National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
Federal RegisterNov 13, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10001-16-OW]
RIN 2040-AF15
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed rule, request for public comment.
SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes regulatory revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This proposed rule provides more effective protection of public health by reducing exposure to lead and copper in drinking water. This proposed rule also strengthens procedures and requirements related to health protection and the implementation of the existing Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: Lead tap sampling; corrosion control treatment; lead service line replacement; consumer awareness; and public education. This proposal does not include revisions to the copper requirements of the existing LCR. In addition, this proposal includes new requirements for community water systems to conduct lead in drinking water testing and public education in schools and child care facilities.
DATES:
Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2020. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before December 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300, at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
http://www.regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/,
including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erik Helm, 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) 566-1049 (TTY 800-877-8339); email address:
Helm.Erik@EPA.gov.
For more information visit
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What is the EPA proposing?
B. Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper
B. Statutory Authority
C. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper
A. Lead Trigger Level
B. Corrosion Control Treatment
1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During Sanitary Surveys
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements Based on Lead 90th Percentile
3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
C. Lead Service Line Inventory
D. Lead Service Line Replacement
1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan
2. Partial Lead Service Line Replacement
3. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Trigger Level Exceedance
4. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
1. Lead Service Line Replacement
2. Corrosion Control Treatment
3. Point-of-Use Devices
4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
F. Public Education
1. Notification for Customers With a Lead Service Line
2. Outreach Activities After Failing To Meet a Lead Service Line Replacement Goal
3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach
G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water Sampling
1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites
2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling
3. Sample Collection Methods
H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
3. Review of Water Quality Parameters During Sanitary Surveys
4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Requirements
I. Source Water Monitoring
J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities
K. Find-and-Fix
L. Reporting
1. Reporting Requirements for Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper and for Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
2. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Reporting Requirements
3. Lead Trigger Level Notification Requirements
4. Reporting Requirements for School and Child Care Public Education and Sampling
IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
A. Consumer Confidence Report
B. Public Notification
C. Definitions
V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
A. What are the requirements for primacy?
B. What are the State record keeping requirements?
C. What are the State reporting requirements?
D. What are the special primacy requirements?
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize the Sample Universe
B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
C. Cost Analysis
1. Sampling Costs
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
3. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Costs
4. Point-of-Use Costs
5. Public Education and Outreach Costs
6. Drinking Water System Implementation and Administrative 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
D. Benefits Analysis
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
2. Impacts on Childhood IQ
3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
4. Total Monetized Benefits
E. Cost-Benefit Comparison
1. Non-Monetized Costs
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
F. Other Regulatory Options Considered
1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities Option
2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead Service Lines
3. Reporting of Lead Service Line Related Information
G. Cost-Benefit Determination
VII. Request for Comment
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Cost
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 Health and Human Services
IX. 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 per deciliter in 1976-1980 to 0.7 micrograms per deciliter in 2013-2014, a decrease of 95 percent.
Although childhood blood lead levels have been substantially reduced as a result of these actions, 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. 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 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which co-chaired the development of the Action Plan with EPA.
Through this plan, the EPA committed to reducing lead exposures from multiple sources including: Paint, ambient air, and soil and dust contamination, especially children who are among the most vulnerable to the effects of lead. To reduce exposure to lead in paint, the EPA published new, tighter standards for lead in dust on floors and windowsills to protect children from the harmful effects of lead exposure (84 FR 32632). These revised, strengthened standards will reduce the amount of lead in dust that causes adverse health effects and that may warrant measures to reduce risks. To address lead in soil, the EPA will continue to remove, remediate, and take corrective actions at contaminated sites, expand the use of Soil Screening, Health, Outreach and Partnership (SoilSHOP) health education events, and manage lead contamination at Superfund, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action, and other sites. The EPA will also continue to work with State and tribal air agencies to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and evaluate the impacts of lead emissions from aviation fuel. The 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 corrosion of lead and copper containing plumbing materials. Lead was widely used in plumbing materials until Congress banned its use in 1986, and there are 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 brass/bronze fittings and faucets across the U.S. To reduce exposure to lead through drinking water, the Action Plan highlights several key actions, including the EPA's commitment to making regulatory changes to the definition of lead-free plumbing products and assisting schools and childcare centers with the 3Ts approach (Training, Testing and Taking Action) for lead in drinking water. The Action Plan also highlights the EPA's continued support to States and communities by providing 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 Act, for which Congress appropriated $50 million in FY2018, 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 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 and over 95 percent of the all water systems have not reported an action level exceedance in the last three years (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. Also, due to the financial and practical challenges of wide-spread replacement of lead pipes around the country, it is important to use our nation's resources wisely, and thus target actions where they are most needed and can provide the most good.
The LCR is a more complicated drinking water treatment technique regulation due to the need to control corrosivity of treated 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 require 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 current structure of the rule compels additional protective actions on the part of a water system only after a potential problem has been identified (
i.e.,
the lead action level is exceeded), which may result in periods where the public is exposed to elevated levels of lead while the system evaluates and implements the actions required.
Water systems cannot unilaterally implement the actions that are needed to reduce levels of lead in drinking water. Homeowners must be engaged to assure successful lead service line replacement because in most communities, LSLs are partially owned by the water system and partially owned by the homeowner. Water systems must also engage with consumers to encourage actions such as flushing that reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. The ability of water systems to successfully engage with consumers to reduce lead exposure can pose challenges to achieving the goals of the LCR.
The EPA has sought input over an extended period on ways in which the Agency could address the challenges to achieving the goals for the LCR. Section VIII of this notice 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 their recommendations in 2012 (SAB, 2012). The NDWAC provided extensive recommendations on potential LCR revisions to the EPA in December 2015 (NDWAC, 2015).
This notice's proposal includes a suite of actions that approach the problem of lead contamination in drinking water from different perspectives but that taken together can further reduce lead exposure in drinking water. This approach focuses on six key areas:
1.
Identifying areas most impacted.
