child care facilities and public 
education requirements in this subpart apply to all community water 
systems regardless of the results of the compliance tap sampling.
    (c) Lead trigger level, lead action level, and copper action level. 
Trigger levels and action levels must be determined based on tap water 
samples collected in accordance with the tap sampling

[[Page 4283]]

monitoring requirements of Sec.  141.86 for the purpose of calculating 
the 90th percentile and tested using the analytical methods specified 
in Sec.  141.89. The trigger level and action levels described in this 
paragraph (c) are applicable to all sections of subpart I of this part. 
Trigger level and action levels for lead and copper are as follows:
    (1) The lead trigger level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of lead as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section 
is greater than 10 [mu]g/L.
    (2) The lead action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of lead as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section 
is greater than 15 [mu]g/L.
    (3) The copper action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of copper as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section is greater than 1.3 mg/L.
    (4) For purposes of this subpart, the 90th percentile concentration 
shall be computed as follows:
    (i) For systems that do not have lead service line sites and only 
have sites identified as Tier 3, 4, or 5 under Sec.  141.86(a).
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken during a tap 
sampling period shall be placed in ascending order from the sample with 
the lowest concentration to the sample with the highest concentration. 
Each sampling result shall be assigned a number, ascending by single 
integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the lowest 
contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the highest 
contaminant level shall be equal to the total number of samples taken.
    (B) The number of samples taken during the tap sampling period 
shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by 
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of this section is the 90th 
percentile concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5 
samples per tap sampling period, the 90th percentile concentration is 
the average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to 
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), or 
has failed to collect five samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration is considered the 90th percentile value.
    (ii) For public water systems with lead service lines with sites 
identified as Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with enough Tier 1 or 2 
sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or 
Tier 2 sites during a tap sampling period shall be placed in ascending 
order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the sample with 
the highest concentration. Sample results from Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites 
shall not be included in this calculation. Each sampling result shall 
be assigned a number, ascending by single integers beginning with the 
number 1 for the sample with the lowest contaminant level. The number 
assigned to the sample with the highest contaminant level shall be 
equal to the total number of samples taken.
    (B) The number of samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites during 
the tap sampling period shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by 
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section is the 90th 
percentile concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5 
samples per tap sampling period, the 90th percentile concentration is 
the average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to 
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), or 
has failed to collect five samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration is considered the 90th percentile value.
    (iii) For systems with lead service lines with sites identified as 
Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with insufficient number of Tier 1 or 
2 sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or 
Tier 2 sites along with the highest results from Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites 
sufficient to meet the minimum number of sites shall be placed in 
ascending order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the 
sample with the highest concentration. Sample results from any 
remaining Tier 3, 4, and 5 sites shall not be included in this 
calculation. Each sampling result shall be assigned a number, ascending 
by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the 
lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the 
highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total minimum number of 
sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c).
    (B) The required minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c) 
shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by 
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) is the 90th percentile 
concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5 
samples per tap sampling period, the 90th percentile concentration is 
the average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to 
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), or 
has failed to collect five samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration is considered the 90th percentile value.
    (d) Corrosion control requirements. (1) All water systems shall 
install and operate corrosion control treatment in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82, and that meets the definition of optimal 
corrosion control treatment at Sec.  141.2.
* * * * *
    (3) Any small or non-transient non-community water system that 
complies with the applicable small system compliance flexibility 
requirements specified by the State under Sec. Sec.  141.81(a)(3) and 
141.93 is deemed to be in compliance with the treatment requirement in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (4) Any water system shall notify the State in writing pursuant to 
Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-term change in treatment or 
addition of a new source as described in Sec.  141.90(a)(3). The State 
must review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term 
change in water treatment before it is implemented by the water system. 
The State may require any such water system to conduct additional 
monitoring or to take other action the State deems appropriate to 
ensure that such water system maintains minimal levels of corrosion 
control in its distribution system.
    (e) Source water requirements. (1) Any system exceeding the lead or 
copper action level shall implement all applicable source water 
treatment requirements specified by the State under Sec.  141.83.
    (2) Any system that changes their source water or makes long-term 
treatment changes shall submit written documentation to the State 
describing the change in accordance with Sec. Sec.  141.81(a)(3), 
141.86(d)(2)(iv), and 141.90(a)(3). The State must review and approve 
the change before it is implemented by the water system.
    (f) Lead service line replacements and inventory. Lead service line 
replacements must be conducted as follows:
    (1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at 
paragraph

[[Page 4284]]

(c) of this section must complete mandatory lead service line 
replacement. Lead service line replacement must be conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  141.84(g) and must include public education 
pursuant to Sec.  141.85(a) and (b).
    (2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at 
paragraph (c) of this section must complete goal-based lead service 
line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(f) and public education 
pursuant to Sec.  141.85(g) and (h).
    (3) All water systems must prepare an inventory of service lines 
connected to its distribution system, whether or not they are owned or 
controlled by the water system, to identify those service lines that 
are made of lead or of unknown material. The inventory must be prepared 
in accordance with Sec.  141.84(a).
    (g) Public education and notification requirements. Pursuant to 
Sec.  141.85(d), all water systems must provide notification of lead 
tap water monitoring results to persons served at the sites (taps) that 
are tested. All community water systems must conduct annual outreach to 
local and State health agencies pursuant to Sec.  141.85(i). In 
addition:
    (1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at 
paragraph (c) of this section shall implement the public education 
requirements in accordance with Sec.  141.85(a) and (b).
    (2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at 
paragraph (c) of this section shall provide notification to all 
customers with a lead service line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(g).
    (3) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at 
paragraph (c) of this section shall notify the public in accordance 
with the public notification requirements in subpart Q of this part.
    (4) Any water system with lead service lines, galvanized requiring 
replacement or lead status unknown service lines in their inventory as 
specified in Sec.  141.84(a) shall inform all consumers with a lead 
service line, galvanized requiring replacement, or a lead status 
unknown service line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(e).
    (5) Any water system that fails to reach its goal lead service line 
replacement rate as required under Sec.  141.84(f) shall conduct 
outreach activities in accordance with Sec.  141.85(h).
* * * * *
    (k) Violation of national primary drinking water regulations. 
Failure to comply with the applicable requirements of this section and 
Sec. Sec.  141.81 through 141.93, including requirements established by 
the State pursuant to the provisions in this subpart, is a violation of 
the national primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper.
    (l) Testing in schools and child care facilities. All community 
water systems must collect samples from all schools and child care 
facilities within its distribution system in accordance with Sec.  
141.92.

0
6. Revise Sec.  141.81 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.81  Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to 
small, medium, and large water systems.

    (a) Corrosion control treatment. This section sets forth when a 
system must complete the corrosion control treatment steps for systems 
in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section to optimize or re-optimize 
corrosion control treatment based on size, whether the system has 
corrosion control treatment, and whether it has exceeded the lead 
trigger and/or action level and/or the copper action level.
    (1) Large water system (serving 50,000 people). (i) 
Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that exceed either 
the lead trigger level or copper action level shall complete the 
corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (ii) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment with 
90th percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.80(c)(4) that exceed either the lead practical quantitation level 
of 0.005 mg/L or the copper action level shall complete the corrosion 
control treatment steps specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (iii) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment with 
90th percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.80(c)(4) that exceed the lead practical quantitation level but do 
not exceed lead trigger level or the copper action level may be 
required by the State to complete the corrosion control treatment steps 
in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Medium-size water systems (serving 10,000 and 
<=50,000 people). (i) Medium-size water systems with corrosion control 
treatment that exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action 
level shall complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (ii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment 
that exceed either the lead or copper action level shall complete the 
corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (iii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment 
that exceed the lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead or copper 
action levels shall complete the treatment recommendation step 
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Step 1). The water 
system shall complete the remaining steps in paragraph (e) of this 
section if it subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper action 
level.
    (3) Small water systems (serving <=10,000 people) and non-
transient, non-community water systems. (i) Small and non-transient 
non-community water systems with corrosion control treatment that 
exceed the lead trigger level or the lead action level but do not 
exceed the copper action level, shall complete the corrosion control 
treatment steps specified in paragraph (d) of this section, if 
corrosion control treatment is approved by the State as a compliance 
option under Sec.  141.93(a).
    (ii) Small and non-transient, non-community water systems with 
corrosion control treatment that exceed the copper action level shall 
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (iii) Small and non-transient, non-community water systems without 
corrosion control treatment that exceed the lead action level shall 
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph 
(e) of this section if corrosion control treatment is approved by the 
State as a compliance option under Sec.  141.93.
    (iv) Small and non-transient, non-community water systems without 
corrosion control treatment that exceed the copper action level shall 
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph 
(e) of this section.
    (b) Systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control. A system is 
deemed to have optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) or re-
optimized OCCT if the system satisfies one of the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. Any such system deemed 
to have OCCT under this paragraph and which has corrosion control 
treatment in place shall continue to operate and maintain that 
treatment and meet any additional requirements that the State 
determines to be appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control 
treatment is maintained.
    (1) A small or medium-size water system without corrosion control 
treatment is deemed to have optimal

[[Page 4285]]

corrosion control if the water system does not exceed the lead action 
level and copper action level during two consecutive 6-month tap 
sampling monitoring periods and thereafter remains at or below the lead 
trigger level and copper action level in all tap sampling periods 
conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86.
    (2) A small or medium-size water system with corrosion control 
treatment is deemed to have optimal corrosion control treatment if the 
water system does not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action 
level during two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  141.86 and thereafter remains at or below the 
lead trigger level and copper action level in all tap sampling periods 
conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86. Small or medium-size systems 
with corrosion control treatment that exceed the lead trigger level but 
do not exceed the lead and copper action levels during two consecutive 
6-month monitoring periods and thereafter remains at or below the lead 
and copper action levels in all tap sampling periods conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  141.86 are deemed to have re-optimized optimal 
corrosion control treatment if the system meets the requirements of 
this section. Where the State has set optimal water quality parameters 
(OWQPs) under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section a system will not be 
eligible to be deemed to have optimized or re-optimized OCCT pursuant 
to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) Any water system is deemed to have optimized or re-optimized 
corrosion control if it submits results of tap water monitoring in 
accordance with Sec.  141.86 demonstrating that the 90th percentile tap 
water lead level is less than or equal to the lead practical 
quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L and does not exceed the copper action 
level for two consecutive 6-month tap sampling monitoring periods, and 
does not have optimal water quality parameters that were set by the 
State under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section. Any such system with 
90th percentile tap sample results that thereafter exceeds the lead 
practical quantitation level or copper action level during any tap 
sampling period shall not be eligible to be deemed to have optimized 
OCCT in accordance with this paragraph (b)(3) without first completing 
the treatment steps specified in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control in 
accordance with this paragraph (b)(3) shall continue monitoring for 
lead and copper at the tap no less frequently than once every three 
calendar years using the reduced number of sites specified in Sec.  
141.86(c) and collecting samples at times and locations specified in 
Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(v).
    (iii) through (v) [Reserved]
    (c) Corrosion control steps completion for small and medium-size 
water systems without corrosion control treatment. Any small or medium-
sized system without corrosion control treatment required to complete 
the corrosion control steps in paragraph (e) of this section due to its 
exceedance of the lead or copper action level that does not exceed 
either the lead or copper action levels during each of two consecutive 
6-month tap sample monitoring periods pursuant to Sec.  141.86 prior to 
the start of Step 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section or Step 5 in 
paragraph (e)(5) of this section may cease completing the steps and is 
not required to complete Step 3 or Step 5, respectively, except that 
medium-sized systems with lead service lines and small systems with 
lead service lines that choose the corrosion control option pursuant to 
Sec.  141.93 must complete a corrosion control treatment study under 
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. Any system that initiates Step 5 
must complete all remaining steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (8) of 
this section and is not permitted to cease the steps. Any system that 
ceases the steps either prior to Step 3 or Step 5 and thereafter 
exceeds either the lead or copper action level shall not be permitted 
to cease the steps a second time and shall complete the applicable 
treatment steps beginning with the first treatment step which was not 
previously completed in its entirety. The State may require a water 
system to repeat treatment steps previously completed by the water 
system when the State determines that this is necessary to implement 
the treatment requirements of this section. The State must notify the 
system in writing of such a determination and explain the basis for its 
decision.
    (d) Treatment steps and deadlines for water systems re-optimizing 
corrosion control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section or Sec.  141.93, water systems with corrosion control 
treatment shall complete the following corrosion control treatment 
steps (described in the referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  141.82, 
141.86, and 141.87) by the indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. (i) A water system other than those covered in 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section shall recommend re-optimized 
optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(c)) within six months 
after the end of the tap sampling period during which it exceeds either 
the lead trigger level or copper action level. States may approve 
modifications of the existing corrosion control treatment without a 
study for systems that exceed the lead trigger level, but do not exceed 
the lead or copper action level. The State shall specify re-optimized 
corrosion control treatment within six months of receiving the 
treatment recommendation. The system shall complete modifications to 
corrosion control treatment to have re-optimized corrosion control 
treatment installed within six months of the State specifying re-
optimized corrosion control treatment.
    (ii) A water system with lead service lines that exceeds the lead 
action level must harvest lead pipes from the distribution system and 
construct flow-through pipe loops and operate the loops with finished 
water within one year after the end of the tap sampling period during 
which it exceeds the lead action level. These water systems must 
proceed to Step 3 in paragraph (d)(3) of this section and conduct the 
corrosion control studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d)(3)(i) 
of this section using the pipe loops.
    (2) Step 2. (i) Large water systems shall conduct the corrosion 
control studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section (Step 3) unless the system is at or below the lead action level 
and the State has approved the modification of the existing corrosion 
control treatment made under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 
1).
    (ii) Within 12 months after the end of the tap sampling period 
during which a small or medium-size water system with corrosion control 
treatment exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level, the 
State may require the water system to perform corrosion control studies 
for re-optimization (Sec.  141.82(c)(2) or (3)). If the State does not 
require the system to perform such studies, the State must specify re-
optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(2)) within the 
timeframes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section. The State must provide its determination to the system in 
writing.
    (A) For medium-size water systems, within 12 months after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds the 
lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (B) For small water systems, within 18 months after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds the lead 
trigger level or copper action level.

[[Page 4286]]

    (3) Step 3. (i) Any water system with lead service lines that 
exceeded the lead action level shall complete the corrosion control 
treatment studies for re-optimization within 30 months after the end of 
the tap sampling period during which it exceeds the lead action level.
    (ii) If the water system is required to perform corrosion control 
studies under paragraph (d)(2) of this section (Step 2), the water 
system shall complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)(2)) within 18 months 
after the State requires that such studies be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate re-optimized corrosion 
control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(3)) within six months after 
completion of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 3).
    (ii) If the water system has performed corrosion control studies 
under paragraph (d)(2) of this section (Step 2), the State shall 
designate re-optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(2) 
or (4)) within six months after completion of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of 
this section (Step 3).
    (5) Step 5. (i) Large water systems shall complete modifications to 
corrosion control treatment to have re-optimized corrosion control 
treatment installed within 12 months after completion of paragraph 
(d)(4)(i) of this section (Step 4).
    (ii) Small or medium-size water systems shall install re-optimized 
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(e)(1)) within 12 months after 
completion of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section (Step 4).
    (6) Step 6. Water systems must complete follow-up sampling 
(Sec. Sec.  141.86(d)(2) and 141.87(c)) within 12 months after 
completion of paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section (Step 5).
    (7) Step 7. The State must review the water system's installation 
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters 
(Sec.  141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph 
(d)(6) of this section (Step 6).
    (8) Step 8. The water system must operate in compliance with the 
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.  
141.82(g)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(3) and 
water quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(d)).
    (e) Treatment steps and deadlines for systems without corrosion 
control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section 
or Sec.  141.93, water systems without corrosion control treatment must 
complete the following corrosion control treatment steps (described in 
the referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by 
the indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. (i) A water system other than those covered in 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must recommend optimal 
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4)) 
within six months after the end of the tap sampling period during which 
it exceeds either the lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (ii) A water system with lead service lines that exceeds the lead 
action level must harvest lead pipes from the distribution system and 
construct flow-through pipe loops and operate the loops with finished 
water within one year after the end of the tap sampling period during 
which it exceeds the lead action level. These water systems must 
proceed to Step 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section and conduct the 
corrosion control studies for optimization under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of 
this section using the pipe loops.
    (iii) Large water systems under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section must conduct the corrosion control studies for optimization 
under paragraph (e)(3) of this section (Step 3).
    (2) Step 2. Within 12 months after the end of the tap sampling 
period during which a water system exceeds the lead or copper action 
level, if not otherwise required by this rule, the State may require 
the water system to perform corrosion control studies (Sec.  
141.82(b)(1)). The State must notify the system in writing of this 
requirement. If the State does not require the system to perform such 
studies, the State must specify optimal corrosion control treatment 
(Sec.  141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within the timeframes established in 
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The State must provide 
its determination to the system in writing.
    (i) For medium-size water systems, within 18 months after the end 
of the tap sampling monitoring period during which such water system 
exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (ii) For small water systems, within 24 months after the end of the 
tap sampling monitoring period during which such water system exceeds 
the lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3. (i) Large water systems with or without lead service 
line and medium or small systems with lead service lines that exceed 
the lead action level shall complete the corrosion control treatment 
studies for optimization within 30 months after the end of the tap 
sampling period during which it exceeds the lead action level.
    (ii) If the State requires a water system to perform corrosion 
control studies under paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Step 2), the 
water system must complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)(1)) within 18 
months after the State notifies the system in writing that such studies 
must be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate re-optimized corrosion 
control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(3)) within six months after 
completion of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section (Step 3).
    (ii) If the water system has performed corrosion control studies 
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Step 2), the State must 
designate optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(1)) 
within six months after completion of paragraph (e)(3) of this section 
(Step 3).
    (5) Step 5. The water system must install optimal corrosion control 
treatment (Sec.  141.82(e)(1)) within 24 months after the State 
designates optimal corrosion control treatment under paragraph (e)(2) 
or (4) of this section (Step 2 or Step 4).
    (6) Step 6. The water system shall complete follow-up sampling 
(Sec. Sec.  141.86(d)(2)(i) and 141.87(c)) within 12 months after 
completion of paragraph (e)(5) of this section (Step 5).
    (7) Step 7. The State must review the water system's installation 
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters 
(Sec.  141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section (Step 6).
    (8) Step 8. The water system must operate in compliance with the 
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.  
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(3) 
and water quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(d)).
    (f) Treatment steps and deadlines for small community water systems 
and non-transient non-community water systems electing corrosion 
control treatment (CCT) as a compliance option under Sec.  141.93, or 
as required by the State. Water systems selecting the corrosion control 
small system compliance flexibility option must complete the following 
steps by the indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. A water system recommends corrosion control treatment 
as a small system compliance flexibility option under Sec.  
141.93(a)(2) within six months after the end of the tap sampling period 
during which it exceeds either the lead trigger level or the lead 
action level.
    (2) Step 2. The State approves in writing the recommendation of 
corrosion control treatment as a small system compliance flexibility 
option or designates an alternative option in accordance with Sec.  
141.93(a) within six months of the recommendation by the water system 
in paragraph (f)(1) of this

[[Page 4287]]

section (Step 1). Water systems required by the State to optimize or 
re-optimize corrosion control treatment must follow the schedules in 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, beginning with Step 3 in 
paragraph (d)(3) or (e)(3) of this section unless the State specifies 
optimal corrosion control treatment pursuant to either paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section, as applicable.