To help identify areas most in need of remediation, the EPA is proposing that all water systems complete and maintain a lead service line (LSL) inventory and collect tap samples from homes with LSLs if present in the distribution system. To reduce elevated levels of lead in certain locations, the EPA proposes to require water systems to “find-and-fix” the causes of these elevated levels (see Section III.K. of this notice).
2.
Strengthening treatment requirements.
The EPA is proposing to revise requirements for corrosion control treatment (CCT) based on the tap sampling results. The EPA's proposal also establishes a new trigger level of 10 μg/L. At this trigger level, systems that currently treat for corrosion would be required to re-optimize their existing treatment. Systems that do not currently treat for corrosion would be required to conduct a corrosion control study.
3.
Replacing Lead Service Lines.
The EPA is proposing to require water systems to replace the water system-owned portion of an LSL when a customer chooses to replace their customer-owned portion of the line. The EPA is also proposing to require water systems to initiate full lead service line replacement programs where tap sampling shows that lead levels in tap water exceed the existing action level and the proposed trigger level. The proposal requires systems that are above the trigger level but at or below the lead action level to set an annual goal for conducting replacements and for systems that are above the action level to annually replace a minimum of three percent of the number of known or potential LSLs in the inventory at the time the action level exceedance occurs. The proposal also prevents systems from avoiding LSLR by “testing out” with an LSL sample as is allowed in the current LCR.
4.
Increasing sampling reliability.
The EPA is proposing to prohibit tap sampling instructions that call for pre-stagnation flushing, the cleaning or removing of faucet aerators, and a requirement that tap samples be collected in bottles with a wide-mouth configuration. The EPA is also changing the criteria for selecting homes with LSLs when collecting tap samples. For example, the EPA is proposing tap sample site selection focus on sites with LSLs rather than copper pipe with lead solder.
5.
Improving risk communication.
The EPA is proposing to require systems to notify customers of an action level exceedance within 24 hours. It also requires systems to conduct regular outreach to the homeowners with LSLs. The EPA is also proposing to require that the LSL inventory, which would include location identifiers, be made publicly available.
6.
Protecting children in schools.
Since children risk the most significant harm from lead exposure, the EPA is proposing that community water systems (CWS) sample drinking water outlets at each school and each child care facility served by the system. The system would be required to provide the results to the school or child care facility and to provide information about the actions the school or child care facility can take to reduce lead in drinking water.
Through strengthened treatment procedures, expanded sampling, and improved protocols for identifying lead, the EPA's proposed 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 proposed rule is expected to increase community awareness and further reduce sources of lead through enhanced LSLR. By taking the collective actions discussed throughout the proposal, the EPA, States, and water systems will be implementing a proactive holistic approach to more aggressively manage lead in drinking water.
A. What is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing 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 proposal 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 the EPA by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). NDWAC is a
Federal Advisory Committee
that provides EPA with advice and recommendations related to the national drinking water program. The Council was established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
The EPA is proposing revisions to the LCR that would require water systems to take actions at lower lead tap water levels than currently required to reduce lead in drinking water and better protect public health. The agency is proposing to establish a new lead “trigger level” of 10 μg/L in addition to the 15 μg/L lead action level in the current LCR. Public health improvements would be achieved by requiring more water systems to take a progressive set of actions to reduce lead levels at the tap. These proposed actions are designed to reduce lead and copper exposure by ensuring effective CCT and re-optimization of CCT when water
quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter WQP) monitoring; establishment of a “find-and-fix” provision to evaluate and remediate elevated lead at a site where the individual tap sample exceeds the lead action level requiring water systems to create an LSL inventory to ensure tap sampling pools are targeted to the sites with elevated lead, and making consumers aware of the presence of a LSL, if applicable, and to facilitate replacement of LSLs. The LCR proposed revisions are expected to improve tap sampling by better targeting higher risk sites for lead contamination,
i.e.,
sites with lead service lines or lead containing plumbing materials and improving the sampling protocol. The EPA also proposes revisions to the LCR PE and Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requirements to improve communication with consumers. In addition, this proposal includes requirements for community water systems (CWSs) to conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE in schools and child care facilities.
Together, these proposed revisions to the framework and specific requirements of the current LCR would result in greater public health protection at all sizes CWSs and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). Implementation of the proposed revisions would 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 required under the current rule.
The following table compares the major differences between the current Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and proposed Lead and Copper Rule revisions (LCRR). In general, requirements that are unchanged are not listed. Comparison of current LCR and proposed LCR revisions (LCRR).
Current LCR
Proposed LCRR
Action Level (AL) and Trigger Level (TL)
• 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 µg/L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires additional actions
• 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires more actions than the current rule.
• Defines trigger level (TL) of P90 >10 and ≤15 μg/L that triggers additional planning, monitoring, and treatment requirements.
Lead and Copper Tap Monitoring
Sample Site Selection:
Sample Site Selection:
• Prioritizes collection of samples from sites with sources of lead in contact with drinking water
• Changes priorities for collection of samples with a greater focus on lead service lines.
• Highest priority given to sites served by copper pipes with lead solder installed after 1982 but before the State ban on lead pipes and/or lead service lines (LSLs)
• Systems must collect 50% of samples from LSLs, if available.
• Prioritizes collecting samples from sites served by LSLs.
• No distinction in prioritization of copper pipes with lead solder by installation date.
• Systems must collect all samples from sites served by LSLs, if available.
Collection Procedure:
Collection Procedure:
• Requires collection of a one liter sample after water has sat stagnant for a minimum of 6 hours
• Adds requirement that samples must be collected in wide-mouth bottles.
• Prohibits sampling instructions that include recommendations for aerator cleaning/removal and pre-stagnation flushing prior to sample collection.
Monitoring Frequency:
Monitoring Frequency:
• Samples are analyzed for both lead and copper.
• Systems must collect standard number of samples, based on population; semi-annually unless they qualify for reduced monitoring
• Systems can qualify for annual or triennial monitoring at reduced number of sites. Schedule based on number of consecutive years meeting the following criteria:
○ Serves ≤50,000 people and ≤ lead & copper ALs.
○ Serves any population size, meets State-specified optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs), and ≤ lead AL.