0
7. Revise Sec.  141.82 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.82  Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.

    This section sets forth the requirements applicable to systems and 
states in the designation of optimal corrosion control treatment for a 
system that is optimizing or reoptimizing corrosion control treatment. 
Each system must complete the corrosion control treatment requirements 
in this section as applicable to such system under Sec.  141.81.
    (a) System recommendation regarding corrosion control treatment for 
systems that do not contain lead service lines and systems with lead 
service lines that do not exceed the lead action level. (1) Any system 
under this paragraph (a) without corrosion control treatment that is 
required to recommend a treatment option in accordance with Sec.  
141.81(e) must, based on the results of lead and copper tap sampling 
and water quality parameter monitoring, recommend designation of one or 
more of the corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1)(i) 
of this section. Small community water systems and non-transient non-
community water systems that exceed the copper action level must comply 
with this paragraph (a)(1). The State may require the system to conduct 
additional water quality parameter monitoring to assist the State in 
reviewing the system's recommendation.
    (2) Any small community water system or non-transient non-community 
water system in this paragraph (a) without corrosion control treatment 
that chooses to pursue a small water system compliance flexibility 
option and is required to recommend an option in accordance with Sec.  
141.81(f) must, based on the results of lead tap sampling and water 
quality parameter monitoring, recommend designation of one of the 
options listed in Sec.  141.93. Systems with no lead service lines that 
exceed the lead action level and select corrosion control under Sec.  
141.93(a)(2) must recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion 
control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the 
optimal corrosion control treatment for that system.
    (3) Any system under this paragraph (a) that exceeds the lead 
action level and selects corrosion control under Sec.  141.93(a)(2) 
must recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control 
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section as the optimal 
corrosion control treatment for that system. A corrosion control study 
under paragraph (c) of this section is not required for medium and 
small systems that exceed the lead trigger level but do not exceed the 
lead and copper action levels, unless required by the state.
    (4) Any small community water system or non-transient, non-
community water system with corrosion control treatment that that 
exceeds the lead action level and selects corrosion control under Sec.  
141.93(a)(2) must recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion 
control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section as the 
optimal corrosion control treatment for that system.
    (5) States may waive the requirement for a system to recommend OCCT 
if the State requires the system, in writing, to complete a corrosion 
control study within 3 months after the end of the tap sampling period 
during which the exceedance occurred. Such systems shall proceed 
directly to paragraph (c) of this section and complete a corrosion 
control study.
    (b) State decision to require studies to identify initial optimal 
corrosion control treatment and re-optimized optimal corrosion control 
treatment except for large systems and small and medium systems with 
lead service lines that exceed the lead action level. Corrosion control 
treatment studies are always required for large systems that exceed the 
lead action level, large water systems without corrosion control 
treatment with 90th percentile results that exceed either the lead 
practical quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L or the copper action level, 
medium sized systems with lead service lines that exceed the lead 
action level, and small systems with lead service lines that exceed the 
lead action level and select the corrosion control treatment option 
under Sec.  141.93(a).
    (1) The State may require any small or medium-size system without 
corrosion control that exceeds either the lead or copper action level 
to perform corrosion control treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section to identify optimal corrosion control treatment for the 
system.
    (2) The State may require any small or medium-size system without 
corrosion control that exceeds the lead trigger level but not the lead 
or copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment studies 
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to identify optimal corrosion 
control treatment for the system. This corrosion control treatment 
shall be installed if the lead or copper action level is subsequently 
exceeded.
    (3) The State may require any small or medium-size water systems 
with corrosion control treatment exceeding either the lead trigger 
level or copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment 
studies under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to identify re-optimized 
optimal corrosion control treatment for the system (i.e., optimal 
corrosion control treatment after a re-optimization evaluation).
    (c) Performance of corrosion control studies. (1) Water systems 
without corrosion control treatment that are required to conduct 
corrosion control studies must complete the following:
    (i) Any water system without corrosion control treatment must 
evaluate the effectiveness of each of the following treatments, and if 
appropriate, combinations of the following treatments to identify the 
optimal corrosion control treatment for the system:
    (A) Alkalinity and pH adjustment;
    (B) The addition of an orthophosphate- or silicate-based corrosion 
inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an effective 
corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test samples;
    (C) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 1 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples; and
    (D) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 3 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples.
    (ii) The water system must evaluate each of the corrosion control 
treatments using either pipe rig/loop tests, metal coupon tests, 
partial-system tests, or analyses based on documented analogous 
treatments with other systems of similar size, water chemistry, and 
distribution system configurations. Large and medium systems and small 
community water systems and non-transient non-community water systems 
that select the corrosion control treatment option under Sec.  141.93 
with lead service lines that exceed the lead action level must conduct 
pipe rig/loop studies using harvested lead service lines from their 
distribution systems to assess the effectiveness of corrosion control 
treatment options on the existing pipe scale. For these systems,

[[Page 4288]]

metal coupon tests can be used as a screen to reduce the number of 
options that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the current 
conditions and two options.
    (iii) The water system must measure the following water quality 
parameters in any tests conducted under this paragraph (c)(1)(iii) 
before and after evaluating the corrosion control treatments listed in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (A) Lead;
    (B) Copper;
    (C) pH;
    (D) Alkalinity;
    (E) Orthophosphate as PO4 (when an orthophosphate-based 
inhibitor is used); and
    (F) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used).
    (iv) The water system must identify all chemical or physical 
constraints that limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion 
control treatment and document such constraints with one of the 
following:
    (A) Data and documentation showing that a particular corrosion 
control treatment has adversely affected other drinking water treatment 
processes when used by another water system with comparable water 
quality characteristics. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or 
pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options must not exclude 
treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints 
identified in this section.
    (B) Data and documentation demonstrating that the water system has 
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control 
treatment and has found that the treatment is ineffective or adversely 
affects other drinking water quality treatment processes. Systems using 
coupon studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate 
treatment options must not exclude treatment strategies from the 
studies based on the constraints identified in this section unless the 
treatment was found to be ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig 
study.
    (v) The water system must evaluate the effect of the chemicals used 
for corrosion control treatment on other drinking water quality 
treatment processes. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or pipe 
loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude 
treatment strategies from the studies based on the effects identified 
in this section.
    (vi) On the basis of an analysis of the data generated during each 
evaluation, the water system must recommend to the State in writing the 
treatment option that the corrosion control studies indicate 
constitutes optimal corrosion control treatment for that system as 
defined in Sec.  141.2. The water system must provide a rationale for 
its recommendation along with all supporting documentation specified in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (2) Systems with corrosion control treatment that are required to 
conduct corrosion control studies to determine re-optimized OCCT must 
complete the following:
    (i) The water system must evaluate the effectiveness of the 
following treatments, and if appropriate, combinations of the following 
treatments to identify the re-optimized optimal corrosion control 
treatment for the system:
    (A) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment, or re-adjustment;
    (B) The addition of an orthophosphate- or silicate-based corrosion 
inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an effective 
corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test samples if no 
such inhibitor is utilized;
    (C) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 1 mg/L (PO4) in all test samples unless the 
current inhibitor process already meets this residual; and
    (D) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 3 mg/L (PO4) in all test samples unless the 
current inhibitor process already meets this residual.
    (ii) The water system must evaluate each of the corrosion control 
treatments using either pipe rig/loop tests, metal coupon tests, 
partial-system tests, or analyses based on documented analogous 
treatments with other systems of similar size, water chemistry, and 
distribution system configurations. If the water system has lead 
service lines and exceeds the lead action level, it must conduct pipe 
rig/loop studies using harvested lead service lines from their 
distribution systems to assess the effectiveness of corrosion control 
treatment options on the existing pipe scale. For these systems, metal 
coupon tests can be used as a screen to reduce the number of options 
that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the current conditions and 
two options.
    (iii) The water system must measure the following water quality 
parameters in any tests conducted under this paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
before and after evaluating the corrosion control treatments listed in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (A) Lead;
    (B) Copper;
    (C) pH;
    (D) Alkalinity;
    (E) Orthophosphate as PO4 (when an orthophosphate-based 
inhibitor is used); and
    (F) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used).
    (iv) The water system must identify all chemical or physical 
constraints that limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion 
control treatment and document such constraints with one of the 
following:
    (A) Data and documentation showing that a particular corrosion 
control treatment has adversely affected other drinking water treatment 
processes when used by another water system with comparable water 
quality characteristics. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or 
pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options must not exclude 
treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints 
identified in this section.
    (B) Data and documentation demonstrating that the water system has 
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control 
treatment and has found that the treatment is ineffective or adversely 
affects other drinking water quality treatment processes. Systems using 
coupon studies to screen and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate 
treatment options shall not exclude treatment strategies from the 
studies based on the constraints identified in this section unless the 
treatment was found to be ineffective in a previous pipe loop/rig 
study.
    (v) The water system must evaluate the effect of the chemicals used 
for corrosion control treatment on other drinking water quality 
treatment processes. Systems using coupon studies to screen and/or pipe 
loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment options shall not exclude 
treatment strategies from the studies based on the effects identified 
in this section.
    (vi) On the basis of an analysis of the data generated during each 
evaluation, the water system must recommend to the State in writing the 
treatment option that the corrosion control studies indicate 
constitutes optimal corrosion control treatment for that system as 
defined in Sec.  141.2. The water system must provide a rationale for 
its recommendation along with all supporting documentation specified in 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.

[[Page 4289]]

    (d) State designation of optimized optimal corrosion control 
treatment and re-optimized optimal corrosion control treatment. When 
designating optimal corrosion control treatment, the State must 
consider the effects that additional corrosion control treatment will 
have on water quality parameters and on other drinking water quality 
treatment processes. The State must notify the water system of its 
designation of optimal corrosion control treatment in writing and 
explain the basis for this determination. If the State requests 
additional information to aid its review, the water system must provide 
the information.
    (1) Designation of OCCT for systems without corrosion control 
treatment. Based upon considerations of available information 
including, where applicable, studies conducted under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section and/or a system's recommended corrosion control 
treatment option, the State must either approve the corrosion control 
treatment option recommended by the system or designate alternative 
corrosion control treatment(s) from among those listed in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of this section or, where applicable, an alternate small 
water system compliance flexibility option under Sec.  141.93(a).
    (2) Designation of re-optimized OCCT for systems with corrosion 
control treatment. Based upon considerations of available information 
including, where applicable, studies conducted under paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section and/or a system's recommended treatment alternative, 
the State must either approve the corrosion control treatment option 
recommended by the water system or designate alternative corrosion 
control treatment(s) from among those listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section or, where applicable, an alternate small water system 
compliance flexibility option under Sec.  141.93.
    (e) Installation of optimal corrosion control treatment and re-
optimization of corrosion control treatment. Each system must properly 
install and operate throughout its distribution system the optimal 
corrosion control treatment designated by the State under paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (f) State review of treatment and specification of optimal water 
quality control parameters for optimal corrosion control treatment and 
re-optimized corrosion control treatment. The State must evaluate the 
results of all lead and copper tap sampling and water quality parameter 
sampling submitted by the water system and determine whether the water 
system has properly installed and operated the optimal corrosion 
control treatment designated by the State in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of 
this section, respectively. Upon reviewing the results of tap water and 
water quality parameter monitoring by the water system, both before and 
after the water system installs optimal corrosion control treatment, 
the State must designate:
    (1) A minimum value or a range of values for pH measured at each 
entry point to the distribution system.
    (2) A minimum pH value measured in all tap samples. Such a value 
shall be equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the State determines that 
meeting a pH level of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or is not 
necessary for the system to optimize corrosion control.
    (3) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum concentration or a 
range of concentrations for orthophosphate (as PO4) or 
silicate measured at each entry point to the distribution system.
    (4) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum orthophosphate or 
silicate concentration measured in all tap samples that the State 
determines is necessary to form a passivating film on the interior 
walls of the pipes of the distribution system. When orthophosphate is 
used, such an orthophosphate concentration shall be equal to or greater 
than 0.5 mg/L (asPO4) for OCCT designations under paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section and 1.0 mg/L for OCCT designations under 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, unless the State determines that 
meeting the applicable minimum orthophosphate residual is not 
technologically feasible or is not necessary for optimal corrosion 
control treatment.
    (5) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion control 
treatment, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for 
alkalinity, measured at each entry point to the distribution system and 
in all tap samples.
    (6) The values for the applicable water quality control parameters, 
previously listed in this section, shall be those that the State 
determines to reflect optimal corrosion control treatment for the water 
system. The State may designate values for additional water quality 
control parameters determined by the State to reflect optimal corrosion 
control treatment for the water system. The State must notify the 
system in writing of these determinations and explain the basis for its 
decisions.
    (g) Continued operation and monitoring for optimal corrosion 
control treatment and re-optimized optimal corrosion control treatment. 
All systems optimizing or re-optimizing corrosion control must continue 
to operate and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment, including 
maintaining water quality parameters at or above minimum values or 
within ranges designated by the State under paragraph (f) of this 
section, in accordance with this paragraph (g) for all samples 
collected under Sec.  141.87(d) through (f). The requirements of this 
paragraph (g) apply to all systems, including consecutive systems that 
distribute water that has been treated to control corrosion by another 
system, and any water system with corrosion control treatment, optimal 
corrosion control treatment, or re-optimized OCCT that is not required 
to monitor water quality parameters under Sec.  141.87. Compliance with 
the requirements of this paragraph (g) shall be determined every six 
months, as specified under Sec.  141.87(d). A water system is out of 
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (g) for a six-month 
period if it has excursions for any State-specified parameter on more 
than nine days, cumulatively, during the period. An excursion occurs 
whenever the daily value for one or more of the water quality 
parameters measured at a sampling location is below the minimum value 
or outside the range designated by the State. Daily values are 
calculated as set out in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. 
States have discretion to not include results of obvious sampling 
errors from this calculation. Sampling errors must still be recorded 
even when not included in calculations.
    (1) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value must 
be the average of all results collected during the day regardless of 
whether they are collected through continuous monitoring, grab 
sampling, or a combination of both. If EPA has approved an alternative 
formula under Sec.  142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the State's 
application for a program revision submitted pursuant to Sec.  142.12 
of this chapter, the State's formula shall be used to aggregate 
multiple measurements taken at a sampling point for the water quality 
parameters in lieu of the formula in this paragraph (g)(1).
    (2) On days when only one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall 
be the result of that measurement.
    (3) On days when no measurement is collected for the water quality 
parameter at the sampling location, the daily value shall be the daily 
value calculated on the most recent day on which the water quality 
parameter was measured at the sampling location.
    (h) Modification of State treatment decisions for optimal corrosion 
control