• 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.
• 9-year monitoring waiver available to systems serving ≤3,300.
• Some samples may be analyzed for lead only when lead monitoring is conducted more frequently than copper.
• Copper follows the same criteria as the current rule.
• Lead monitoring schedule is based on P90 level for all systems as follows:
○
P90 >15 μg/L:
Semi-annually at the standard number of sites.
○
P90 >10 to 15 μg/L:
Annually at the standard number of sites.
○
P90 ≤10 μg/L:
Annually and triennially at reduced number of sites using same criteria as current rule except copper 90th percentile level is not considered.
Every 9 years based on current rule requirements for a 9-year monitoring waiver.
Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs)
CCT:
CCT:
• Systems serving >50,000 people were required to install treatment by January 1, 1997 with limited exception
• Systems serving ≤50,000 that exceed lead and/or copper AL are subject to CCT requirements (
e.g.
, CCT recommendation, study if required by Primacy Agency, CCT installation). They can discontinue CCT steps if no longer exceed both ALs for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
• Systems must operate CCT to meet any Primacy Agency-designated OWQPs that define optimal CCT.
• There is no requirement for systems to re-optimize.
• Specifies CCT requirements for systems with P90 level >10 to ≤15 μg/L:
○
No CCT:
Must conduct a CCT study if required by Primacy Agency.
○
With CCT:
Must follow the steps for re-optimizing CCT, as specified in the rule.
• Systems with P90 level >15 μg/L:
○
No CCT:
Must complete CCT installation regardless of their subsequent P90 levels.
○
With CCT:
Must re-optimize CCT.
• Community water systems (CWSs) serving ≤10,000 people and non-transient water systems (NTNCWSs) can select an option other than CCT to address lead.
See Small System Flexibility.
CCT Options:
Includes alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium hardness adjustment, and phosphate or silicate-based corrosion inhibitor
CCT Options:
Removes calcium hardness as an option and specifies any phosphate inhibitor must be orthophosphate.
Regulated WQPs:
Regulated WQPs:
•
No CCT:
pH, alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, temperature, orthophosphate (if phosphate-based inhibitor is used), silica (if silica-based inhibitor is used)
•
With CCT:
pH, alkalinity, and based on type of CCT either orthophosphate, silica, or calcium
• Eliminates WQPs related to calcium hardness (
i.e.
, calcium, conductivity, and temperature).
WQP Monitoring:
WQP Monitoring:
• Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP monitoring at entry points and within the distribution system.
• Systems serving ≤50,000 people conduct monitoring only in those periods > lead or copper AL.
• Contains provisions to sample at reduced number of sites in distribution system less frequency for all systems meeting their OWQPs.
• Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP monitoring at entry points and within the distribution system.
• Systems serving ≤50,000 people must continue WQP monitoring until they no longer > lead and/or copper AL for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
• To qualify for reduced WQP distribution monitoring, P90 must be ≤10 μg/L and the system must meet its OWQPs.
Sanitary Survey Review:
Sanitary Survey Review:
• Treatment must be reviewed during sanitary surveys; no specific requirement to assess CCT or WQPs
• CCT and WQP data must be reviewed during sanitary surveys against most recent CCT guidance issued by EPA.
Find and Fix:
Find and Fix:
No required follow-up samples or additional actions if an individual sample exceeds 15 μg/L
If individual tap sample >15 μg/L, systems must:
• Collect a follow-up sample at each location >15 μg/L.
• Conduct WQP monitoring at or near the site >15 μg/L.
• Perform needed corrective action.
LSL Inventory and LSLR Plan
Initial LSL Program Activities:
Initial LSL Program Activities:
• Systems were required to complete a materials evaluation by the time of initial sampling. No requirement to update materials evaluation
• No LSLR plan is required.
• All systems must develop an LSL inventory or demonstrate absence of LSLs within first 3 years of final rule publication.
• LSL inventory must be updated annually.
• All systems with known or possible LSLs must develop an LSLR plan.
LSLR:
LSLR:
• Systems with LSLs with P90 >15 μg/L after CCT installation must annually replace ≥7% of number of LSLs in their distribution system when the lead action level is first exceeded
• Systems must replace the LSL portion they own and offer to replace the private portion at the owner's expense.
• Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and LSLs with lead sample results ≤15 μg/L (“test-outs”) count toward the 7% replacement rate.
• Systems can discontinue LSLR after 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods ≤ lead AL.
• Rule specifies replacement programs based on P90 level for CWSs serving >10,000 people:
○
If P90 >15 μg/L:
Must fully replace 3% of LSLs per year (mandatory replacement) for 4 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
○
If P90 >10 to 15 μg/L:
Implement an LSLR program with replacement goals in consultation with the Primacy Agency for 2 consecutive 1-year monitoring periods.
• Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select LSLR as their compliance option must complete LSLR within 15 years if
P90 >15 μg/L
See Small System Flexibility.
• Annual LSLR rate is based on number of LSLs when the system first exceeds the action level plus the current number of service lines of unknown materials.
• Only full LSLR (both customer-owned and system-owned portion) count toward mandatory rate or goal-based rate.
• All systems must replace their portion of an LSL if notified by consumer of private side replacement within 3 months of the private replacement.
• Following each LSLR, systems must:
○ Provide pitcher filters/cartridges to each customer for 3 months after replacement. Must be provided within 24 hours for full and partial LSLRs.
○ Collect a lead tap sample at locations served by replaced line within 3 to 6 months after replacement.
LSL-Related Outreach:
LSL-Related Outreach:
• When water system plans to replace the portion it owns, it must offer to replace customer-owned portion at owner's expense
• If system replaces its portion only:
○ Provide notification to affected residences within 45 days prior to replacement on possible elevated short-term lead levels and measures to minimize exposure.
○ Include offer to collect lead tap sample within 72 hours of replacement.
○ Provide test results within 3 business days after receiving results.
• Inform consumers annually that they are served by LSL or service line of unknown material.
• Systems subject to goal-based program must:
○ Conduct targeted outreach that encourages consumers with LSLs to participate in the LSLR program.
○ Conduct an additional outreach activity if they fail to meet their goal.
• Systems subject to mandatory LSLR include information on LSLR program in public education (PE) materials that are provided in response to P90 > AL.
Small System Flexibility
No provisions for systems to elect an alternative treatment approach but sets specific requirements for CCT and LSLR
Allows CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and all NTNCWSs with P90 >10 μg/L to elect their approach to address lead with Primacy Agency approval:
• Systems can choose CCT, LSLR, or provision and maintenance of point-of-use devices.
• NTNCWSs can also elect to replace all lead-bearing materials.
Public Education and Outreach
• All CWSs must provide education material in the annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
• Systems with P90 > AL must provide PE to customers about lead sources, health effects, measures to reduce lead exposure, and additional information sources
• Systems must provide lead consumer notice to individuals served at tested taps within 30 days of learning results.
• CWSs must provide updated health effects language and information regarding LSLR program in the CCR.
• If P90 > AL:
○ Current PE requirements apply.
○ Systems must notify customers of P90 > AL within 24 hours.
• In addition, CWSs must:
○ Improve public access to lead information including LSL locations and respond to requests for LSL information.
○ Deliver notice and educational materials to customers during water-related work that could disturb LSLs.
○ Provide increased information to healthcare providers.
○ Provide lead consumer notice to customers whose individual tap sample is >15 μg/L within 24 hours.
•
Also see LSL-Related Outreach in LSLR section of table.
Change in Source or Treatment
Systems on a reduced tap monitoring schedule must obtain prior Primacy Agency approval before changing their source or treatment
Systems on any tap monitoring schedule must obtain prior Primacy Agency approval before changing their source or treatment.
Source Water Monitoring and Treatment
• Periodic source water monitoring is required for systems with:
○ Source water treatment; or
○ P90 > AL and no source water treatment.
• Primacy Agencies can waive continued source water monitoring if the:
○ System has already conducted source water monitoring for a previous P90 > AL;
○ Primacy Agency has determined that source water treatment is not required;
and
○ System has not added any new water sources.
Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
• Does not include separate testing and education program for CWSs at schools and child care facilities
• Schools and child cares that are classified as NTNCWSs must sample for lead and copper.
• CWSs must conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE at 20% of K-12 schools and licensed child cares in service area every year.
• Sample results and PE must be provided to each sampled school/child care, Primacy Agency and local or State health department.
• Excludes facilities built after January 1, 2014.
Primacy Agency Reporting
Primacy Agencies must report information to EPA that includes but is not limited to:
• All P90 levels for systems serving >3,300 people, and only levels >15 μg/L for smaller systems.
• Systems that are required to initiate LSLR and the date replacement must begin.
• Systems for which optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) has been designated.
Expands current requirements to include:
• All P90 values for all system sizes.
• The current number of LSLs and service lines of unknown material for every water system.
• OCCT status of all systems including Primacy Agency-specified OWQPs.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Entities that could potentially be affected include the following:
Category
Examples of potentially affected entities
Public water systems
Community water systems (CWSs) (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 (NTNCWSs) (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 proposed rule.
As part of this notice for the proposed rule, “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 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the term “State” means the Regional Administrator, 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. The EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20 percent or more of a person's total exposure to lead (56 FR 26548, June 7, 1991). Infants who consume mostly mixed formula made from 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. Scientists have linked lead's effects on the brain with lowered IQ and attention disorders in children. During 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.,
<5 micrograms per deciliter) and adults (
e.g.,
<10 micrograms per deciliter).
The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 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. The 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 (reference EA).
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.
B. Statutory Authority
The EPA is publishing these proposed 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)(7)(A) of the SDWA authorizes the EPA to promulgate a treatment technique “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). Section 1412(b)(9) provides that “[T]he Administrator shall, not less often than every six 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 a revised NPDWR, the EPA follows 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).
Section 1414(c) of the SDWA, as amended by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 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,” including requirements for providing notification to the EPA.
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 leaching of lead. 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2).
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, determining compliance with the SDWA, and in advising the public of the risks of unregulated contaminants. 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) of the SDWA provides that “every person who is subject to a national primary drinking water regulation” under the SDWA, section 1412 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).
Under section 1413(a)(1) of the SDWA a State may exercise primary enforcement responsibility (“primacy”) for NPDWRs when the EPA has determined that the State has adopted regulations that are no less stringent than the EPA's. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)(1). To obtain primacy for this rule, States must adopt comparable regulations within two years of the EPA's promulgation of the final rule, unless the EPA grants the State a two-year extension. State primacy requires, among other things, adequate enforcement (including monitoring and inspections) and reporting. The EPA must approve or deny State primacy applications within 90 days of submission to the EPA. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(b)(2). In some cases, a State submitting revisions to adopt an NPDWR has primary enforcement authority for the new regulation while the EPA's decision on the revision is pending. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(c).
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
The 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, LSLR, and PE. The rule established an action level of 0.015 mg/L or 15 µg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L or 1,300 µg/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 water 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 water samples is above the action level, it is not a 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, the 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 the 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, the EPA published minor corrections to the LCR to reinstate text that was inadvertently dropped from the rule during the previous revision.
In 2004, the 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. The 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. The EPA used the information collected during the national review to identify needed short-term and long-term regulatory revisions to the LCR.
In 2007, the 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. In this proposed rule, the EPA is addressing those longer-term revisions to further improve public health protection.
III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper
A. Lead Trigger Level
The EPA is proposing to establish a new lead “trigger level” of 10 µg/L and retain the 15 µg/L lead action level in the current LCR. The EPA established the lead action level in the 1991 based on feasibility and not based on impact on public health. The proposed trigger level is also not a health based standard. The EPA is not revising the 1991 determination that achieving the action level of 15 µg/L is feasible. The EPA is proposing the lead trigger level because the Agency has determined that meaningful reductions in drinking water lead exposure could be achieved by requiring water systems to take a progressive set of certain actions to reduce lead levels at the tap. The EPA proposes that 10 µg/L is a reasonable threshold to require water system to undertake actions. The concept of including additional thresholds to compel actions before an action level exceedance was suggested by the ASDWA during the federalism consultation process (USEPA, 2018). This regulatory framework is similar to other national primary drinking water regulations (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. The proposed LCRR sets the fewest requirements for systems at or below the TL and the most stringent requirements for systems above the lead AL. The Agency is requesting comment on the appropriate level and other aspects relating to the trigger level in Section VII.