[[Page 4290]]

and re-optimized corrosion control. Upon its own initiative or in 
response to a request by a water system or other interested party, a 
State may modify its determination of the optimal corrosion control 
treatment under paragraph (d) of this section, or optimal water quality 
control parameters under paragraph (f) of this section. A request for 
modification by a system or other interested party shall be in writing, 
explaining why the modification is appropriate, and providing 
supporting documentation. The State may modify its determination where 
it concludes that such change is necessary to ensure that the water 
system continues to optimize corrosion control treatment. A revised 
determination must be made in writing, set forth the new treatment 
requirements and/or water quality parameters, explain the basis for the 
State's decision, and provide an implementation schedule for completing 
the treatment modifications for re-optimized corrosion control 
treatment.
    (i) Treatment decisions by EPA in lieu of the State on optimal 
corrosion control treatment and re-optimized corrosion control 
treatment. Pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  142.19 of this chapter, 
EPA Regional Administrator may review optimal corrosion control 
treatment determinations made by a State under paragraph (d)(1) or (2), 
(f), or (h) of this section and issue Federal treatment determinations 
consistent with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) or (2), (f), or 
(h) of this section where the Regional Administrator finds that:
    (1) A State has failed to issue a treatment determination by the 
applicable deadlines contained in Sec.  141.81;
    (2) A State has abused its discretion in a substantial number of 
cases or in cases affecting a substantial population; or
    (3) The technical aspects of a State's determination would be 
indefensible in a Federal enforcement action taken against a water 
system.
    (j) Find-and-fix assessment for tap sample sites that exceed the 
lead action level. The water system shall conduct the following steps, 
when a tap sample site exceeds the lead action level under monitoring 
conducted under Sec.  141.86.
    (1) Step 1: corrosion control treatment assessment. The water 
system must sample at a new water quality parameter site that is on the 
same size water main in the same pressure zone and located within a 
half mile of the location with the action level exceedance within 5 
days of receiving the sample results. Small water systems without 
corrosion control treatment may have up to 14 days to collect the 
samples. The water system must measure the following parameters:
    (i) pH;
    (ii) Alkalinity;
    (iii) Orthophosphate (as PO4), when an inhibitor 
containing an orthophosphate compound is used;
    (iv) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is 
used; and
    (v) Water systems with an existing water quality parameter location 
that meets the requirements of this section can conduct this sampling 
at that location.
    (vi) All water systems required to meet optimal water quality 
control parameters but that do not have an existing water quality 
parameter location that meets the requirement of this section must add 
new sites to the minimum number of sites as described in Sec.  
141.87(g). Sites must be added until a system has twice the minimum 
number of sites listed in Table 1 to Sec.  141.87(a)(2). When a system 
exceeds this upper threshold for the number of sites, the State has 
discretion to determine if the newer site can better assess the 
effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment and to remove existing 
sites during sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT.
    (2) Step 2: Site assessment. Water systems shall collect a follow-
up sample at any tap sample site that exceeds the action level within 
30 days of receiving the sample results. These follow-up samples may 
use different sample volumes or different sample collection procedures 
to assess the source of elevated lead levels. Samples collected under 
this section must be submitted to the State but shall not be included 
in the 90th percentile calculation for compliance monitoring under 
Sec.  141.86. If the water system is unable to collect a follow-up 
sample at a site, the water system must provide documentation to the 
State, explaining why it was unable to collect a follow-up sample.
    (3) Step 3. Water systems shall evaluate the results of the 
monitoring conducted under this paragraph (j)(3) to determine if either 
localized or centralized adjustment of the optimal corrosion control 
treatment or other distribution system actions are necessary and submit 
the recommendation to the State within six months after the end of the 
tap sampling period in which the site(s) exceeded the lead action 
level. Corrosion control treatment modification may not be necessary to 
address every exceedance. Other distribution system actions may include 
flushing to reduce water age. Water systems must note the cause of the 
elevated lead level, if known from the site assessment, in their 
recommendation to the State as site-specific issues can be an important 
factor in why the system is not recommending any adjustment of 
corrosion control treatment or other distribution system actions. 
Systems in the process of optimizing or re-optimizing optimal corrosion 
control treatment under paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section do 
not need to submit a treatment recommendation for find-and-fix.
    (4) Step 4. The State shall approve the treatment recommendation or 
specify a different approach within six months of completion of Step 3 
as described in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (5) Step 5. If the State-approved treatment recommendation requires 
the water system to adjust the optimal corrosion control treatment 
process, the water system must complete modifications to its corrosion 
control treatment within 12 months after completion of Step 4 as 
described in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. Systems without 
corrosion control treatment required to install optimal corrosion 
control treatment must follow the schedule in Sec.  141.81(e).
    (6) Step 6. Water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion control 
treatment must complete follow-up sampling (Sec. Sec.  141.86(d)(2) and 
141.87(c)) within 12 months after completion of Step 5 as described in 
paragraph (j)(5) of this section.
    (7) Step 7. For water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion 
control treatment, the State must review the water system's 
modification of corrosion control treatment and designate optimal water 
quality control parameters (Sec.  141.82(f)(1)) within six months of 
completion of Step 6 as described in paragraph (j)(6) of this section.
    (8) Step 8. For a water system adjusting its optimal corrosion 
control treatment, the water system must operate in compliance with the 
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.  
141.82(g)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec. Sec.  
141.86(d)(3) and 141.87(d)).

0
8. Revise Sec.  141.84 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.84  Lead service line inventory and replacement requirements.

    (a) Lead service line inventory. All water systems must develop an 
inventory to identify the materials of service lines connected to the 
public water distribution system. The inventory must meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) All water systems must develop an initial inventory by January 
16, 2024,

[[Page 4291]]

and submit it to the primacy agency in accordance with Sec.  141.90.
    (2) The inventory must include all service lines connected to the 
public water distribution system regardless of ownership status (e.g., 
where service line ownership is shared, the inventory would include 
both the portion of the service line owned by the water system and the 
customer-owned portion of the service line).
    (3) A water system must use any information on lead and galvanized 
iron or steel that it has identified pursuant to Sec.  141.42(d) when 
conducting the inventory of service lines in its distribution system 
for the initial inventory under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The 
water system must also review the sources of information listed in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section to identify service 
line materials for the initial inventory. The water system may use 
other sources of information not listed in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through 
(iv) of this section if approved by the State.
    (i) All construction and plumbing codes, permits, and existing 
records or other documentation which indicates the service line 
materials used to connect structures to the distribution system.
    (ii) All water system records, including distribution system maps 
and drawings, historical records on each service connection, meter 
installation records, historical capital improvement or master plans, 
and standard operating procedures.
    (iii) All inspections and records of the distribution system that 
indicate the material composition of the service connections that 
connect a structure to the distribution system.
    (iv) Any resource, information, or identification method provided 
or required by the State to assess service line materials.
    (4) Each service line, or portion of the service line where 
ownership is split, must be categorized in the following manner:
    (i) ``Lead'' where the service line is made of lead.
    (ii) ``Galvanized Requiring Replacement'' where a galvanized 
service line is or was at any time downstream of a lead service line or 
is currently downstream of a ``Lead Status Unknown'' service line. If 
the water system is unable to demonstrate that the galvanized service 
line was never downstream of a lead service line, it must presume there 
was an upstream lead service line.
    (iii) ``Non-lead'' where the service line is determined through an 
evidence-based record, method, or technique not to be lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement. The water system may classify the 
actual material of the service line (i.e., plastic or copper) as an 
alternative to classifying it as ``Non-lead.''
    (iv) ``Lead Status Unknown'' where the service line material is not 
known to be lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or a non-lead 
service line, such as where there is no documented evidence supporting 
material classification. The water system may classify the line as 
``Unknown'' as an alternative to classifying it as ``Lead Status 
Unknown,'' however, all requirements that apply to ``Lead Status 
Unknown'' service lines must also apply to those classified as 
``Unknown.'' Water systems may elect to provide more information 
regarding their unknown lines as long as the inventory clearly 
distinguishes unknown service lines from those where the material has 
been verified through records or inspection.
    (5) Water systems shall identify and track service line materials 
in the inventory as they are encountered in the course of its normal 
operations (e.g., checking service line materials when reading water 
meters or performing maintenance activities).
    (6) Water systems must update the inventory based on all applicable 
sources described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (5) of this section and any 
lead service line replacements or service line material inspections 
that may have been conducted. The water system may use other sources of 
information if approved by the State and must use other sources of 
information provided or required by the State. Water systems must 
submit the updated inventory to the State in accordance with Sec.  
141.90(e). The inventory updates must be reflected in the publicly 
accessible inventory no less frequently than when required to be 
submitted to the State.
    (i) Water systems whose inventories contain only non-lead service 
lines are not required to provide inventory updates to the State or to 
the public. If, in the future, such a water system finds a lead service 
line within its system, it must prepare an updated inventory in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section on a schedule established 
by the State.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) To calculate the number of service line replacements applicable 
to paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the replacement rate must be 
applied to the sum of known lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines when the system first exceeds the trigger or action level 
plus the number of lead status unknown service lines in the beginning 
of each year of a system's annual goal or mandatory lead service line 
replacement program.
    (i) Each service line shall count only once for purposes of 
calculating the required number of service line replacements, even 
where the ownership of the service line is split and both the customer-
owned and system-owned portions require replacement.
    (ii) The number of service lines requiring replacement must be 
updated annually to subtract the number of lead status unknown service 
lines that were discovered to be non-lead and to add the number of non-
lead service lines that were discovered to be a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line.
    (iii) Verification of a lead status unknown service line as non-
lead in the inventory does not count as a service line replacement.
    (8) The service line materials inventory must be publicly 
accessible.
    (i) The inventory must include a location identifier, such as a 
street address, block, intersection, or landmark, associated with each 
lead service line and galvanized requiring replacement service line. 
Water systems may, but are not required to, include a locational 
identifier for lead status unknown service lines or list the exact 
address of each service line.
    (ii) Water systems serving greater than 50,000 persons must make 
the publicly accessible inventory available online.
    (9) When a water system has no lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines (regardless of 
ownership) in its inventory, it may comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (a)(8) of this section using a written statement, in lieu of 
the inventory, declaring that the distribution system has no lead 
service lines or galvanized requiring replacement service lines. The 
statement must include a general description of all applicable sources 
described in paragraphs (a)(3), (5), and (6) of this section used to 
make this determination.
    (10) Instructions to access the service line inventory (including 
inventories consisting only of a statement in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(9) of this section) must be included in Consumer Confidence Report 
in accordance with Sec.  141.153(d)(4)(xi).
    (b) Lead service line replacement plan. All water systems with one 
or more lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service lines in their distribution system must, by January 16, 2024, 
submit a lead service line replacement plan to the

[[Page 4292]]

State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e). The lead service line 
replacement plan must be sufficiently detailed to ensure a system is 
able to comply with the lead service line replacement requirements in 
accordance with this section. The plan must include a description of:
    (1) A strategy for determining the composition of lead status 
unknown service lines in its inventory;
    (2) A procedure for conducting full lead service line replacement;
    (3) A strategy for informing customers before a full or partial 
lead service line replacement;
    (4) For systems that serve more than 10,000 persons, a lead service 
line replacement goal rate recommended by the system in the event of a 
lead trigger level exceedance;
    (5) A procedure for customers to flush service lines and premise 
plumbing of particulate lead;
    (6) A lead service line replacement prioritization strategy based 
on factors including but not limited to the targeting of known lead 
service lines, lead service line replacement for disadvantaged 
consumers and populations most sensitive to the effects of lead; and
    (7) A funding strategy for conducting lead service line 
replacements which considers ways to accommodate customers that are 
unable to pay to replace the portion they own.
    (c) Operating procedures for replacing lead goosenecks, pigtails, 
or connectors. (1) The water system must replace any lead gooseneck, 
pigtail, or connector it owns when encountered during planned or 
unplanned water system infrastructure work.
    (2) The water system must offer to replace a customer-owned lead 
gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; however, the water system is not 
required to bear the cost of replacement of the customer-owned parts.
    (3) The water system is not required to replace a customer-owned 
lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector if the customer objects to its 
replacement.
    (4) The replacement of a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector does 
not count for the purposes of meeting the requirements for goal-based 
or mandatory lead service line replacements, in accordance with 
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, respectively.
    (5) Upon replacement of any gooseneck, pigtail, or connector that 
is attached to a lead service line, the water system must follow risk 
mitigation procedures specified in Sec.  141.85(f)(2).
    (6) The requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of 
this section do not apply if state law includes lead connectors in the 
definition of lead service lines, prohibits partial lead service line 
replacements, and requires systems to remove all lead service lines 
irrespective of a system's 90th percentile lead level.
    (d) Requirements for conducting lead service line replacement that 
may result in partial replacement. (1) Any water system that plans to 
partially replace a lead service line (e.g., replace only the portion 
of a lead service line that it owns) in coordination with planned 
infrastructure work must provide notice to the owner of the affected 
service line, or the owner's authorized agent, as well as non-owner 
resident(s) served by the affected service line at least 45 days prior 
to the replacement. The notice must explain that the system will 
replace the portion of the line it owns and offer to replace the 
portion of the service line not owned by the water system. The water 
system is not required to bear the cost of replacement of the portion 
of the affected service line not owned by the water system.
    (i) Before the affected service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide notification meeting the content requirements 
of Sec.  141.85(a) explaining that consumers may experience a temporary 
increase of lead levels in their drinking water due to the replacement, 
information about the health effects of lead, and actions consumers can 
take to minimize their exposure to lead in drinking water. In instances 
where multi-family dwellings are served by the affected service line to 
be partially replaced, the water system may elect to post the 
information at a conspicuous location instead of providing individual 
notification to all residents.
    (ii) The water system must provide information about service line 
flushing in accordance with the procedure developed in paragraph (b)(5) 
of this section before the affected service line is returned to 
service.
    (iii) The water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher 
filter or point-of-use device certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, six months of 
replacement cartridges, and instructions for use before the affected 
service line is returned to service. If the affected service line 
serves more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-
unit building), the water system must provide a filter, six months of 
replacement cartridges and use instructions to every residence in the 
building.
    (iv) The water system must offer to collect a follow up tap sample 
between three months and six months after completion of any partial 
replacement of a lead service line. The water system must provide the 
results of the sample in accordance with Sec.  141.85(d).
    (2) Any water system that replaces the portion of the lead service 
line it owns due to an emergency repair, must provide notice and risk 
mitigation measures to the persons served by the affected service line 
in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section 
before the affected service line is returned to service.
    (3) When a water system is notified by the customer that the 
customer's portion of the lead service line will be replaced, the water 
system must make a good faith effort to coordinate simultaneous 
replacement of its portion of the service line. If simultaneous 
replacement cannot be conducted, the water system must replace its 
portion as soon as practicable but no later than 45 days from the date 
the customer replaces its portion of the lead service line. The water 
system must provide notification and risk mitigation measure in 
accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. If 
the water system fails to replace its portion of the lead service line 
within 45 days from the date the customer replaces the customer's 
portion of the lead service line, the water system must notify the 
State within 30 days of failing to meet the deadline in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e) and complete the replacement no later than 180 days of 
the date the customer replaces its portion.
    (4) When a water system is notified or otherwise learns that 
replacement of a customer-owned lead service line has occurred within 
the previous six months and left in place a system-owned lead service 
line, the water system must replace its portion within 45 days from the 
day of becoming aware of the customer replacement. The water system 
must provide notification and risk mitigation measures in accordance 
with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section within 24 hours 
of becoming aware of the customer replacement. If the water system 
fails to replace its portion of the affected service line within 45 
days of becoming aware of the customer replacement, it must notify the 
State within 30 days of failing to meet the deadline in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e). The water system must complete the replacement no 
later than 180 days after the date the customer replaces its portion.
    (5) When a water system is notified or otherwise learns of a 
replacement of a customer-owned lead service line which has occurred 
more than six months in the past, the water system is not

[[Page 4293]]

required to complete the lead service line replacement of the system-
owned portion under this paragraph (d)(5), however the system-owned 
portion must still be included in the calculation of a lead service 
line replacement rate under paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (e) Requirements for conducting full lead service line replacement. 
Any water system that conducts a full lead service line replacement 
must provide notice to the owner of the affected service line, or the 
owner's authorized agent, as well as non-owner resident(s) served by 
the affected service line within 24 hours of completion of the 
replacement. The water system is not required to bear the cost of 
replacement of the portion of the lead service line not owned by the 
water system.
    (1) The notification must meet the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a) explaining that consumers may experience a temporary increase 
of lead levels in their drinking water due to the replacement, 
information about the health effects of lead, and actions consumers can 
take to minimize their exposure to lead in drinking water. In instances 
where multi-family dwellings are served by the lead service line to be 
replaced, the water system may elect to post the information at a 
conspicuous location instead of providing individual notification to 
all residents.
    (2) The water system must provide information about service line 
flushing in accordance with the procedure developed under paragraph 
(b)(5) of this section before the replaced service line is returned to 
service.
    (3) The water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher 
filter or point-of-use device certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, six months of 
replacement cartridges, and instructions for use before the replaced 
service line is returned to service. If the lead service line serves 
more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit 
building), the water system must provide a filter and six months of 
replacement cartridges and use instructions to every residence in the 
building.
    (4) The water system must offer to the consumer to take a follow up 
tap sample between three months and six months after completion of any 
full replacement of a lead service line. The water system must provide 
the results of the sample to the consumer in accordance with paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (f) Goal-based full lead service line replacement for water systems 
whose 90th percentile lead level is above the trigger level but at or 
below the lead action level. Water systems that serve more than 10,000 
persons whose 90th percentile lead level from tap samples taken 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86 is above the lead trigger level but at or 
below the lead action level must conduct goal-based full lead service 
line replacement at a rate approved by the state.
    (1) The water system must calculate the number of full lead service 
line replacements it must conduct annually in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(7) of this section.
    (2) Replacement of lead service lines must be conducted in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) or (e) of this 
section.
    (3) Only full lead service line replacements count towards a water 
system's annual replacement goal. Partial lead service line 
replacements do not count towards the goal.
    (4) The water system must provide information to customers with 
lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service 
lines as required in Sec.  141.85(g).
    (5) Any water system that fails to meet its lead service line 
replacement goal must:
    (i) Conduct public outreach activities pursuant to Sec.  141.85(h) 
until either the water system meets its replacement goal, or tap 
sampling shows the 90th percentile of lead is at or below the trigger 
level for two consecutive one-year monitoring periods.
    (ii) Recommence its goal-based lead service line replacement 
program pursuant to this paragraph (f)(5)(ii) if the 90th percentile 
lead level anytime thereafter exceeds the lead trigger level but is at 
or below the lead action level.
    (6) The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on 
the first day following the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
lead trigger level was exceeded. If sampling is required annually or 
less frequently, the end of the tap sampling monitoring period is 
September 30 of the calendar year in which the sampling occurs. If the 
State has established an alternate monitoring period, then the end of 
the monitoring period will be the last day of that period.
    (g) Mandatory full lead service line replacement for water systems 
whose 90th percentile lead level exceeds the lead action level. Water 
systems serving more than 10,000 persons that exceed the lead action 
level in tap samples taken pursuant to Sec.  141.86 must conduct 
mandatory full lead service line replacement at an average annual rate 
of at least three percent, calculated on a two-year rolling basis.
    (1) The average annual number of full lead service line 
replacements must be calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of 
this section.
    (2) Lead service line replacement must be conducted in accordance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
    (3) Only full lead service line replacement count towards a water 
system's mandatory replacement rate of at least three percent annually. 
Partial lead service line replacements do not count towards the 
mandatory replacement rate.
    (4) Water systems must provide information to customers with lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines 
consistent with Sec.  141.85(g).
    (5) Community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and 
Non-transient non-community water systems for which the state has 
approved or designated lead service line replacement as a compliance 
option must conduct lead service line replacement as described in Sec.  
141.93(a)(1). Replacement of lead service lines must be conducted in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this 
section.
    (6) A water system may cease mandatory lead service line 
replacement when it has conducted a cumulative percentage of 
replacements greater than or equal to 3%, or other percentage specified 
in paragraph (g)(9) of this section, of the service lines specified in 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section multiplied by the number of years that 
elapsed from when the system most recently began mandatory lead service 
line replacement and the date on which the system's 90th percentile 
lead level, in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(4), has been calculated 
to be at or below the lead action level during each of four consecutive 
six-month tap sampling monitoring periods. If tap samples collected in 
any such system thereafter exceed the lead action level, the system 
shall recommence mandatory lead service line replacement at the same 
two-year rolling average rate, unless the State has designated an 
alternate replacement rate under paragraph (g)(9) of this section.
    (7) The water system may also cease mandatory lead service line 
replacement if the system has no remaining lead status unknown service 
lines in its inventory and obtains refusals to conduct full lead 
service line replacement or non-responses from every remaining customer 
in its distribution system served by either a full or partial lead 
service line, or a galvanized requiring replacement service line. For 
purposes of this paragraph (g)(7) and in accordance with Sec.  
141.90(e), a water system must provide

[[Page 4294]]

documentation to the State of customer refusals including a refusal 
signed by the customer, documentation of a verbal statement made by the 
customer refusing replacement, or documentation of no response from the 
customer after the water system made a minimum of two good faith 
attempts to reach the customer regarding full lead service line 
replacement. If the water system's 90th percentile exceeds the lead 
action level again, it must contact all customers served by a full or 
partial lead service line or a galvanized requiring replacement service 
line with an offer to replace the customer-owned portion. Nothing in 
this paragraph (g)(7) requires the water system to bear the cost of 
replacement of the customer-owned lead service line.
    (8) The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on 
the first day following the end of the tap sampling period in which 
lead action level was exceeded.
    (9) The State shall require a system to replace lead service lines 
on a shorter schedule than that required by this section, taking into 
account the number of lead service lines in the system, where the State 
determines a shorter replacement schedule is feasible. The State shall 
make this determination in writing and notify the system of its finding 
within six months after the system is required to begin lead service 
line replacement under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (h) Reporting to demonstrate compliance to State. To demonstrate 
compliance with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section, a system 
shall report to the State the information specified in Sec.  141.90(e).