In the event of a trigger level exceedance, the actions water systems would be required to take vary based on characteristics of the system. For example, 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, would evaluate the small system flexibilities described in Section III.E. of this notice. Under this proposal, medium and large CWSs that exceed the trigger level, but do not exceed the action level, would be required to 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 materials would be required to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section III.B.2); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G.2)).
Water systems without CCT in place and with no LSLs or service lines of unknown materials would be required to: Conduct a CCT study and obtain State approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B.2); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G.2)).
Water systems with CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines of unknown
materials would be required to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section III.B.2); notify customers with LSLs or unknowns (see Section III.F.1); implement goal based LSLR program (see Section III.D.3); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G.2)).
Water systems without CCT in place and with LSLs or service lines of unknown materials would be required to: Conduct a CCT study and obtain State approval for designated CCT (see Section III.B.2. of this notice) notify customers with an LSL or unknowns (see Section III.F.1); implement goal based LSLR program (see Section III.D.3. of this notice); and conduct annual tap sampling (no reduced monitoring (see Section III.G.2 of this notice)).
B. Corrosion Control Treatment
Corrosion in water systems is defined as the electrochemical interaction between a metal surface such as pipe wall or solder and water. During this interaction, metal is oxidized and transferred to the water. Metal release is a function of the reactions that occur between the metal ions released due to corrosion, and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water and the metal surface (USEPA, 2016c). Corrosion control treatment involves changing water quality characteristics including alkalinity, pH, and dissolved inorganic carbon or addition of a corrosion inhibitor such as orthophosphate to reduce the rate of metal release into the water.
Under the current LCR, all water systems serving more than 50,000 people were required to install corrosion control treatment (CCT) soon after the LCR went into effect, unless they were deemed to have optimized corrosion control. Water systems serving fewer than 50,000 people are not required to install CCT under the current rule unless the water system exceeds the lead or copper action level. Water systems serving 50,000 or fewer people that exceed the action level and have not yet installed CCT must begin working with their State to monitor water quality parameters (WQPs) and install and maintain CCT. Those systems may stop the process of identifying and installing CCT if they meet both the lead and copper action levels during each of two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Given the critical role of CCT in reducing lead in drinking water and protecting the health of all water system consumers, the EPA is proposing several revisions to the LCR to reflect current understanding of the efficacy of various corrosion control treatments and to assure robust evaluation of corrosion control treatment effectiveness at each system.
1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During Sanitary Surveys
The EPA is proposing changes to the current sanitary survey to include requirements for states to include an evaluation of CCT as part of the survey. States are required to regularly perform sanitary surveys of public water systems in accordance with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (§ 141.723) and the Ground Water Rule (§ 141.401). The requirements for the sanitary survey may include an evaluation of the drinking water source, operation and maintenance of water system equipment, and compliance with local and national drinking water standards. There are eight elements addressed during a sanitary survey. These elements include: Source; treatment; distribution system; finished water storage; pumps, pump facilities and controls; monitoring, reporting, data verification; system management and operation; and operator compliance with State requirements. These sanitary surveys do not currently contain requirements specific to the LCR.
EPA believes that the sanitary survey is a fitting opportunity for states to review the system's implementation of OCCT and to assure there are not deficiencies that could interfere with the capability of the drinking water system to consistently and reliably deliver an adequate quality and quantity of safe drinking water to the consumer. The NDWAC (NDWAC, 2015) and ASDWA (USEPA, 2018) recommended a periodic evaluation of CCT as a part of the sanitary survey.
States would be required to review CCT and to assess WQPs during sanitary surveys for water systems that have installed CCT. The review must consider any updated EPA guidance on CCT during the sanitary survey. Reviewing updated EPA CCT guidance is consistent with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC, 2015) recommendations to reevaluate CCT and WQP based upon updated EPA guidance and as best practices continue to evolve as new information and science emerges. This proposed revision will promote regular review of CCT and WQPs by states and will enhance consistency and efficacy by allowing states to consider new information and CCT guidance, as appropriate, during sanitary surveys. By combining the review of the CCT with the existing sanitary survey requirement of the Public Water System Supervision program, states and water systems can cost effectively assure regular review of the treatment technique.
2. Corrosion Control Treatment Requirements Based on Lead 90th Percentile
The EPA is proposing revisions to the LCR provisions by requiring the installation of CCT or optimization of CCT based on the lead 90th percentile level. The current rule provisions for CCT are based primarily on the water system size, and only require small and medium-sized water systems (serving 50,000 or fewer people) to meet CCT requirements if they exceed the lead or copper action level. Before installing CCT, water systems must make an optimized CCT recommendation to the state or conduct a CCT study, if required to do so. However, these water systems can discontinue CCT steps if their 90th percentile levels are at or below the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. The CCT steps are only commenced after a subsequent lead action level exceedance. Under the current rule, once a water system has optimized CCT, there are no requirements for water systems to adjust or re-evaluate CCT, even after an action level exceedance or a failure to meet optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs), unless directed to do so by the State. Under the current LCR, States may, but are not required to, modify the designated CCT on its own initiative or in response to a request by a water system or other interested party, when it concludes that a change is necessary to ensure the system continues to optimize corrosion control treatment.
The EPA is proposing to mandate additional CCT requirements based on the water system's lead 90th percentile level and CCT status. All water systems with CCT that have a lead trigger level exceedance (>10 μg/L but ≤15 μg/L) or a lead action level exceedance (≥15 μg/L) will be required to re-optimize their CCT. Water systems would be required to make a re-optimization recommendation and receive state approval following the procedures described in proposed § 141.82(a). The state may require the water system to conduct a CCT study.