0
9. Amend Sec.  141.85 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraphs 
(a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(vii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(2)(ii)(B) 
introductory text, and (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(7);
0
d. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(vii), (b)(4) introductory text, 
(b)(4)(iii), (b)(6), and (d)(1), (2), and (4); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (e) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.85  Public education and supplemental monitoring and 
mitigation requirements.

    All water systems must deliver a consumer notice of lead tap water 
monitoring results to persons served by the water system at sites that 
are sampled, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. A water 
system with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines must deliver public education materials to 
persons with a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service line as specified in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this 
section. All community water systems must conduct annual outreach to 
local and State health agencies as outlined in paragraph (i) of this 
section. A community water system serving more than 10,000 persons that 
fails to meet its annual lead service line replacement goal as required 
under Sec.  141.84(f) shall conduct outreach activities as specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section. A water system that exceeds the lead 
action level based on tap water samples collected in accordance with 
Sec.  141.86 shall deliver the public education materials contained in 
paragraph (a) of this section and in accordance with the requirements 
in paragraph (b) of this section. Water systems that exceed the lead 
action level shall offer to sample the tap water of any customer who 
requests it in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. All small 
community water systems and non-transient non-community water systems 
that elect to implement POU devices under Sec.  141.93 must provide 
public education materials to inform users how to properly use POU 
devices in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section.
    (a) * * *
    (1) Community water systems and non-transient non-community water 
systems. Water systems must include the following elements in printed 
materials (e.g., brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed 
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section. In addition, 
language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi) of this section must 
be included in the materials, exactly as written, except for the text 
in brackets in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi) of this section for 
which the water system must include system-specific information. Any 
additional information presented by a water system must be consistent 
with the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (vii) of this section 
and be in plain language that can be understood by the general public. 
Water systems must submit all written public education materials to the 
State prior to delivery. The State may require the system to obtain 
approval of the content of written public materials prior to delivery. 
Water systems may change the mandatory language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 
and (ii) of this section only with State approval.
* * * * *
    (ii) Health effects of lead. Exposure to lead in drinking water can 
cause serious health effects in all age groups. Infants and children 
can have decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead exposure can lead to 
new learning and behavior problems or exacerbate existing learning and 
behavior problems. The children of women who are exposed to lead before 
or during pregnancy can have increased risk of these adverse health 
effects. Adults can have increased risks of heart disease, high blood 
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
* * * * *
    (vii) Information on lead service lines. For systems with lead 
service lines, discuss opportunities to replace lead service lines and 
explain how to access the service line inventory so the consumer can 
find out if they have a lead service line. Include information on 
programs that provide financing solutions to assist property owners 
with replacement of their portion of a lead service line, and a 
statement that the water system is required to replace its portion of a 
lead service line when the property owner notifies them they are 
replacing their portion of the lead service line.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A community water system that exceeds the lead action level on 
the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  
141.86, and that is not already conducting public education tasks under 
this section, must conduct the public education tasks under this 
section within 60 days after the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the exceedance occurred:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering materials 
that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to 
the following organizations listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) 
through (7) of this section that are located within the water system's 
service area, along with an informational notice that encourages 
distribution to all the organization's potentially affected customers 
or community water system's users:
    (1) Schools, child care facilities, and school boards.
* * * * *
    (7) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
* * * * *
    (vii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually 
or less

[[Page 4295]]

frequently, the end of the tap sampling period is September 30 of the 
calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has 
established an alternate tap sampling period, the last day of that 
period.
* * * * *
    (4) Within 60 days after the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the exceedance occurred (unless it already is repeating public 
education tasks pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section), a non-
transient non-community water system shall deliver the public education 
materials specified by paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
* * * * *
    (iii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually 
or less frequently, the end of the tap sampling period is September 30 
of the calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has 
established an alternate tap sampling period, the last day of that 
period.
* * * * *
    (6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education 
materials if the system is at or below the lead action level during the 
most recent six-month tap sampling monitoring period conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  141.86. Such a system shall recommence public education in 
accordance with this section if it subsequently exceeds the lead action 
level during any tap sampling period.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Reporting requirement. All water systems must provide a notice 
of the individual tap results from lead tap water monitoring carried 
out under the requirements of Sec.  141.86 to the persons served by the 
water system at the specific sampling site from which the sample was 
taken (e.g., the occupants of the building where the tap was sampled).
    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the 
consumer notice as soon as practicable but no later than the following 
timeframes:
    (i) For individual samples that do not exceed 15 [mu]g/L of lead, 
no later than 30 days after the water system learns of the tap 
monitoring results.
    (ii) For individual samples that exceed 15 [mu]g/L of lead, as soon 
as practicable but no later than 3 calendar days after the water system 
learns of the tap monitoring results. Water systems that choose to mail 
the notification must assure those letters are postmarked within three 
days.
* * * * *
    (4) Delivery. (i) For lead tap sample results that do not exceed 15 
[mu]g/L, the water systems must provide consumer notice to persons 
served at the tap that was sampled, by mail or by another method 
approved by the State. For example, upon approval by the State, a non-
transient non-community water system could post the results on a 
bulletin board in the facility to allow users to review the 
information.
    (ii) For lead tap sample results that exceed 15 [mu]g/L, the water 
systems must provide consumer notice to persons served by the tap that 
was sampled; such notice must be provided electronically or by phone, 
hand delivery, by mail, or another method approved by the State.
    (e) Notification of known or potential service line containing 
lead--(1) Notification requirements. All water systems with lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines 
in their inventory pursuant to Sec.  141.84(a) must inform all persons 
served by the water system at the service connection with a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line.
    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the initial 
notification within 30 days of completion of the lead service line 
inventory required under Sec.  141.84 and repeat the notification on an 
annual basis until the entire service connection is no longer a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line. 
For new customers, water systems shall also provide the notice at the 
time of service initiation.
    (3) Content--(i) Persons served by a confirmed lead service line. 
The notice must include a statement that the person's service line is 
lead, an explanation of the health effects of lead that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, steps persons at 
the service connection can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking 
water, information about opportunities to replace lead service lines as 
well as programs that provide financing solutions to assist property 
owners with replacement of their portion of a lead service line, and a 
statement that the water system is required to replace its portion of a 
lead service line when the property owner notifies them they are 
replacing their portion of the lead service line.
    (ii) Persons served by a galvanized requiring replacement service 
line. The notice must include a statement that the person's service 
line is galvanized requiring replacement, an explanation of the health 
effects of lead, steps persons at the service connection can take to 
reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, and information about 
opportunities for replacement of the service line.
    (iii) Persons served by a lead status unknown service line. The 
notice must include a statement that the person's service line material 
is unknown but may be lead, an explanation of the health effects of 
lead that meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section, steps persons at the service connection can take to reduce 
exposure to lead in drinking water, and information about opportunities 
to verify the material of the service line.
    (4) Delivery. The notice must be provided to persons served by the 
water system at the service connection with a lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line, by mail or 
by another method approved by the State.
    (f) Notification due to a disturbance to a known or potential 
service line containing lead. (1) Water systems that cause disturbance 
to a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service line that results in the water to an individual service line 
being shut off or bypassed, such as operating a valve on a service line 
or meter setter, and without conducting a partial or full lead service 
line replacement, must provide the persons served by the water system 
at the service connection with information about the potential for 
elevated lead levels in drinking water as a result of the disturbance 
as well as instructions for a flushing procedure to remove particulate 
lead. The water system must comply with the requirements in this 
paragraph (f)(1) before the affected service line is returned to 
service.
    (2) If the disturbance of a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
or lead status unknown service line results from the replacement of an 
inline water meter, a water meter setter, or gooseneck, pigtail, or 
connector, the water system must provide the person served by the water 
system at the service connection with information about the potential 
for elevated lead levels in drinking water as a result of the 
disturbance, public education materials that meet the content 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, a pitcher filter or 
point-of-use device certified by an American National Standards 
Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, instructions to use the 
filter, and six months of filter replacement cartridges. The water 
system must comply with the requirements of this paragraph (f)(2) 
before the affected service line is returned to service.

[[Page 4296]]

    (3) A water system that conducts a partial or full lead service 
line replacement must follow procedures in accordance with the 
requirements in Sec.  141.84(d)(1)(i) through (iv) and (e)(1)(i) 
through (iv), respectively.
    (g) Information for persons served by known or potential service 
lines containing lead when a system exceeds the lead trigger level--(1) 
Content. All water systems with lead service lines that exceed the lead 
trigger level of 10 [mu]g/L must provide persons served by the water 
system at the service connection with a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line information regarding 
the water system's lead service line replacement program and 
opportunities for replacement of the lead service line.
    (2) Timing. Waters systems must send notification within 30 days of 
the end of the tap sampling period in which the trigger level 
exceedance occurred. Water systems must repeat the notification 
annually until the results of sampling conducted under Sec.  141.86 are 
at or below the lead trigger level.
    (3) Delivery. The notice must be provided to persons served at the 
service connection with a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
lead status unknown service line, by mail or by another method approved 
by the State.
    (h) Outreach activities for failure to meet the lead service line 
replacement goal. (1) In the first year after a community water system 
that serves more than 10,000 persons does not meet its annual lead 
service line replacement goal as required under Sec.  141.84(f), it 
must conduct one outreach activity from the following list in the 
following year until the water system meets its replacement goal or 
until tap sampling shows that the 90th percentile for lead is at or 
below the trigger level of 10 [mu]g/L for two consecutive tap sampling 
monitoring periods:
    (i) Send certified mail to customers with a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line to inform them about the water 
system's goal-based lead service line replacement program and 
opportunities for replacement of the service line.
    (ii) Conduct a townhall meeting.
    (iii) Participate in a community event to provide information about 
its lead service line replacement program and distribute public 
education materials that meet the content requirements in paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (iv) Contact customers by phone, text message, email, or door 
hanger.
    (v) Use another method approved by the State to discuss the lead 
service line replacement program and opportunities for lead service 
line replacement.
    (2) After the first year following a trigger level exceedance, any 
water system that thereafter continues to fail to meet its lead service 
line replacement goal must conduct one activity from paragraph (h)(1) 
of this section and two additional outreach activities per year from 
the following list:
    (i) Conduct social media campaign.
    (ii) Conduct outreach via newspaper, television, or radio.
    (iii) Contact organizations representing plumbers and contractors 
by mail to provide information about lead in drinking water including 
health effects, sources of lead, and the importance of using lead free 
plumbing materials.
    (iv) Visit targeted customers to discuss the lead service line 
replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
    (3) The water system may cease outreach activities when tap 
sampling shows that the 90th percentile for lead is at or below the 
trigger level of 10 [mu]g/L for two consecutive tap sampling monitoring 
periods or when all customer-side lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line owners refuse to participate in the lead 
service line replacement program. For purposes of this paragraph 
(h)(3), a refusal includes a signed statement by the customer refusing 
lead service line replacement, or documentation by the water system of 
a verbal refusal or of no response after two good faith attempts to 
reach the customer.
    (i) Public education to local and State health agencies--(1) Find-
and-fix results. All community water systems must provide information 
to local and State health agencies about find-and-fix activities 
conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.82(j) including the location of 
the tap sample site that exceeded 15 [micro]g/L, the result of the 
initial tap sample, the result of the follow up tap sample, the result 
of water quality parameter monitoring, and any distribution system 
management actions or corrosion control treatment adjustments made.
    (2) Timing and content. Community water systems must annually send 
copies of the public education materials provided under paragraph (a) 
of this section, and of paragraph (h)(1) of this section for actions 
conducted in the previous calendar year no later than July 1 of the 
following year.
    (3) Delivery. Community water systems shall send public education 
materials and find-and-fix information to local and State health 
agencies by mail or by another method approved by the State.
    (j) Public education requirements for small water system compliance 
flexibility POU devices--(1) Content. All small community water systems 
and non-transient non-community water systems that elect to implement 
POU devices under Sec.  141.93 must provide public education materials 
to inform users how to properly use POU devices to maximize the units' 
effectiveness in reducing lead levels in drinking water.
    (2) Timing. Water systems shall provide the public education 
materials at the time of POU device delivery.
    (3) Delivery. Water systems shall provide the public education 
materials in person, by mail, or by another method approved by the 
State, to persons at locations where the system has delivered POU 
devices.

0
10. Amend Sec.  141.86 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) 
introductory text, and (g) introductory text and adding paragraphs (h) 
and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.86  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.

    (a) Sample site location. (1) By the applicable date for 
commencement of monitoring under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each 
water system shall identify a pool of targeted sampling sites based on 
the service line inventory conducted in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(a), that meet the requirements of this section, and which is 
sufficiently large enough to ensure that the water system can collect 
the number of lead and copper tap samples required in paragraph (c) of 
this section. Sampling sites may not include sites with installed 
point-of-entry (POE) treatment devices and taps used at sampling sites 
may not have point-of-use (POU) devices designed to remove inorganic 
contaminants, except for water systems monitoring under Sec.  
141.93(a)(3)(iv) and water systems using these devices for the primary 
drinking water tap to meet other primary and secondary drinking water 
standards and all service connections have POEs or POUs to provide 
localized treatment for compliance with the other drinking water 
standards. Lead and copper sampling results for systems monitoring 
under Sec.  141.93(a)(3)(iv) may not be used for the purposes of 
meeting the criteria for reduced monitoring specified in paragraph 
(d)(4) of this section.
    (2) A water system must use the information on lead, copper, and 
galvanized iron or steel that is required to be identified under Sec.  
141.42(d) when conducting a materials evaluation and the information on 
lead service lines that is required to be collected under

[[Page 4297]]

Sec.  141.84(a) to identify potential lead service line sampling sites.
    (3) The sampling sites for a community water system's sampling pool 
must consist of single-family structures that are served by a lead 
service line (``Tier 1 sampling sites''). When multiple-family 
residences comprise at least 20 percent of the structures served by the 
water system, the system may include these types of structures in its 
Tier 1 sampling pool, if served by a lead service line. Sites with lead 
status unknown service lines must not be used as Tier 1 sampling sites.
    (4) A community water system with insufficient Tier 1 sampling 
sites must complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 2 sampling sites,'' 
consisting of buildings, including multiple-family residences that are 
served by a lead service line. Sites with lead status unknown service 
lines must not be used as Tier 2 sampling sites.
    (5) A community water system with insufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 
sampling sites must complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 3 sampling 
sites,'' consisting of single-family structures that contain galvanized 
lines identified as being downstream of a lead service line (LSL) 
currently or in the past, or known to be downstream of a lead 
gooseneck, pigtail or connector. Sites with lead status unknown service 
lines must not be used as Tier 3 sampling sites.
    (6) A community water system with insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, and 
Tier 3 sampling sites must complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 4 
sampling sites,'' consisting of single-family structures that contain 
copper pipes with lead solder installed before the effective date of 
the State's applicable lead ban. Sites with lead status unknown service 
lines must not be used as Tier 4 sampling sites.
    (7) A community water system with insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 
3, and Tier 4 sampling sites must complete its sampling pool with 
``Tier 5 sampling sites,'' consisting of single-family structures or 
buildings, including multiple family residences that are representative 
of sites throughout the distribution system. For the purpose of this 
paragraph (a)(7), a representative site is a site in which the plumbing 
materials used at that site would be commonly found at other sites 
served by the water system. Water systems may use non-residential 
buildings that are representative of sites throughout the distribution 
system if and only if there are an insufficient number of single-family 
or multiple family residential Tier 5 sites available.
    (8) The sampling sites selected for a non-transient non-community 
water system must consist of sites that are served by a lead service 
line (``Tier 1 sampling sites''). Sites with lead status unknown 
service lines must not be used as Tier 1 sampling sites.
    (9) A non-transient non-community water system with insufficient 
Tier 1 sites complete its sampling pool with ``Tier 3 sampling sites,'' 
consisting of sampling sites that contain galvanized lines identified 
as being downstream of an LSL currently or in the past, or known to be 
downstream of a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector. Sites with lead 
status unknown service lines must not be used as Tier 3 sampling sites.
    (10) A non-transient non-community water system with insufficient 
Tier 1 and Tier 3 sampling sites must complete its sampling pool with 
``Tier 5 sampling sites,'' consisting of sampling sites that are 
representative of sites throughout the distribution system. For the 
purpose of this paragraph (a)(10), a representative site is a site in 
which the plumbing materials used at that site would be commonly found 
at other sites served by the water system.
    (11) A water system whose distribution system contains lead service 
lines must collect all samples for monitoring under this section from 
sites served by a lead service line. A water system that cannot 
identify a sufficient number of sampling sites served by lead service 
lines must still collect samples from every site served by a lead 
service line, and collect the remaining samples in accordance with 
tiering requirements under paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) or paragraphs 
(a)(9) through (10) of this section.
    (b) Sample collection methods. (1) All tap samples for lead and 
copper collected in accordance with this subpart, with the exception of 
fifth liter samples collected under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 
and samples collected under paragraphs (b)(5) and (h) of this section, 
must be first draw samples. The first draw sample shall be analyzed for 
lead and copper in tap sampling periods where both contaminants are 
required to be monitored. In tap sampling periods where only lead is 
required to be monitored, the first draw sample may be analyzed for 
lead only.
    (2) Each first draw tap sample for lead and copper must be one 
liter in volume and have stood motionless in the plumbing system of 
each sampling site for at least six hours. Bottles used to collect 
first draw samples must be wide-mouth one-liter sample bottles. First 
draw samples from residential housing must be collected from the cold-
water kitchen or bathroom sink tap. First draw samples from a 
nonresidential building must be one liter in volume and collected at a 
tap from which water is typically drawn for consumption. State-approved 
non-first-draw samples collected in lieu of first draw samples pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(5) of this section must be one liter in volume and 
shall be collected at an interior tap from which water is typically 
drawn for First draw samples may be collected by the system or the 
system may allow residents to collect first draw samples after 
instructing the residents of the sampling procedures specified in this 
paragraph (b)(2). Sampling instructions provided to residents must not 
include instructions for aerator removal and cleaning or flushing of 
taps prior to the start of the minimum six-hour stagnation period. To 
avoid problems of residents handling nitric acid, acidification of 
first draw samples may be done up to 14 days after the sample is 
collected. After acidification to resolubilize the metals, the sample 
must stand in the original container for the time specified in the 
approved EPA method before the sample can be analyzed. If a system 
allows residents to perform sampling, the system may not challenge, 
based on alleged errors in sample collection, the accuracy of sampling 
results.
    (3)(i) All tap samples for copper collected in at sites with a lead 
service line shall be the first draw sample collected using the 
procedure listed in this paragraph (b)(3). Tap samples for copper are 
required to be collected and analyzed only in monitoring periods for 
which copper monitoring is required.
    (ii) Systems must collect tap water in five consecutively numbered 
one-liter sample bottles after the water has stood motionless in the 
plumbing of each sampling site for at least six hours without flushing 
the tap prior to sample collection. Systems must analyze first draw 
samples for copper, when applicable, and fifth liter samples for lead. 
Bottles used to collect these samples must be wide-mouth one-liter 
sample bottles. Systems must collect first draw samples in the first 
sample bottle with each subsequently numbered bottle being filled until 
the final bottle is filled with the water running constantly during 
sample collection. Fifth liter sample is the final sample collected in 
this sequence. System must collect first draw and fifth liter samples 
from residential housing from the cold-water kitchen or bathroom sink 
tap First draw and fifth liter samples from a nonresidential building 
must be one liter in volume and collected at an interior cold water tap 
from which water is typically drawn for

[[Page 4298]]

consumption. First draw and fifth liter samples may be collected by the 
system or the system may allow residents to collect first draw samples 
and fifth liter samples after instructing the residents on the sampling 
procedures specified in this paragraph (b)(3)(ii). Sampling 
instructions provided to customers must not direct the customer to 
remove the aerator or clean or flush the taps prior to the start of the 
minimum six-hour stagnation period. To avoid problems of residents 
handling nitric acid, the system may acidify first draw samples up to 
14 days after the sample is collected. After acidification to 
resolubilize the metals, the sample must stand in the original 
container for the time specified in the approved EPA method before the 
sample can be analyzed. If a system allows residents to perform 
sampling, the system may not challenge, based on alleged errors in 
sample collection, the accuracy of sampling results.
    (4) A water system must collect each first draw tap sample from the 
same sampling site from which it collected the previous sample. A water 
system must collect each fifth liter sample from the same sampling site 
from which it collected the previous sample. If, for reasons beyond the 
control of the water system, the water system cannot gain entry to a 
sampling site in order to collect a follow-up tap sample, the system 
may collect the follow-up tap sample from another sampling site in its 
sampling pool as long as the new site meets the same targeting 
criteria, and is within reasonable proximity of the original site.
    (5) A non-transient, non-community water system, or a community 
water system that meets the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(7), that does 
not have enough taps that can supply first draw samples or fifth liter 
samples meeting the six-hour minimum stagnation time, as defined in 
Sec.  141.2, may apply to the State in writing to substitute non-first 
draw, first-draw, or fifth liter samples that do not meet the six-hour 
minimum stagnation time. Such systems must collect as many first draw 
or fifth liter samples from interior taps typically used for 
consumption, as possible and must identify sampling times and locations 
that would likely result in the longest standing time for the remaining 
sites. The State has the discretion to waive the requirement for prior 
State approval of sites not meeting the six-hour stagnation time either 
through State regulation or written notification to the system.
* * * * *
    (d) Timing of monitoring--(1) Standard monitoring. Standard 
monitoring is a six-month tap sampling monitoring period that begins on 
January 1 or July 1 of the year in which the water system is monitoring 
at the standard number of sites in accordance to paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (i) All water systems with lead service lines, including those 
deemed optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(3), and systems that did not 
conduct monitoring that meets all requirements of this section (e.g., 
sites selected in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, 
samples collected in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, 
etc.) between January 15, 2021 and January 16, 2024, must begin the 
first standard monitoring period on January 1 or July 1 in the year 
following the January 16, 2024, whichever is sooner. Upon completion of 
this monitoring, systems must monitor in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Systems that conducted monitoring that meets all requirements 
of this section (e.g., sites selected in accordance with paragraph (a) 
of this section, samples collected in accordance with paragraph (b) of 
this section, etc.) between January 15, 2021 and January 16, 2024, and 
systems that have completed monitoring under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of 
this section, must continue monitoring as follows:
    (A) Systems that do not meet the criteria under paragraph (d)(4) of 
the section must conduct standard monitoring.
    (B) Systems that meet the criteria under paragraph (d)(4) of this 
section must continue to monitor in accordance with the criteria in 
paragraph (d)(4).
    (C) Any system monitoring at a reduced frequency in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section that exceeds an action level must 
resume standard monitoring beginning January 1 of the calendar year 
following the tap sampling monitoring period in which the system 
exceeded the action level. Any such system must also monitor in 
accordance with Sec.  141.87(b), (c), or (d) as applicable.
    (D) Any system monitoring at a reduced frequency that exceeds the 
lead trigger level but meets the copper action level must not monitor 
any less frequently than annually and must collect samples from the 
standard number of sites as established in paragraph (c) of this 
section. This monitoring must begin the calendar year following the tap 
sampling monitoring period in which the system exceeded the action 
level. Any such system must also monitor in accordance with Sec.  
141.87(b), (c), or (d) as applicable.
    (E) Any system that fails to operate at or above the minimum value 
or within the range of values for the water quality parameters 
specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days in 
any monitoring period specified in Sec.  141.87 must conduct standard 
tap water monitoring and must resume sampling for water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.87(d). This standard monitoring 
must begin no later than the 6-month period beginning January 1 of the 
calendar year following the water quality parameter excursion.
    (F) Any water system that becomes a large water system without 
corrosion control treatment or any large water system without corrosion 
control treatment whose lead 90th percentile exceeds the lead practical 
quantitation level must conduct standard monitoring for at least two 
consecutive 6-month tap sampling monitoring periods and then must 
continue monitoring in accordance with this paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(F).
    (2) Monitoring after installation of initial or re-optimized 
corrosion control treatment, installation of source water treatment and 
addition of new source or change in treatment. (i) Any water system 
that installs or re-optimizes corrosion control treatment, as a result 
of exceeding the lead or copper action level, must monitor for lead and 
copper every six months and comply with previously designated water 
quality parameter values, where applicable, until the State specifies 
new water quality parameter values for optimal corrosion control.
    (ii) Any water system that re-optimizes corrosion control treatment 
as a result of exceeding the lead trigger level but has not exceeded 
the lead or copper action level must monitor annually for lead at the 
standard number of sites listed in paragraph (c) of this section. 
Samples shall be analyzed for copper on a triennial basis. Small and 
medium-size systems that do not exceed the lead trigger level in three 
annual monitoring periods may reduce lead monitoring in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (iii) Any water system that installs source water treatment 
pursuant to Sec.  141.83(a)(3) must monitor every six months until the 
system at or below lead and copper action levels for two consecutive 
six-month monitoring periods. Systems that do not exceed the lead or 
copper action level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods may 
reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (iv) If a water system has notified the State in writing in 
accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of an upcoming addition

[[Page 4299]]

of a new source or long term change in treatment, the water system 
shall monitor every six months at the standard number of sites listed 
under paragraph (c) of this section until the system is at or below the 
lead and copper action levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring 
periods, unless the State determines that the addition of the new 
source or long term change in treatment is not significant and, 
therefore, does not warrant more frequent monitoring. Systems that do 
not exceed the lead and copper action levels, and/or the lead trigger 
level for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods may reduce 
monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (3) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values 
for optimal corrosion control treatment. (i) After the State specifies 
the values for water quality control parameters under Sec.  141.82(f), 
the system must conduct standard six-month monitoring for two 
consecutive six-month tap sampling monitoring periods. Systems may then 
reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section 
as applicable, following a State determination that reduced monitoring 
is approved.
    (ii) Systems required to complete the re-optimization steps in 
Sec.  141.81(d) due to the exceedance of the lead trigger level that do 
not exceed the lead and copper action levels must monitor for two 
consecutive 6-month tap sampling monitoring periods. Systems may then 
reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section 
as applicable following a State determination that reduced monitoring 
is approved.
    (4) Reduced monitoring based on 90th percentile levels. Reduced 
monitoring refers to an annual or triennial tap sampling monitoring 
period. The reduced monitoring frequency is based on the 90th 
percentile value for the water system.
    (i) A water system that meets the criteria for reduced monitoring 
under paragraph (d)(4) of this section must collect these samples from 
sampling sites identified in paragraph (a) of this section. Systems 
monitoring annually or less frequently must conduct the lead and copper 
tap sampling during the months of June, July, August, or September 
unless the State has approved a different sampling period in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section.
    (A) The State at its discretion may approve a different tap 
sampling period for conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for 
systems collecting samples at a reduced frequency. Such a period must 
be no longer than four consecutive months, within one calendar year, 
and must represent a time of normal operation where the highest levels 
of lead are most likely to occur. For a non-transient non-community 
water system that does not operate during the months of June through 
September and for which the period of normal operation where the 
highest levels of lead are most likely to occur is not known, the State 
must designate a period that represents normal operation for the 
system. This monitoring must begin during the period approved or 
designated by the State in the calendar year immediately following the 
end of the second 6-month monitoring period for systems initiating 
annual monitoring and during the 3-year period following the end of the 
third consecutive year of annual monitoring for systems initiating 
triennial monitoring.
    (B) Systems monitoring annually that have been collecting samples 
during the months of June through September and that receive State 
approval to alter their tap sampling monitoring period under paragraph 
(d)(4)(i)(A) of this section must collect their next round of samples 
during a time period that ends no later than 21 months after the 
previous round of sampling. Systems monitoring triennially that have 
been collecting samples during the month of June through September and 
receive State approval to alter their sampling collection period as per 
paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section must collect their next round of 
samples during a time period that ends no later than 45 months after 
the previous tap sampling period. Subsequent monitoring must be 
conducted annually or triennially, as required by this section.
    (C) Small systems with waivers granted pursuant to paragraph (g) of 
this section that have been collecting samples during the months of 
June through September and receive State approval to alter their tap 
sampling period as per paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section must 
collect their next round of samples before the end of the 9-year 
period.
    (ii) Any system that meets the lead trigger level and the copper 
action levels during two consecutive 6-month tap sampling monitoring 
periods may reduce the monitoring frequency to annual monitoring and 
must sample at the standard number of sampling sites for lead and the 
reduced number of sites for copper as specified in paragraph (c) of 
this section. Systems operating OCCT must also have maintained the 
range of OWQPs set by the State in accordance with Sec.  141.82(f) for 
the same period and receive a written determination from the State 
approving annual monitoring based on the State's review of monitoring, 
treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the system as 
required by Sec.  141.90. This sampling must begin no later than the 
calendar year immediately following the last calendar year in which the 
system sampled.
    (iii) Any water system that exceeds the lead trigger level but not 
the lead and copper action levels during two consecutive 6-month tap 
sampling monitoring periods must monitor no less frequently than 
annually at the standard number of sampling sites for lead and copper 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Systems operating OCCT must 
also have maintained the range of OWQPs set by the State in accordance 
with Sec.  141.82(f) for the same period of 6-month monitoring and 
receive a written determination from the State approving annual 
monitoring based on the State's review of monitoring, treatment, and 
other relevant information submitted by the system as required by Sec.  
141.90. This sampling must begin no later than the calendar year 
immediately following the last calendar year in which the system 
sampled.
    (iv) Any water system that exceeds the lead trigger level but not 
the lead and copper action levels during three consecutive years of 
monitoring may reduce the tap sampling monitoring period for copper to 
once every three years; however, the system may not reduce the tap 
sampling monitoring period for lead. Systems operating OCCT must also 
maintain the range of OWQPs set by the State in accordance with Sec.  
141.82(f) and receive a written determination from the State approving 
triennial monitoring based on the State's review of monitoring, 
treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the system as 
required by Sec.  141.90. This sampling must begin no later than the 
third calendar year immediately following the last calendar year in 
which the system sampled.
    (v) Any small or medium-sized system that does not exceed the lead 
trigger level and the copper action level during three consecutive 
years of monitoring (standard monitoring completed during both six-
month periods of a calendar year shall be considered 1 year of 
monitoring) may sample at the reduced number of sites for lead and 
copper in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and reduce the 
monitoring frequency to triennial monitoring. Systems operating OCCT 
must also have maintained the range of OWQPs set by the State in 
accordance

[[Page 4300]]

with Sec.  141.82(f) for the same three-year period and receive a 
written determination from the State approving triennial monitoring 
based on the State's review of monitoring, treatment, and other 
relevant information submitted by the system as required by Sec.  
141.90. This sampling must begin no later than three calendar years 
after the last calendar year in which the system sampled.
    (vi) Any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month 
monitoring periods that its 90th percentile lead level, calculated 
under Sec.  141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the 
90th percentile copper level, calculated under Sec.  141.80(c)(4), is 
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may sample at the reduced number of 
sites for lead and copper in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section and reduce the frequency of monitoring to triennial monitoring. 
For water systems with corrosion control treatment, the system must 
maintain the range of values for the water quality parameters 
reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by the State 
under Sec.  141.82(f) to qualify for reduced monitoring pursuant to 
this paragraph (d)(4)(vi).
    (e) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring 
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section (such 
as customer-requested sampling) shall be considered by the water system 
and the State in making any determinations (i.e., calculating the 90th 
percentile lead or copper level) under this subpart. Lead service line 
water systems that are unable to collect the minimum number of samples 
from Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites shall calculate the 90th percentile using 
data from all the lead service lines sites and the highest lead and 
copper values from lower tier sites to meet the specified minimum 
number of samples. Systems must submit data from additional tier 3, 4 
or 5 sites to the State but may not use these results in the 90th 
percentile calculation. Water systems must include customer-requested 
samples from known lead service line sites in the 90th percentile 
calculation if the samples meet the requirements of this section.
    (f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap samples used in the 
calculation of the 90th percentile. A sample invalidated under this 
paragraph (f) does not count toward determining lead or copper 90th 
percentile levels under Sec.  141.80(c)(4) or toward meeting the 
minimum monitoring requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Monitoring waivers for systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. 
Any water system serving 3,300 or fewer persons that meets the criteria 
of this paragraph (g) may apply to the State to reduce the frequency of 
monitoring for lead and copper under this section to once every nine 
years (i.e., a ``full waiver'') if it meets all of the materials 
criteria specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and all of the 
monitoring criteria specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If 
State regulations permit, any water system serving 3,300 or fewer 
persons that meets the criteria in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this 
section only for lead, or only for copper, may apply to the State for a 
waiver to reduce the frequency of tap water monitoring to once every 
nine years for that contaminant only (i.e., a ``partial waiver'').
* * * * *
    (h) Follow-up samples for ``find-and-fix'' under Sec.  141.82(j). 
Systems shall collect a follow-up sample at any site that exceeds the 
action level within 30 days of receiving the sample results. These 
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample 
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead. Systems 
shall submit samples collected under this section to the State but 
shall not include such samples in the 90th percentile calculation.
    (i) Public availability of tap monitoring results used in the 90th 
percentile calculation. All water systems must make available to the 
public the results of compliance tap water monitoring data, including 
data used in the 90th percentile calculation under Sec.  141.80(c)(4), 
within 60 days of the end of the applicable tap sampling period. 
Nothing in this section requires water systems to make publicly 
available the addresses of the sites where the tap samples were 
collected. Large systems shall make available the monitoring results in 
a digital format. Small and medium-size systems shall make available 
the monitoring results in either a written or digital format. Water 
systems shall retain tap sampling monitoring data in accordance to 
recordkeeping requirements under Sec.  141.91.