This proposal would require water systems without CCT that exceed the lead trigger level (10 µg/L) to conduct a CCT study and make a CCT recommendation in accordance with proposed revisions in § 141.82(a). 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 the EPA since the study was conducted. The state may also determine that a new CCT study is needed due to other significant information becoming available.
The EPA is proposing changes to the CCT options that water systems must consider and the methods by which water systems would evaluate those options. As described later in this section, the EPA is proposing to remove calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT option. The EPA is also proposing to require water systems to evaluate two additional options for orthophosphate-based corrosion control. The current requirement for evaluating orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor specifies that systems must evaluate maintaining an “effective residual concentration in all test tap samples.” The EPA has determined, based upon experience in implementing these requirements, that systems may not be evaluating a full range of orthophosphate residual concentrations to achieve optimal corrosion control. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add two new treatment options for evaluation as a part of corrosion control studies: Maintaining a 1 mg/L orthophosphate residual concentration and maintaining a 3 mg/L orthophosphate residual concentration.
The EPA is also proposing changes to the methodologies by which systems evaluate CCT options. The EPA is proposing to clarify that metal coupon tests can only be used as a screen to reduce the number of options that are evaluated using pipe rig/loops. Metal coupon tests would no longer be able to be used as the basis for determining the optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). The EPA is proposing this change based upon experience with implementing the rule and the concern that metal coupons are not representative of the existing condition of the lead service lines (LSLs) or leaded plumbing materials that are present in the distribution system and which have scales that have formed as a result of being exposed to the drinking water over a number of years (Ministry of Ontario, 2009).
The EPA is also clarifying cases 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 of 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. For example, water systems conducting a corrosion control study would be required to consider pH and alkalinity adjustment but must also consider how adjustment of pH could affect compliance with other NPDWRs. Increased pH may result in increased formation of total trihalomethanes and result in an exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for those contaminants. Conversely, decreases in pH may result in increased formation of haloacetic acids and result in an exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for those contaminants. Rather than rule out pH and alkalinity adjustment as a CCT strategy because of simultaneous compliance concerns, systems should determine an upper bound pH, where the increase in pH would create increased trihalomethanes and incorporate that into the corrosion control study design.
Similarly, the use of orthophosphate for corrosion control can increase the phosphorus loading to wastewater treatment facilities. Increased phosphorus loading may be a concern for wastewater systems with phosphorus discharge limits or for systems that discharge into water bodies where phosphorus is a limiting nutrient. However, the EPA is proposing that water systems conducting corrosion control studies would not be able to rule out orthophosphate simply based on the increase in loading to wastewater treatment facilities. In designing the CCT studies, water systems would evaluate the orthophosphate treatment options in the coupon screening and/or pipe loop/rig studies. When selecting the optimal CCT, States and water systems would consider phosphorus removal treatment that may be needed by the receiving wastewater treatment system to meet any phosphorus discharge limits or otherwise prevent impacts to water quality. The EPA has examined the potential costs of additional phosphorus usage on wastewater treatment systems as described in section VI.C.9 of this notice. The EPA is proposing that a water system that exceeds the lead action level (15 µg/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 for the treatment recommendation. The EPA proposes 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. The EPA proposes to retain the current LCR provision that allows a State to waive the requirement for a CCT study. This proposal includes flexibilities for small systems related to CCT (see section III.E. of this notice).
3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
The EPA is proposing to remove calcium carbonate stabilization as a potential CCT technique and thus calcium as a regulated WQP. The EPA is proposing to eliminate the option of calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT because literature indicates that calcium carbonate does not form a film 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). The EPA proposes the removal of WQP monitoring related to calcium hardness in the current rule, which includes monitoring for calcium, conductivity, and water temperature. Under this proposal, water systems would also not be required to analyze effects of calcium hardness adjustments during their CCT evaluations. All other CCT options, including alkalinity and pH adjustment and the addition of a phosphate- or silicate-based corrosion inhibitor, will be maintained from the current rule. The best available science has identified these as the most effective treatment options at this time (USEPA, 2003; Wilczak et al., 2010; Schock and Lytle, 2011). These changes are being proposed to assure the efficacy of CCT, to the extent feasible, based upon best available peer-reviewed science.
C. Lead Service Line Inventory
The EPA is proposing revisions to the current lead service line inventory requirements of the LCR because the Agency believes that better information regarding the number and locations of lead service lines is critical to a water
system's ability to inform the public about the potential risks of lead in drinking water and to assure reductions in drinking water lead exposure. 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-75 percent of lead in drinking water comes from LSLs, while the remainder comes from leaded solder, brass/bronze fittings, galvanized piping, faucets, and water meters. Given that LSLs are the greatest contributor of lead in drinking water, identifying the locations and, where necessary, removing this source of lead from drinking water, is a critical component of this proposed rule.
Under the current regulations, water systems are required to identify construction materials of their drinking water distribution system including lead and galvanized piping and to conduct a materials evaluation to locate the requisite number of sampling sites, and to seek to collect information on service line materials, where possible, during normal operation such as reading water meters or performing maintenance activities. In practice, many water systems have only identified service line materials to fulfill the tap sampling tiering requirement and have not done a full accounting of service line materials throughout their entire distribution system. This has led to uncertainty regarding local and national estimates of locations and numbers of LSL. This uncertainty creates compliance challenges for water systems that exceed the lead action level after installing CCT because water systems are forced to concurrently determine the total number of LSLs in the distribution system while replacing seven percent of their LSLs, all within one year. Without an LSL inventory, water systems also face challenges communicating the risk of lead in drinking water to the public at large as well as to individual customers, who may seek information about their own service line so they can take measures to protect themselves and their family. Lack of an LSL inventory also results in a lost opportunity to improve the cost efficiency of LSLR by conducting replacements in tandem with main replacement activities or in neighborhoods where LSLs are most prevalent, or in accordance to policy goals, such as prioritizing LSLR at schools, childcare facilities, and homes with children. For example, the city of Galesburg, IL prioritizes LSLR at homes of low- to moderate-income with children under the age of six (Galesburg, 2016).