0
11. Revise Sec.  141.87 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.87  Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.

    All large water systems, and all small- and medium-size water 
systems that exceed the lead or copper action level, and all small- and 
medium-size water systems with corrosion control treatment that exceed 
the lead trigger level must monitor water quality parameters in 
addition to lead and copper in accordance with this section.
    (a) General requirements--(1) Sample collection methods. (i) Tap 
samples must be representative of water quality throughout the 
distribution system, taking into account the number of persons served, 
the different sources of water, the different treatment methods 
employed by the system, and seasonal variability. Tap sampling under 
this section is not required to be conducted at taps targeted for lead 
and copper sampling under Sec.  141.86(a). Sites selected for tap 
samples under this section must be included in the site sample plan 
specified under Sec.  141.86(a)(1). The site sample plan must be 
updated prior to changes to the sampling locations. [Note: Systems may 
find it convenient to conduct tap sampling for water quality parameters 
at sites used for total coliform sampling under Sec.  141.21(a)(1) if 
they also meet the requirements of this section.]
    (ii) Samples collected at the entry point(s) to the distribution 
system must be from locations representative of each source after 
treatment. If a system draws water from more than one source and the 
sources are combined before distribution, the system must sample at an 
entry point to the distribution system during periods of normal 
operating conditions (i.e., when water is representative of all sources 
being used).
    (2) Number of samples. (i) Systems must collect two tap samples for 
applicable water quality parameters during each monitoring period 
specified under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section from the 
minimum number of sites listed in table 1 to this paragraph (a)(2)(i). 
Systems that add sites as a result of the ``find-and-fix'' requirements 
in Sec.  141.82(j) must collect tap samples for applicable water 
quality parameters during each monitoring period under paragraphs (b) 
through (e) of this section and must sample from that adjusted minimum 
number of sites. Systems are not required to add sites if they are 
monitoring at least twice the minimum number of sites list in table 1 
to this paragraph (a)(2)(i).

                     Table 1 to paragraph (a)(2)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum number
                                                           of sites for
           System size (number people served)              water quality
                                                            parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................              25
10,001-100,000..........................................              10
3,301-10,000............................................               3
501-3,300...............................................               2
101-500.................................................               1
<= 100..................................................               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4301]]

    (ii)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
water systems without corrosion control treatment must collect two 
samples for each applicable water quality parameter at each entry point 
to the distribution system during each monitoring period specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section. During each monitoring period specified 
in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, water systems must 
collect one sample for each applicable water quality parameter at each 
entry point to the distribution system.
    (B) During each monitoring period specified in paragraphs (c) 
through (e) of the section, water systems with corrosion control 
treatment must continue to collect one sample for each applicable water 
quality parameter at each entry point to the distribution system no 
less frequently than once every two weeks.
    (b) Initial sampling for water systems. Any large water system 
without corrosion control treatment must monitor for water quality 
parameters as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section 
during the first two six-month tap sampling monitoring periods 
beginning no later than January 1 of the calendar year after the system 
either becomes a large water system, or fails to maintain their 90th 
percentile for lead below the PQL for lead. Any medium or small system 
that exceeds the lead or copper action level and any system with 
corrosion control treatment for which the State has not designated 
OWQPs that exceeds the lead trigger level shall monitor for water 
quality parameters as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section for two consecutive 6-month periods beginning the month 
immediately following the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
exceedance occurred.
    (1) At taps, two samples for:
    (i) pH;
    (ii) Alkalinity;
    (2) At each entry point to the distribution system all of the 
applicable parameters listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) Monitoring after installation of optimal corrosion control or 
re-optimized corrosion control treatment. (1) Any system that installs 
or modifies corrosion control treatment pursuant to Sec.  141.81(d)(5) 
or (e)(5) and is required to monitor pursuant Sec.  141.81(d)(6) or 
(e)(6) must monitor the parameters identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
and (ii) of this section every six months at the locations and 
frequencies specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section 
until the State specifies new water quality parameter values for 
optimal corrosion control pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. 
Water systems must collect these samples evenly throughout the 6-month 
monitoring period so as to reflect seasonal variability.
    (i) At taps, two samples each for:
    (A) pH;
    (B) Alkalinity;
    (C) Orthophosphate, when an inhibitor containing an orthophosphate 
compound is used;
    (D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is 
used.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, 
at each entry point to the distribution system, at least one sample no 
less frequently than every two weeks (biweekly) for:
    (A) pH;
    (B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion 
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the chemical used to adjust 
alkalinity, and the alkalinity concentration; and
    (C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used as part of optimal corrosion 
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the inhibitor used, and the 
concentration of orthophosphate or silica (whichever is applicable).
    (iii) Any groundwater system can limit entry point sampling 
described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section to those entry points 
that are representative of water quality and treatment conditions 
throughout the system. If water from untreated groundwater sources 
mixes with water from treated groundwater sources, the system must 
monitor for water quality parameters both at representative entry 
points receiving treatment and representative entry points receiving no 
treatment. Prior to the start of any monitoring under this paragraph 
(c)(1)(iii), the water system must provide to the State, written 
information identifying the selected entry points and documentation, 
including information on seasonal variability, sufficient to 
demonstrate that the sites are representative of water quality and 
treatment conditions throughout the system.
    (2) States have the discretion to require small and medium-size 
systems with treatment for which the State has not designated OWQPs 
that exceed the lead trigger level but not the lead and copper action 
levels to conduct water quality parameter monitoring as described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section or the State can develop its own water 
quality control parameter monitoring structure for these systems.
    (d) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values 
for optimal corrosion control. (1) After the State specifies the values 
for applicable water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion 
control treatment under Sec.  141.82(f), systems must monitor for the 
specified optimal water quality parameters during 6-month periods that 
begin on either January 1 or July 1. Such monitoring must be spaced 
evenly throughout the 6-month monitoring period so as to reflect 
seasonal variability and be consistent with the structure specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) All large systems must measure the applicable water quality 
parameters specified by the State and determine compliance with the 
requirements of Sec.  141.82(g) every six months with the first 6-month 
period to begin on either January 1 or July 1, whichever comes first, 
after the State specifies the optimal values under Sec.  141.82(f).
    (ii) Any small or medium-size water system that exceeds an action 
level must begin monitoring during the six-month period immediately 
following the tap sampling monitoring period in which the exceedance 
occurs and continue monitoring until the water system no longer exceeds 
the lead and copper action levels and meets the optimal water quality 
control parameters in two consecutive 6-month tap sampling monitoring 
periods under Sec.  141.86(d)(3). For any such small and medium-size 
system that is subject to a reduced monitoring frequency pursuant to 
Sec.  141.86(d)(4) at the time of the action level exceedance, the 
start of the applicable 6-month monitoring period under this paragraph 
must coincide with the start of the applicable tap sampling monitoring 
period under Sec.  141.86(d)(4).
    (iii) Compliance with State-designated optimal water quality 
parameter values must be determined as specified under Sec.  141.82(g).
    (2) Any small or medium-size system that exceeds the lead trigger 
level, but not the lead and copper action levels for which the State 
has set optimal water quality control parameters must monitor as 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section every six month, until 
the system no longer exceeds the lead trigger level in two consecutive 
tap sampling monitoring periods.
    (3) States have the discretion to continue to require systems 
described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section to monitor optimal water 
quality control parameters.
    (e) Reduced monitoring. (1) Any large water system that maintains 
the range of values for the water quality parameters reflecting optimal 
corrosion control treatment specified by the State under Sec.  
141.82(f) and does not exceed the lead trigger level during each of two 
consecutive 6-month monitoring

[[Page 4302]]

periods under paragraph (d) of this section must continue monitoring at 
the entry point(s) to the distribution system as specified in paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii) of this section. Such system may collect two tap samples for 
applicable water quality parameters from the following reduced number 
of sites during each 6-month monitoring period. Water systems must 
collect these samples evenly throughout the 6-month monitoring period 
so as to reflect seasonal variability.

                       Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Reduced
                                                          minimum number
          System size (number of people served)            of sites for
                                                           water quality
                                                            parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................              10
10,001-100,000..........................................               7
3,301-10,000............................................               3
501-3,300...............................................               2
101-500.................................................               1
<=100...................................................               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2)(i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the 
water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment 
specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) and does not exceed the 
lead trigger level or copper action level during three consecutive 
years of monitoring may reduce the frequency with which it collects the 
number of tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified 
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, from every six months to annually. 
This sampling begins during the calendar year immediately following the 
end of the monitoring period in which the third consecutive year of 6-
month monitoring occurs.
    (ii) A water system may reduce the frequency with which it collects 
tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section to every year if it demonstrates 
during two consecutive monitoring periods that its tap water lead level 
at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the PQL for lead of 
0.005 mg/L that its tap water copper level at the 90th percentile is 
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L in Sec.  141.80(c)(3), and that it also 
has maintained the range of values for the water quality parameters 
reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by the State 
under Sec.  141.82(f).
    (3) A water system that conducts sampling annually must collect 
these samples evenly throughout the year so as to reflect seasonal 
variability.
    (4) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency 
that fails to operate at or above the minimum value or within the range 
of values for the water quality parameters specified by the State in 
Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days in any 6-month period specified 
in Sec.  141.82(g) must resume distribution system tap water sampling 
in accordance with the number and frequency requirements in paragraph 
(d) of this section. Such a system may resume annual monitoring for 
water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced number of sites 
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it has completed 
two subsequent consecutive 6-month rounds of monitoring that meet the 
criteria of paragraph (e)(1) of this section and/or may resume annual 
monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced 
number of sites after it demonstrates through subsequent rounds of 
monitoring that it meets the criteria of either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (f) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring 
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section must 
be considered by the water system and the State in making any 
determinations (i.e., determining concentrations of water quality 
parameters) under this section or Sec.  141.82.
    (g) Additional sites added from find-and-fix. Any water system that 
conducts water quality parameter monitoring at additional sites through 
the ``find-and-fix'' provisions pursuant to Sec.  141.82(j) must add 
those sites to the minimum number of sites specified under paragraphs 
(a) through (e) of this section unless the system is monitoring at 
least twice the minimum number of sites.

0
12. Amend Sec.  141.88 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b), (c), (d) heading, (d)(1) 
introductory text, (e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Removing ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (e)(2)(i) and adding a 
period in its place; and
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  141.88  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source 
water.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Groundwater systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every 
entry point to the distribution system after any application of 
treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is 
representative of each source after treatment (hereafter called a 
sampling point). The system shall take one sample at the same sampling 
point unless conditions make another sampling point more representative 
of each source or treatment plant.
* * * * *
    (b) Monitoring frequency after system exceeds tap water action 
level. Any system which exceeds the lead or copper action level at the 
tap for the first time or for the first time after an addition of a new 
source or installation of source water treatment required under Sec.  
141.83(b)(2) shall collect one source water sample from each entry 
point to the distribution system no later than six months after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which the lead or copper action level 
was exceeded. For tap sampling periods that are annual or less 
frequent, the end of the tap sampling period is September 30 of the 
calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or if the State has 
established an alternate monitoring period, the last day of that 
period. If the State determines that source water treatment is not 
required under Sec.  141.83(b)(2), the state may waive source water 
monitoring, for any subsequent lead or copper action level exceedance 
at the tap, in accordance with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (1) The State may waive source water monitoring for lead or copper 
action level exceedance at the tap under the following conditions:
    (i) The water system has already conducted source water monitoring 
following a previous action level exceedance;
    (ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not 
required; and
    (iii) The system has not added any new water sources.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) Monitoring frequency after installation of source water 
treatment and addition of new source. (1) Any system which installs 
source water treatment pursuant to Sec.  141.83(a)(3) shall collect one 
source water sample from each entry point to the distribution system 
during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods by the deadline 
specified in Sec.  141.83(a)(4).
    (2) Any system which adds a new source shall collect one source 
water sample from each entry point to the distribution system until the 
system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering the 
distribution system has been maintained below the maximum permissible 
lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in Sec.  
141.83(b)(4) or the State determines that source water treatment is not 
needed.

[[Page 4303]]

    (d) Monitoring frequency after State specifies maximum permissible 
source water levels. (1) A system shall monitor at the frequency 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, in cases where 
the State specifies maximum permissible source water levels under Sec.  
141.83(b)(4).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) A water system using only groundwater may reduce the monitoring 
frequency for lead and copper in source water to once during each nine-
year compliance cycle (as that term is defined in Sec.  141.2) provided 
that the samples are collected no later than every ninth calendar year 
and if the system meets the following criteria:
    (i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering 
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum 
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in 
Sec.  141.83(b)(4) during at least three consecutive monitoring periods 
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface 
water and groundwater) may reduce the monitoring frequency in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section to once during each nine-year compliance cycle 
(as that term is defined in Sec.  141.2) provided that the samples are 
collected no later than every ninth calendar year and if the system 
meets the following criteria:
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  141.89 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(a)(1) introductory text, and (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.89  Analytical methods.

    (a) Analyses for lead, copper, pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate, and 
silica shall be conducted in accordance with methods in Sec.  
141.23(k)(1).
    (1) Analyses for alkalinity, orthophosphate, pH, and silica may be 
performed by any person acceptable to the State. Analyses under this 
section for lead and copper shall only be conducted by laboratories 
that have been certified by EPA or the State. To obtain certification 
to conduct analyses for lead and copper, laboratories must:
* * * * *
    (iii) Achieve method detection limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L 
according to the procedures in appendix B of part 136 of this title.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  141.90 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) through (vi);
0
d. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(viii) and adding 
``; and'' in its place;
0
e. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(ix);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), and 
(a)(4)(i);
0
g. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(iv);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (e), (f)(1)(i), and (f)(3);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (f)(4) through (7);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (g), (h) introductory text, (h)(1), (h)(2)(i) 
and (ii), and (h)(3);
0
k. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.90  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec.  141.31(a), except as 
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a water system must 
report the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) 
of this section, for all tap water samples specified in Sec.  141.86 
and for all water quality parameter samples specified in Sec.  141.87 
within the first 10 days following the end of each applicable tap 
sampling monitoring period specified in Sec. Sec.  141.86 and 141.87 
(i.e., every six months, annually, every three years, or every nine 
years). For tap sampling periods with a duration less than six months, 
the end of the tap sampling monitoring period is the last date samples 
can be collected during that tap sampling period as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  141.86 and 141.87.
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including 
the location of each site and the site selection criteria under Sec.  
141.86(a)(3) through (10), used as the basis for which the site was 
selected for the water system's sampling pool, accounting for Sec.  
141.86(a)(11);
* * * * *
    (iii) Water systems with lead service lines, galvanized service 
lines requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines in 
the lead service line inventory conducted under Sec.  141.84(a) must 
re-evaluate the tap sampling locations used in their sampling pool 
prior to the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a) and 
thereafter prior to the next round of tap sampling conducted by the 
system, or annually, whichever is more frequent.
    (A) By the start of the first applicable tap sampling monitoring 
period in Sec.  141.86(d), the water system must submit a site sample 
plan to the State in accordance with Sec.  141.86, including a list of 
tap sample site locations identified from the inventory in Sec.  
141.84(a), and a list a tap sampling WQP sites selected under 
141.87(a)(1). The site sample plan must be updated and submitted to the 
State prior to any changes to sample site locations. The State may 
require modifications to the site sample plan as necessary.
    (B) For lead service line systems with insufficient lead service 
line sites to meet the minimum number required in Sec.  141.86, 
documentation in support of the conclusion that there are an 
insufficient number of lead service line sites meeting the criteria 
under Sec.  141.86(a)(3) or (4) for community water systems or Sec.  
141.86(a)(8) for non-transient, non-community water systems, as 
applicable;
    (iv) The 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations measured 
from among all lead and copper tap water samples collected during each 
tap sampling period (calculated in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(4)), 
unless the State calculates the water system's 90th percentile lead and 
copper levels under paragraph (h) of this section;
    (v) With the exception of initial tap sampling conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  141.86(d)(1)(i), the water system must identify any site which 
was not sampled during previous tap sampling periods, and include an 
explanation of why sampling sites have changed;
    (vi) The results of all water quality parameter tap samples that 
are required to be collected under Sec.  141.87(b) through (g);
* * * * *
    (ix) By the start of the first applicable tap sampling period in 
Sec.  141.86(d), the water system must submit to the State, a copy of 
the tap sampling protocol that is provided to individuals who are 
sampling. The State shall verify that wide-mouth collection bottles are 
used and recommendations for pre-stagnation flushing and aerator 
cleaning or removal prior to sample collection are not included 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b). The tap sampling protocol shall contain 
instructions for correctly collecting a first draw sample for sites 
without lead service lines and a first draw and a fifth liter sample 
for sites with lead service lines, where applicable. If the water 
system seeks to modify its tap sampling protocol specified in this 
paragraph (a)(1)(ix), it must submit the updated version of the 
protocol to the State for review and approval no later than 60 days 
prior to use.
    (2) For a non-transient non-community water system, or a