In addition, even those systems that have made efforts to identify their LSLs do not always make the information publicly available. 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 an LSL. For water systems publicly available information is “. . . important for successful, proactive outreach to customers who are most likely to have a LSL” (NDWAC, 2015). Making the LSL inventories publicly available, including the total number of LSLs in the distribution system and their general locations, would increase water system transparency so customers can better understand the prevalence of lead sources in drinking water.
Incomplete or non-existent LSL inventories also lead to uncertainty in developing a national estimate, which could range from 6.3 million (Cornwell et. al., 2016) to 9.3 million (USEPA, 1991) LSLs in place. Information about the numbers of LSLs in public water systems is critical to supporting various actions focused on reducing exposure to lead in drinking water. For example, the EPA is targeting funding and financing programs such as the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (United States, 2016) grant programs, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to reduce lead exposure through infrastructure projects that include full LSLR. Water systems that have prepared an LSL inventory will be better able to demonstrate their priority for infrastructure financing assistance. In America's Water Infrastructure Act (United States, 2018), Congress recognized the importance of increasing the understanding about the extent of LSLs in the nation by mandating the EPA include an assessment of costs to replace all LSLs, including the customer-owned portion of the LSL to the extent practicable, in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA). Moreover, an LSL inventory will lead to increased awareness of consumers regarding whether they are served by an LSL, which could improve public health protection if affected consumers take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.
Other organizations have recognized the benefits of LSL inventories and expressed support for a requirement that water systems create a LSL inventory. The Association of Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) published a white paper titled “Developing Lead Service Line Inventories Presented by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators” with recommendations for developing LSL inventories and examples of States that already have implemented mandatory and voluntary LSL inventory programs (Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that EPA “require states to report available information about lead pipes to EPA's SDWIS/Fed (or a future redesign such as SDWIS Prime)”, in its revision of the LCR (GAO-18-620, 2018). The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) recommended that water systems create and update LSL inventories and “establish a clear mechanism for customers to access information on LSL locations (at a minimum)” (NDWAC, 2015).
The EPA is proposing that all water systems create an inventory of all water system-owned and customer-owned LSLs in its distribution system. The inventory could be submitted in one of a variety of formats, for example a list, table, or map with a corresponding LSL status (
i.e.,
LSL, non-LSL, unknown) with a location identifier of the LSL (
e.g.,
street, intersection, landmark). The EPA is not proposing that addresses be used in making the LSL inventory publicly available however, the Agency is requesting comment on this issue in Section VII. A water system would not be precluded by the proposed regulation, from choosing to include specific addresses served by LSLs in their inventory. An example of this is DC Water's LSL map (DC Water, 2016). Large systems, serving greater than 100,000 persons, would be required to post the inventory to a publicly-accessible site on the internet to facilitate easier access for their customers. This is consistent with requirements for community water systems related to their annual Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR 141.155(f)). All other systems (
i.e.
those serving 100,000 persons or fewer), would simply be required to make the inventory available to the public (
e.g.,
available for review at the water system's headquarters).
Under this proposal, a water system would submit an initial inventory to their Primacy Agency by three years after the final rule publication date. To create the initial LSL inventory water
systems would review plumbing codes, permits, and records in the files of the building department(s) that indicate the plumbing materials that are installed within publicly and privately-owned structures. In addition, inspections and records of the distribution system that indicate the material composition of the service connections that connect a structure to the distribution system would be utilized. Because water systems may not have complete records to enable them to identify the material for every service line, the EPA is proposing that systems identify the service lines of unknown material and update the inventory on an annual basis to reflect LSLRs that have occurred, or verifications of service lines of unknown material through the course of normal operations or targeted inventorying efforts. In addition to updating the inventory on an annual basis, EPA recommends, but does not require, that water systems update the inventory as new information becomes available. Improving the inventory over time in tandem with other infrastructure work will minimize the cost of inventory completion, since projects like main replacement require excavation of the street and exposure of service lines underneath. The water system could choose to speed inventory development by devoting resources to determine service line materials independent of other water system work. The EPA recommends, but does not require, that the material of non-LSLs be identified, such as plastic or copper. While not required, water systems could benefit from recording the material of all service lines to improve its accounting of water system assets and help plan for capital improvement activities.
These proposed requirements are consistent with the ASDWA white paper on LSL inventories. ASDWA recommends that a “one-time, preliminary inventory report [be] followed by a comprehensive inventory report a few years later”. “The preliminary report would be completed in three years, and the water system would update its inventory each year to work towards a comprehensive inventory by verifying service lines of unknown material.” ASDWA also recommends that reports should be made publicly available through a user-friendly, online portal, with the option to download all inventory reports in a single file. The EPA is proposing this requirement while allowing additional flexibilities to smaller systems who wish to submit the inventory in paper format. Water systems using a paper format would still be required to make the inventory available to the public. The EPA is proposing the initial inventory be completed by the rule compliance date, three years after promulgation, so that other proposed rule requirements, such as tap sample site selection, PE delivery, and LSLR requirements, can be implemented on the final rule compliance date.
The EPA has determined it is feasible for water systems to prepare LSL inventories because the current regulations required water systems to identify these construction materials in their distribution system to identify tap sampling sites, and to collect information on service line materials where possible in the course of normal operation, such as reading water meters or performing maintenance activities. In addition, any water system that was required to begin LSLR under the current rule would also have been required to identify the initial number of LSLs in its distribution system at the time the replacement program begins pursuant to § 141.84(b)(1). However, the Agency requests comment in Section VII of this notice on the proposed inventory.
ASDWA's white paper lists several examples of states that have mandatory or voluntary LSL inventory programs, and notes that even voluntary LSL inventory programs have had response rates that cover over 90% of service lines (Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). Many states have already begun requiring water systems to create and maintain LSL inventories. In particular, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have such requirements and are estimated to rank first, second, and third, respectively, of States with the highest number of LSLs in the nation (Cornwell et. al., 2016).