[[Page 4304]]

community water system meeting the criteria of Sec.  141.86(b)(5), that 
does not have enough taps that can provide first draw or fifth liter 
samples, the water system must either:
    (i) Provide written documentation to the State identifying standing 
times and locations for enough non-first-draw and fifth liter samples 
to make up its sampling pool under Sec.  141.86(b)(5) by the start of 
the first applicable monitoring period under Sec.  141.86(d) unless the 
State has waived prior State approval of non-first-draw and fifth liter 
sample sites selected by the water system pursuant to Sec.  
141.86(b)(5); or
* * * * *
    (3) At a time specified by the State, or if no specific time is 
designated by the State, as early as possible but no later than six 
months prior to the addition of a new source or any long-term change in 
water treatment, a water system must submit written documentation to 
the State describing the addition. The State must review and approve 
the addition of a new source or long-term treatment change before it is 
implemented by the water system. The State may require the system to 
take actions before or after the addition of a new source or long-term 
treatment change to ensure the system will operate and maintain optimal 
corrosion control treatment such as additional water quality parameter 
monitoring, additional lead or copper tap sampling, and re-evaluation 
of corrosion control treatment. Examples of long-term treatment changes 
include but are not limited to, the addition of a new treatment process 
or modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of 
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants, switching 
coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride), and switching corrosion 
inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to blended phosphate). Long-
term changes can also include dose changes to existing chemicals if the 
water system is planning long-term changes to its finished water pH or 
residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term treatment changes would not 
include chemical dose fluctuations associated with daily raw water 
quality changes where a new source has not been added.
    (4) * * *
    (i) By the start of the first applicable tap sampling monitoring 
period in Sec.  141.86(d), any small water system applying for a 
monitoring waiver shall provide the documentation required to 
demonstrate that it meets the waiver criteria of Sec.  141.86(g)(1) and 
(2).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For water systems demonstrating that they have already 
optimized corrosion control, information required in Sec.  141.81(b)(1) 
through (3).
* * * * *
    (e) Lead service line inventory and replacement reporting 
requirements. Water systems must report the following information to 
the State to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
141.84 and 141.85:
    (1) No later than January 16, 2024, the water system must submit to 
the State an inventory of service lines as required in Sec.  141.84(a).
    (2) No later than January 16, 2024, any water system that has 
inventoried a lead service line, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
lead status unknown service line in its distribution system must submit 
to the State, as specified in Section Sec.  141.84(b), a lead service 
line replacement plan.
    (3) The water system must provide the State with updated versions 
of its inventory as required in Sec.  141.84(a) in accordance with its 
tap sampling monitoring period schedule as required in Sec.  141.86(d), 
but no more frequently than annually. The updated inventory must be 
submitted within 30 days of the end of each tap sampling monitoring 
period.
    (i) When the water system has demonstrated that it has no lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines 
in its inventory, it is no longer required to submit inventory updates 
to the State, except as required in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) In the case that a water system meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, subsequently discovers any service 
lines requiring replacement in its distribution system, it must notify 
the State within 30 days of identifying the service line(s) and prepare 
an updated inventory in accordance with Sec.  141.84(a) on a schedule 
established by the State.
    (4) Within 30 days of the end of each tap sampling monitoring 
period, the water system must certify that it conducted replacement of 
any encountered lead goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors in accordance 
with Sec.  141.84(c).
    (5) Within 30 days of the end of each tap sampling monitoring 
period, the water system must certify to the State that any partial and 
full lead service line replacements were conducted in accordance with 
Sec.  141.84(d) and (e), respectively.
    (6) If the water system fails to meet the 45-day deadline to 
complete a customer-initiated lead service line replacement pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(d)(4), it must notify the State within 30 days of the 
replacement deadline to request an extension of the deadline up to 180 
days of the customer-initiated lead service line replacement.
    (i) The water system must certify annually that it has completed 
all customer-initiated lead service line replacements in accordance 
with Sec.  141.84(d)(4).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) No later than 30 days after the end of the water system's 
annual lead service line replacement requirements under Sec.  141.84(f) 
and (g), the water system must submit the following information to the 
State, and continue to submit it each year it conducts lead service 
line replacement under Sec.  141.84(f) and (g):
    (i) The number of lead service lines in the initial inventory;
    (ii) The number of galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
in the initial inventory;
    (iii) The number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
inventory at the onset of the water system's annual lead service line 
replacement program;
    (iv) The number of full lead service lines that have been replaced 
and the address associated with each replaced service line;
    (v) The number of galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
that have been replaced and the address associated with each replaced 
service line;
    (vi) The number of lead status unknown service lines remaining in 
the inventory;
    (vii) The total number of lead status unknown service lines 
determined to be non-lead; and
    (viii) The total number of service lines initially inventoried as 
``non-lead'' later discovered to be a lead service line or a galvanized 
requiring replacement service line.
    (8) No later than 30 days after the end of each tap sampling 
period, any water system that has received customer refusals about lead 
service line replacements or customer non-responses after a minimum of 
two good faith efforts by the water system to contact customers 
regarding full lead service line replacements in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(g)(7), must certify to the State the number of customer refusals 
or non-responses it received from customers served by a lead service 
line or galvanized requiring replacement service line, and maintain 
such documentation.

[[Page 4305]]

    (9) No later than 12 months after the end of a tap sampling period 
in which a water system exceeds the lead action level in sampling 
conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.86, the system must provide to the 
State its schedule for annually replacing an average annual rate, 
calculated on a two year rolling basis, of at least three percent, or 
otherwise specified in Sec.  141.84(g)(9), of the number of known lead 
service lines and galvanized lines requiring replacement when the lead 
trigger or action level was first exceeded and lead status unknown 
service lines at the beginning of each year that required replacement 
occurs in its distribution system.
    (10) No later than 12 months after the end of a sampling period in 
which a system exceeds the lead trigger level in sampling conducted 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86, and every 12 months thereafter, the system 
shall certify to the State in writing that the system has:
    (i) Conducted consumer notification as specified in Sec. Sec.  
141.84(f)(4) and 141.85(g) and
    (ii) Delivered public education materials to the affected consumers 
as specified in Sec.  141.85(a).
    (iii) A water system that does not meet its annual service line 
replacement goal as required under Sec.  141.84(f) must certify to the 
State in writing that the water system has conducted public outreach as 
specified in Sec.  141.85(h). The water system must also submit the 
outreach materials used to the State.
    (11) The annual submission to the State under paragraph (e)(10) of 
this section must contain the following information:
    (i) The certification that results of samples collected between 
three months and six months after the date of a full or partial lead 
service line replacement were provided to the resident in accordance 
with the timeframes in Sec.  141.85(d)(2). Mailed notices post-marked 
within three business days of receiving the results shall be considered 
``on time.''
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (12) Any system which collects samples following a partial lead 
service line replacement required by Sec.  141.84 must report the 
results to the State within the first ten days of the month following 
the month in which the system receives the laboratory results, or as 
specified by the State. States, at their discretion may eliminate this 
requirement to report these monitoring results, but water systems shall 
still retain such records. Systems must also report any additional 
information as specified by the State, and in a time and manner 
prescribed by the State, to verify that all partial lead service line 
replacement activities have taken place.
    (13) Any system with lead service lines in its inventory must 
certify on an annual basis that the system has complied with the 
consumer notification of lead service line materials as specified in 
Sec.  141.85(e).
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The public education materials that were delivered, and a 
demonstration that the water system has delivered the public education 
materials that meet the content requirements in Sec.  141.85(a) and the 
delivery requirements in Sec.  141.85(b); and
* * * * *
    (3) No later than three months following the end of the tap 
sampling period, each water system must mail a sample copy of the 
consumer notification of tap results to the State along with a 
certification that the notification has been distributed in a manner 
consistent with the requirements of Sec.  141.85(d).
    (4) Annually by July 1, the water system must demonstrate to the 
State that it delivered annual consumer notification and delivered lead 
service line information materials to affected consumers with a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line 
in accordance with Sec.  141.85(e) for the previous calendar year. The 
water system shall also provide a copy of the notification and 
information materials to the State.
    (5) Annually by July 1, the water system must demonstrate to the 
State that it conducted an outreach activity in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(h) when failing to meet the lead service line replacement goal 
as specified in Sec.  141.84(f) for the previous calendar year. The 
water system shall also submit a copy to the State of the outreach 
provided.
    (6) Annually, by July 1, the water system must certify to the State 
that it delivered notification to affected customers after any lead 
service line disturbance in accordance with Sec.  141.85(f) for the 
previous calendar year. The water system shall also submit a copy of 
the notification to the State.
    (7) Annually, by July 1, the water system must certify to the State 
that it delivered the required find-and-fix information to the State 
and local health departments for the previous calendar year.
    (g) Reporting of additional monitoring data. Any water system which 
collects more samples than the minimum required, shall report the 
results to the State within the first 10 days following the end of the 
applicable monitoring period under Sec. Sec.  141.86, 141.87, and 
141.88 during which the samples are collected. This includes the 
monitoring data pertaining to ``find-and-fix'' pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
141.86(h) and 141.87(g). The system must certify to the State the 
number of customer refusals or non-responses for follow-up sampling 
under Sec.  141.82(j) it received and information pertaining to the 
accuracy of the refusals or non-responses, within the first 10 days 
following the end of the applicable tap sampling period in which an 
individual sample exceeded the action level.
    (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations 
where the State calculates a water system's 90th percentile 
concentrations. A water system is not required to report the 90th 
percentile lead and copper concentrations measured from among all lead 
and copper tap water samples collected during each tap sampling 
monitoring period, as required by paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section 
if:
    (1) The State has previously notified the water system that it will 
calculate the water system's 90th percentile lead and copper 
concentrations, based on the lead and copper tap results submitted 
pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and the water system 
provides the results of lead and copper tap water samples no later than 
10 days after the end of the applicable tap sampling monitoring period;
    (2) * * *
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including 
the location of each site and the criteria under Sec.  141.86(a)(3) 
through (10) under which the site was selected for the water system's 
sampling pool; and
    (ii) An identification of sampling sites utilized during the 
current tap sampling monitoring period that were not sampled during 
previous monitoring periods, and an explanation of why sampling sites 
have changed; and
    (3) The State has provided the results of the 90th percentile lead 
and copper calculations, in writing, to the water system within 15 days 
of the end of the tap sampling period.
    (i) Reporting requirements for a community water system's public 
education and sampling in schools and child care facilities. (1) A 
community water system shall send a report to the State by July 1 of 
each year for the previous calendar year's activity. The report must 
include the following:
    (i) Certification that the water system made a good faith effort to 
identify schools and child care facilities in accordance with Sec.  
141.92(e). The good faith effort may include reviewing

[[Page 4306]]

customer records and requesting lists of schools and child care 
facilities from the primacy agency or other licensing agency. A water 
system that certifies that no schools or child care facilities are 
served by the water system is not required to include information in 
paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section in the report. If 
there are changes to schools and child care facilities that a water 
system serves, an updated list must be submitted at least once every 
five years in accordance with Sec.  141.92(e).
    (ii) Certification that the water system has delivered information 
about health risks from lead in drinking water to the school and child 
care facilities that they serve in accordance with Sec.  141.92(a)(2) 
and (g)(1).
    (iii) Certification that the water system has completed the 
notification and sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92 and paragraphs 
(i)(1)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section at a minimum of 20 percent 
of elementary schools and 20 percent of child care facilities. 
Certification that the water system has completed the notification and 
sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92(g) and paragraphs (i)(1)(iii)(A), 
(B), and (E) of this section for any secondary school(s) sampled. After 
a water system has successfully completed one cycle of required 
sampling in all elementary schools and child care facilities identified 
in Sec.  141.92(a)(1), it shall certify completion of the notification 
and sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92(g) and paragraphs 
(i)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (E) of this section for all sampling completed 
in any school or child care facility, thereafter.
    (A) The number of schools and child care facilities served by the 
water system;
    (B) The number of schools and child care facilities sampled in the 
calendar year;
    (C) The number of schools and child care facilities that have 
refused sampling;
    (D) Information pertaining to outreach attempts for sampling that 
were declined by the school or child care facility; and
    (E) The analytical results for all schools and child care 
facilities sampled by the water system in the calendar year.
    (iv) Certification that sampling results were provided to schools, 
child care facilities, and local and State health departments.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (j) Reporting requirements for small system compliance flexibility 
options. By the applicable dates provided in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), 
water systems implementing requirements pursuant to Sec.  141.93, shall 
provide the following information to the State:
    (1) Small water systems and non-transient, non-community water 
systems implementing the point-of-use device option under Sec.  
141.93(a)(3), shall report the results from the tap sampling required 
under Sec.  141.93 no later than 10 days after the end of the tap 
sampling monitoring period. If the trigger level is exceeded, the water 
system must reach out to the homeowner and/or building management 
within 24 hours of receiving the tap sample results. The corrective 
action must be completed within 30 days. If the corrective action is 
not completed within 30 days, the system must provide documentation to 
the State within 30 days explaining why it was unable to correct the 
issue. Water systems selecting the point-of-use device option under 
Sec.  141.93(a)(3) shall provide documentation to certify maintenance 
of the point-of-use devices unless the State waives the requirement of 
this paragraph (j)(1).
    (2) Small community water systems and non-transient, non-community 
water systems implementing the small system compliance flexibility 
option to replace all lead-bearing plumbing under Sec.  141.93(a)(4) 
must provide certification to the State that all lead-bearing material 
has been replaced on the schedule established by the State, within one 
year of designation of the option under Sec.  141.93(a)(4).

0
15. Revise Sec.  141.91 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.91   Recordkeeping requirements.

    Any system subject to the requirements of this subpart shall retain 
on its premises original records of all sampling data and analyses, 
reports, surveys, letters, evaluations, schedules, State 
determinations, and any other information required by Sec. Sec.  141.81 
through 141.88, 141.90, 141.92, and 141.93. Each water system shall 
retain the records required by this section for no fewer than 12 years.

0
16. Add Sec.  141.92 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.92   Monitoring for lead in schools and child care 
facilities.

    All community water systems must conduct directed public education 
and lead monitoring at the schools and child care facilities they serve 
if those schools or child care facilities were constructed prior to 
January 1, 2014 or the date the State adopted standards that meet the 
definition of lead free in accordance with Section 1417 of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, as amended by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking 
Water Act, whichever is earlier. Water systems must conduct lead 
sampling at elementary schools and child care facilities they serve 
once and on request of the facility thereafter. Water systems shall 
also conduct lead sampling at secondary schools they serve on request. 
The provisions of this section do not apply to a school or child care 
facility that is regulated as a public water system. The provisions in 
paragraph (a) of this section apply until a water system samples all 
the elementary schools and child care facilities they serve once as 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Thereafter, water systems 
shall follow the provisions as specified in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (a) Public education to schools and child care facilities. (1) By 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), each water system 
must compile a list of schools and child care facilities served by the 
system.
    (2) Each water system must contact elementary schools and child 
care facilities identified by the system in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section to provide:
    (i) Information about health risks from lead in drinking water on 
at least an annual basis consistent with the requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a);
    (ii) Notification that the water system is required to sample for 
lead at elementary schools and child care facilities, including:
    (A) A proposed schedule for sampling at the facility;
    (B) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007 or subsequent EPA guidance); and
    (C) Instructions for identifying outlets for sampling and preparing 
for a sampling event 30 days prior to the event.
    (3) The water system must include documentation in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(i) if an elementary school or child care facility is non-
responsive or otherwise declines to participate in the monitoring or 
education requirements of this section. For the purposes of this 
section, a school or child care facility is non-responsive after the 
water system makes at least two separate good faith attempts to contact 
the facility to schedule sampling with no response.
    (4) The water system must contact all secondary schools in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section on at least an annual basis to provide 
information on health risks from lead in drinking water and how to 
request lead sampling as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (b) Lead sampling in schools and child care facilities. (1) Five 
samples per

[[Page 4307]]

school and two samples per child care facility at outlets typically 
used for consumption shall be collected. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section, the outlets shall 
not have point-of-use (POU) devices. The water system shall sample at 
the following locations:
    (i) For schools: two drinking water fountains, one kitchen faucet 
used for food or drink preparation, one classroom faucet or other 
outlet used for drinking, and one nurse's office faucet, as available.
    (ii) For child care facilities: one drinking water fountain and one 
of either a kitchen faucet used for preparation of food or drink or one 
classroom faucet or other outlet used for drinking.
    (iii) If any facility has fewer than the required number of 
outlets, the water system must sample all outlets used for consumption.
    (iv) The water system may sample at outlets with POU devices if the 
facility has POU devices installed on all outlets typically used for 
consumption.
    (v) If any facility does not contain the type of faucet listed 
above, the water system shall collect a sample from another outlet 
typically used for consumption as identified by the facility.
    (vi) Water systems must collect the samples from the cold water tap 
subject to the following additional requirements:
    (A) Each sample for lead shall be a first draw sample;
    (B) The sample must be 250 ml in volume;
    (C) The water must have remained stationary in the plumbing system 
of the sampling site (building) for at least 8 but no more than 18 
hours; and
    (D) Samples must be analyzed using acidification and the 
corresponding analytical methods in Sec.  141.89.
    (2) The water system, school or child care facility, or other 
appropriately trained individual may collect samples in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) Frequency of sampling at elementary schools and child care 
facilities. (1) Water systems shall collect samples from at least 20 
percent of elementary schools served by the system and 20 percent of 
child care facilities served by the system per year, or according to a 
schedule approved by the State, until all schools and child care 
facilities identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section have been 
sampled or have declined to participate. For the purposes of this 
section, a water system may count a refusal or non-response from an 
elementary school or child care facility as part of the minimum 20 
percent per year.
    (2) All elementary schools and child care facilities must be 
sampled at least once in the five years following the compliance date 
in Sec.  141.80(a)(3).
    (3) After a water system has completed one required cycle of 
sampling in all elementary schools and child care facilities, a water 
system must sample at the request of an elementary school or child care 
facility in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (4) A water system must sample at the request of a secondary school 
as specified in paragraph (g) of this section. If a water system 
receives requests from more than 20 percent of secondary schools 
identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in any of the five years 
following the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the water system 
may schedule the requests that exceed 20 percent for the following year 
and is not required to sample an individual secondary school more than 
once in the five year period.
    (d) Alternative school and child care lead sampling programs. (1) 
If mandatory sampling for lead in drinking water is conducted for 
schools and child care facilities served by a community water system 
due to State or local law or program, the State may exempt the water 
system from the requirements of this section by issuing a written 
waiver:
    (i) If the sampling is consistent with the requirements in 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; or
    (ii) If the sampling is consistent with the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) and (c) of this section and it is 
coupled with any of the following remediation actions:
    (A) Disconnection of affected fixtures;
    (B) Replacement of affected fixtures with fixtures certified as 
lead free; and
    (C) Installation of POU devices; or
    (iii) If the sampling is conducted in schools and child care 
facilities served by the system less frequently than once every five 
years and it is coupled with any of the remediation actions specified 
in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section; or
    (iv) If the sampling is conducted under a grant awarded under 
Section 1464(d) of the SDWA, consistent with the requirements of the 
grant.
    (2) The duration of the waiver may not exceed the time period 
covered by the mandatory or voluntary sampling and will automatically 
expire at the end of any 12-month period during which sampling is not 
conducted at the required number of schools or child care facilities.
    (3) The State may issue a partial waiver to the water system if the 
sampling covers only a subset of the schools or child care facilities 
served by the system as designated under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (4) The State may issue a written waiver applicable to more than 
one system (e.g., one waiver for all systems subject to a statewide 
sampling program that meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this 
section).
    (e) Confirmation or revision of schools and child care facilities 
in inventory. A water system shall either confirm that there have been 
no changes to its list of schools and child care facilities served by 
the system developed pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or 
submit a revised list at least once every five years.
    (f) Notification of results. (1) A water system must provide 
analytical results as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days 
after receipt of the results to the school or child care facility, 
along with information about remediation options.
    (2) A water system must provide analytical results annually to:
    (i) The local and State health department; and
    (ii) The State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i).
    (g) Lead sampling in schools and child care facilities on request. 
(1) A water system must contact schools and child care facilities 
identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on at least an annual 
basis to provide:
    (i) Information about health risks from lead in drinking water;
    (ii) Information about how to request sampling for lead at the 
facility; and
    (iii) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance).
    (2) A water system must conduct sampling as specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section when requested by the facility and provide:
    (i) Instructions for identifying outlets for sampling and preparing 
for a sampling event at least 30 days prior to the event; and
    (ii) Results as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (3) If a water system receives requests from more than 20 percent 
of the schools and child care facilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section in a given year, the water system may schedule sampling 
for those that exceed 20 percent for the following year. A water system 
is not required to sample an individual school or child care facility 
more than once every five years.
    (4) If voluntary sampling for lead in drinking water is conducted 
for schools

[[Page 4308]]

and child care facilities served by a community water system that meets 
the requirements of this section, the State may exempt the water system 
from the requirements of this section by issuing a written waiver in 
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

0
17. Add Sec.  141.93 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.93  Small water system compliance flexibility.

    The compliance alternatives described in this section apply to 
small community water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all 
non-transient, non-community water systems. Small community water 
systems and non-transient, non-community water systems with corrosion 
control treatment in place must continue to operate and maintain 
optimal corrosion control treatment until the State determines, in 
writing, that it is no longer necessary, and meet any requirements that 
the State determines to be appropriate before implementing a State 
approved compliance option described in this section.
    (a) A small community water system and non-transient, non-community 
water systems that exceeds the lead trigger level but does not exceed 
the lead and copper action levels must collect water quality parameters 
in accordance with Sec.  141.87(b) and evaluate compliance options in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section and make a compliance 
option recommendation to the State within six months of the end of the 
tap sampling period in which the exceedance occurred. The State must 
approve the recommendation or designate an alternative from compliance 
options in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section within six 
months of the recommendation by the water system. If the water system 
subsequently exceeds the lead action level it must implement the 
approved compliance option as specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section. Water systems must select from the following compliance 
options:
    (1) Lead service line replacement. A water system must implement a 
full lead service line replacement program on a schedule approved by 
the State but not to exceed 15 years. A water system must begin lead 
service line replacement within one year after the State's approval or 
designation of the compliance option.
    (i) Lead service line replacement must be conducted in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  141.84(e) and (g)(4), (8), and (9).
    (ii) A water system must continue lead service line replacement 
even if the system's 90th percentile lead level is at or below the 
action level in future tap sampling monitoring periods.
    (iii) A water system must have no lead service lines, galvanized 
service lines requiring replacement, or ``Lead status unknown'' service 
lines in its inventory by the end of its lead service line replacement 
program.
    (2) Corrosion control treatment. A water system must install and 
maintain optimal corrosion control treatment in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82, even if its 90th percentile is at or 
below the action level in future tap sampling monitoring periods. Any 
water system that has corrosion control treatment installed must re-
optimize its corrosion control treatment in accordance with Sec.  
141.81(d). Water systems required by the State to optimize or re-
optimize corrosion control treatment must follow the schedules in Sec.  
141.81(d) or (e), beginning with Step 3 in paragraph (d)(3) or (e)(3) 
of Sec.  141.81 unless the State specifies optimal corrosion control 
treatment pursuant to either Sec.  141.81(d)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(i) or 
(ii), as applicable.
    (3) Point-of-use devices. A water system must install, maintain, 
and monitor POU devices in each household or building even if its 90th 
percentile is at or below the action level in future tap sampling 
monitoring periods.
    (i)(A) A community water system must install a minimum of one POU 
device (at one tap) in every household and at every tap that is used 
for cooking and/or drinking in every non-residential building in its 
distribution system on a schedule specified by the State, but not to 
exceed one year.
    (B) A non-transient, non-community water system must provide a POU 
device to every tap that is used for cooking and/or drinking on a 
schedule specified by the State, but not to exceed three months.
    (ii) The POU device must be independently certified by a third 
party to meet the American National Standards Institute standard 
applicable to the specific type of POU unit to reduce lead in drinking 
water.
    (iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system 
according to manufacturer's recommendations to ensure continued 
effective filtration, including but not limited to changing filter 
cartridges and resolving any operational issues. POU device must be 
equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are 
automatically notified of operational problems. The water system shall 
provide documentation to the state to certify maintenance of the point-
of-use devices, unless the state waives this requirement, in accordance 
with Sec.  141.90(j)(1).
    (iv) The water system must monitor one-third of the POU devices 
each year and all POU devices must be monitored within a three-year 
cycle. First draw tap samples collected under this section must be 
taken after water passes through the POU device to assess its 
performance. Samples must be one-liter in volume and have had a minimum 
6-hour stagnation time. All samples must be at or below the lead 
trigger level. The water systems must report the results from the tap 
sampling no later than 10 days after the end of the tap sampling 
monitoring period in accordance with Sec.  141.90(j)(1). The system 
must document the problem and take corrective action at any site where 
the sample result exceeds the lead trigger level. If the trigger level 
is exceeded, the water system must reach out to the homeowner and/or 
building management no later than 24 hours of receiving the tap sample 
results. The corrective action must be completed within 30 days. If the 
corrective action is not completed within 30 days, the system must 
provide documentation to the State within 30 days explaining why it was 
unable to correct the issue.
    (v) The water system must provide public education to consumers in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(j) to inform them on proper use of POU 
devices to maximize the units' lead level reduction effectiveness.
    (vi) The water system must operate and maintain the POU devices 
until the system receives State approval to select one of the other 
compliance flexibility options and implements it.
    (4) Replacement of lead-bearing plumbing. A water system that has 
control over all plumbing in its buildings, and no unknown, galvanized, 
or lead service lines, must replace all plumbing that is not lead free 
in accordance with Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
amended by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act and any future 
amendments applicable at the time of replacement. The replacement of 
all lead-bearing plumbing must occur on a schedule established by the 
State but not to exceed one year. Water systems must provide 
certification to the State that all lead-bearing material has been 
replaced in accordance with Sec.  141.90(j)(2).
    (b)(1) A water system that exceeds the lead action level after 
exceeding the lead trigger level but does not exceed the copper action 
level must implement the compliance option approved by the State under 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) A water system that exceeds the lead action level, but has not 
previously

[[Page 4309]]

exceeded the lead trigger level, and does not exceed the copper action 
level must complete the provisions in paragraph (a) of this section and 
must implement the compliance option approved by the State under 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) A water system that exceeds the trigger level after it has 
implemented a compliance option approved by the State under paragraph 
(a) of this section, must complete the steps in paragraph (a) and if it 
thereafter exceeds the action level, it must implement the compliance 
option approved by the State under paragraph (a) of this section.

0
18. Amend Sec.  141.153 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi);
0
b. Removing the periods at the ends of paragraphs (d)(4)(ix) and (x) 
and adding semicolons in their places; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d)(4)(xi) and (xii).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.153  Content of the reports

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile concentration of the 
most recent round(s) of sampling, the number of sampling sites 
exceeding the action level, and the range of tap sampling results;
* * * * *
    (xi) The report shall include a statement that a service line 
inventory (including inventories consisting only of a statement that 
there are no lead service lines) has been prepared and include 
instructions to access the service line inventory; and
    (xii) The report shall notify consumers that complete lead tap 
sampling data are available for review and shall include information on 
how to access the data.
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  141.154 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  141.154  Required additional health information.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) A short informational statement about lead in drinking water 
and its effects on children. The statement must include the following 
information:
    Lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant 
women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from 
materials and components associated with service lines and home 
plumbing. [NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for providing high quality 
drinking water and removing lead pipes, but cannot control the variety 
of materials used in plumbing components in your home. You share the 
responsibility for protecting yourself and your family from the lead in 
your home plumbing. You can take responsibility by identifying and 
removing lead materials within your home plumbing and taking steps to 
reduce your family's risk. Before drinking tap water, flush your pipes 
for several minutes by running your tap, taking a shower, doing laundry 
or a load of dishes. You can also use a filter certified by an American 
National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in 
drinking water. If you are concerned about lead in your water and wish 
to have your water tested, contact [NAME OF UTILITY and CONTACT 
INFORMATION]. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, 
and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
* * * * *

0
20. Amend appendix A to subpart O by removing the entry ``Lead (ppb)'' 
and adding the entry ``Lead'' in its place to read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O OF PART 141--REGULATED CONTAMINANTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             To convert for
        Contaminant            Traditional    CCR, multiply    MCL in CCR         MCLG        Major sources in drinking      Health effects language
                               MCL in mg/L         by             units                                 water
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Lead.......................       AL = .015            1000         AL = 15               0  Corrosion of household      Exposure to lead in drinking
                                                                                              plumbing systems, Erosion   water can cause serious health
                                                                                              of natural deposits..       effects in all age groups.
                                                                                                                          Infants and children can have
                                                                                                                          decreases in IQ and attention
                                                                                                                          span. Lead exposure can lead
                                                                                                                          to new learning and behavior
                                                                                                                          problems or exacerbate
                                                                                                                          existing learning and behavior
                                                                                                                          problems. The children of
                                                                                                                          women who are exposed to lead
                                                                                                                          before or during pregnancy can
                                                                                                                          have increased risk of these
                                                                                                                          adverse health effects. Adults
                                                                                                                          can have increased risks of
                                                                                                                          heart disease, high blood
                                                                                                                          pressure, kidney or nervous
                                                                                                                          system problems.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
21. Amend Sec.  141.201 by adding paragraph (a)(3)(vi) and revising 
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.201  General public notification requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

  Table 1 to Sec.   141.201--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                        Requiring a Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Exceedance of the lead action level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) A copy of the notice must also be sent to the primacy agency 
and the Administrator (as applicable) in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  141.31(d).

0
22. Amend Sec.  141.202 by adding paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:

[[Page 4310]]

Sec.  141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner and frequency of 
notice.

    (a) * * *

  Table 1 to Sec.   141.202--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                    Requiring a Tier 1 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
(10) Exceedance of the Action Level for lead as specified in Sec.
 141.80(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
23. Amend appendix A to subpart Q by revising the entry for ``C. Lead 
and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 
mg/L)'' to read as follows:

Appendix A To Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Other 
Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Violations and other situations not listed in this table 
(e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not 
require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency. 
Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent 
public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead 
of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this 
Appendix, as authorized under Sec.  141.202(a) and Sec.  141.203(a).
    \2.\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual 
disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\             Monitoring & testing
                                          ------------------------------------------     procedure violations
                                                                                    ----------------------------
               Contaminant                   Tier of                                   Tier of
                                              public              Citation              public
                                              notice                                    notice       Citation
                                             required                                  required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for
 lead is 0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 mg/
 L).
1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT).............            2  141.80 (except 141.80(c))-             3   141.86-141.90
                                                         141.84, 141.85(a)-(c) and
                                                         (h), and 141.93.
2. Exceedance of the Action Level for                1  141.80(c)..................
 lead.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
24. Amend appendix B to subpart Q by revising the entry for ``23. 
Lead'' to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language 
for Public Notification

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Standard health effects language for
          Contaminant             MCLG \1\  mg/L      MCL \2\ mg/L                public notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                             D. Lead and Copper Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Lead......................  zero.............  TT \13\..........  Exposure to lead in drinking water can
                                                                       cause serious health effects in all age
                                                                       groups. Infants and children can have
                                                                       decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead
                                                                       exposure can lead to new learning and
                                                                       behavior problems or exacerbate existing
                                                                       learning and behavior problems. The
                                                                       children of women who are exposed to lead
                                                                       before or during pregnancy can have
                                                                       increased risk of these adverse health
                                                                       effects. Adults can have increased risks
                                                                       of heart disease, high blood pressure,
                                                                       kidney or nervous system problems.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\1\ MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal.
* * * * *
\2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level.
* * * * *
\13\ Action Level = 0.015 mg/L.

* * * * *

0
25. Amend Sec.  141.401 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  141.401  Sanitary surveys for ground water systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Treatment including corrosion control treatment and water 
quality parameters as applicable;
* * * * *

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

0
26. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
27. Amend Sec.  142.14 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) through (v) and (viii);
0
b. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (d)(8)(xvi);
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(8)(xvii) and adding 
``; and'' in its place;

[[Page 4311]]

0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(8)(xviii) through (xx); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(11).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) Section 141.82(d)--designations of optimal corrosion control 
treatment and any simultaneous compliance considerations that factored 
into the designation;
    (iv) Section 141.84(b)--lead service line replacement plans;
    (v) Section 141.86(a)--compliance sampling pools and any changes to 
sampling pools;
* * * * *
    (viii) Section 141.84(f) and (g)--determinations of lead service 
line replacement goal rate and determinations as to whether a shorter 
replacement schedule is feasible for mandatory full lead service line 
service line replacement;
* * * * *
    (xviii) Section 141.88--evaluation and approval of water system 
source water or treatment changes;
    (xix) Section 141.93--identification of small water systems and 
non-transient non-community water systems utilizing the compliance 
alternatives, and the compliance alternative selected by the water 
system and the compliance option approved by the State; and
    (xx) Section 141.84(a)--completed lead service line inventories and 
required updates to inventories.
* * * * *
    (11) Records of each system's currently applicable or most recently 
designated monitoring requirements. If, for the records identified in 
paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (xx) of this section, no change is made to 
State determinations during a 12-year retention period, the State shall 
retain the record until a new decision, determination, or designation 
has been issued.
* * * * *

0
28. Amend Sec.  142.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) introductory text, (c)(4)(i) introductory 
text, and (c)(4)(i)(A);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iii) introductory text and (c)(4)(iii)(A) 
through (E).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  142.15  Reports by States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Timing. States shall report quarterly, in a format and on a 
schedule prescribed by the Administrator, the following information 
related to each system's compliance with the treatment techniques for 
lead and copper under 40 CFR part 141, subpart I, during the preceding 
calendar quarter. Specifically, States shall report as follows:
    (i) States shall report the name and PWS identification number:
    (A) Each public water system which exceeded the lead and copper 
action levels and the date upon which the exceedance occurred;
* * * * *
    (iii) States shall report the PWS identification number of each 
public water system identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) 
of this section.
    (A) For each public water system, regardless of size, all 90th 
percentile lead levels calculated during each tap sampling period 
specified in Sec.  141.86 of this chapter, and the first and last days 
of the tap sampling period for which the 90th percentile lead level was 
calculated;
    (B) For each public water system (regardless of size), the 90th 
percentile copper level calculated during each monitoring period in 
which the system exceeds the copper action level, and the first and 
last days of each monitoring period in which an exceedance occurred;
    (C) For each public water system for which the State has designated 
optimal water quality parameters under Sec.  141.82(f) of this chapter, 
or which the State has deemed to have optimized corrosion control under 
Sec.  141.81(b)(1) or (3) of this chapter, the date of the 
determination and the paragraph(s) under which the State made its 
determination, the corrosion control treatment status of the water 
system, and the water system's optimal water quality parameters;
    (D) For each public water system, the number of lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, and lead status unknown service lines in its 
distribution system, reported separately;
    (E) For each public water system required to begin replacing lead 
service lines after a lead trigger level or action level exceedance, as 
specified in Sec.  141.84 of this chapter, the goal or mandatory 
replacement rate, and the date each system must begin replacement; and
* * * * *

0
29. Amend Sec.  142.16 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through (10); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (o)(2)(i)(B).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Treatment, including corrosion control treatment and water 
quality parameters as applicable.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Section 141.84--Providing or requiring the review of any 
resource, information, or identification method for the development of 
the initial inventory or inventory updates. Requiring water systems 
whose inventories contain only non-lead service lines and the water 
system subsequently finds a lead service line to prepare an updated 
inventory on a schedule determined by the State.
    (6) Section 141.84--For community water systems serving greater 
than 10,000 persons, approving the lead service line replacement goal 
rate as recommended by the water system in its lead service line 
replacement plan, or designating an alternative goal rate than 
recommended, within six months of the compliance date specified in 
Sec.  141.80(a) of this chapter.
    (7) Section 141.84(g)(9)--Determining whether a greater mandatory 
lead service line replacement rate is feasible and notifying the system 
of the determination in writing within 6 months after the system is 
required to begin lead service line replacement (LSLR).
    (8) Section 141.92--Defining a school or child care facility and 
determining any existing State or local testing program is at least as 
stringent as the Federal requirements.
    (9) Section 141.82--Verifying compliance with ``find-and-fix'' 
requirements.
    (10) Section 141.88--Reviewing any change in source water or 
treatment and making related determinations, including approval; 
establishment of additional requirements to ensure the system will 
operate and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment; and an 
evaluation of how this change may impact other national primary 
drinking water regulations in part 141 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 4312]]

    (B) Treatment, including corrosion control treatment and water 
quality parameters as applicable;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-28691 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