Illinois CWSs were required to create their LSL inventory in one year and report a count of all known water system-owned and customer-owned LSLs. Water systems in Illinois are required by the State of Illinois to update their inventory annually until it is complete (State of Illinois, 2017). Ohio CWSs and NTNCWSs with LSLs had six months to map their LSLs and are required to update it every five years. If a water system in Ohio certifies it has no LSLs, it is not required to create a map (State of Ohio, 2016). Michigan's updated LCR promulgated in June 2018 requires water systems to create an inventory of all materials in their distribution system by January 1, 2020, based on existing information. The inventory includes both the water system-owned and customer-owned portions of the LSL and requires service lines of unknown material to be designated as such. The inventory must also identify lead materials present in “piping, storage structure, pumps, and controls used to deliver water to the public, including service lines” (State of Michigan, 2017), the scope of which could cover goosenecks and several other sources of lead. By January 1, 2025, water systems must submit a complete inventory, along with material verification methodology, including any instances of customer denial to access private property to inspect the customer-owned service line. The inventory must be updated every five years (State of Michigan, 2017). Other States with LSL inventory requirements include Wisconsin and California. Since 2004, Wisconsin has required annual reporting of the number of service lines of each material (grouped by pipe diameter) owned by the water system. In 2018, the requirement was changed to include the customer-owned portion of the service line (Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). California water systems were required to inventory known LSLs and areas that may contain LSLs in their distribution systems (State of California, 2016).
As recommended by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-18-620, 2018), the EPA has identified several techniques that can be used to identify lead and galvanized service lines. The current rule lists several sources of information that may indicate or confirm the presence of an LSL, including plumbing codes; permits and records; inspections and records of distribution system materials; existing water quality information to indicate locations that are most likely to have higher lead levels; and relevant legal authorities (
i.e.,
contracts and local ordinances). Under this proposal, the EPA expects water systems to create their initial inventory using these available information sources and to update LSL inventories with information on service line materials discovered in the course of normal operation, such as maintaining water meters.
Under this proposal, a State could establish additional inventory development methods, such as allowing consumers to self-identify and report their service line material, using sequential tap sampling to identify LSLs, or using other techniques such as physical inspection or scratch tests, hydrovacing, or trenching (ANSI C810-17 Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service Lines, 2017).
The EPA is proposing that water systems designate any service line whose material cannot be confirmed by
the rule compliance date as unknown. The EPA believes that water systems need accurate information about the number and locations of lead service lines in order to effectively implement actions to reduce drinking water lead exposure. The Agency also recognizes that many systems do not have complete records and that excavating test pits can be expensive and may disturb lines, resulting in lead release. The Agency believes that treating unknown lines as lead will provide an incentive for water systems to collect information on the composition of service lines through their normal maintenance activities such as meter calibration, because doing so would reduce the burden associated with other aspects of the rule, such as LSLR and notification to LSL customers. If a service line of unknown material is determined to be non-lead, it would reduce the number of LSLs required to be replaced each year should the water system exceed the action level. Fewer service lines of unknown material would also result in reduced burden associated with delivery of customer LSL notification and fewer goal-based or mandatory LSLR should the water system exceed the lead trigger level or action level, if the unknowns are identified as non-lead. If any service lines originally inventoried as non-lead are later discovered to be LSLs, these service lines would be included for establishing replacement rates and for conducting outreach to customers with LSLs. This requirement follows the recommendation provided to the EPA by the NDWAC, to grant water systems the flexibility to create an inventory that allows for the uncertainty of service line materials that cannot be verified by records or other means within three years, while at the same time ensuring that consumers potentially served by an LSL are provided adequate protections. For example, water systems would provide targeted public education to consumers served by a service line of unknown material, informing them that their service line may be an LSL and advising them about actions they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. Without this public education, consumers drinking water delivered by a service line of unknown material may not have any awareness of the potential risk of lead exposure from their drinking water or how to reduce their risk.
Under this proposal, while water systems would assume unknown service lines are LSLs for purposes of establishing replacement rates and for conducting outreach to customers with LSLs, they would not include these sites in their Tier 1 tap sampling pool. The proposed tap sample tiering requirements designate sites served by an LSL as Tier 1 to assure prioritization of sites that are the most likely to yield elevated lead levels in drinking water, therefore the EPA is proposing to exclude service lines of unknown material from Tier 1 classification to prevent the dilution of the Tier 1 sample pool with potential non-LSL sites. ASDWA's white paper on LSL inventories summarizes how service lines of unknown material are treated in inventories around the country. Illinois, California, and Michigan allow water systems to designate service lines as “unknown” in their inventories. In California, water systems must include service lines of unknown material in their LSLR plan “to encourage water systems to investigate their unknown lines.” (Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). Michigan water systems can include service lines of unknown material in their initial inventory due January 1, 2020, however by January 1, 2025, they must have verified all service line materials, with the option to document any instances of customer denial to access private property to inspect the customer-owned service line (State of Michigan, 2017). The EPA requests comment in Section VII of this notice on the appropriate treatment of unknown lines in an inventory.
Galvanized service lines can contribute to lead in drinking water due to lead in the zinc coating, or absorption of lead particles in corrosion scales if they are or have ever been downstream of an LSL (McFadden et. al., 2011; HDR, 2009). The proposed rule would define galvanized service lines that are currently or were formerly downstream of an LSL, as an LSL. Therefore, these lines would be listed in the LSL inventory, counted in the replacement rate calculation, and included in the notifications delivered to consumers of LSLs. Michigan's updated LCR takes a similar approach, requiring replacement of galvanized service lines “if the service line is or was downstream of lead piping” (State of Michigan, 2017). The proposed tap sample tiering requirements would not allow these galvanized service lines to be considered LSLs for purposes of collecting tap samples to assure prioritization of sites that are the most likely to yield elevated lead levels in drinking water, such as those made of one hundred percent lead.
D. Lead Service Line Replacement
The current rule requires water systems with optimized corrosion control treatment (OCCT) to replace LSLs after exceeding the lead action level. Although the water system must meet an annual LSLR rate of seven percent, the current rule allows for water systems to meet the requirement without conducting any full LSLRs because a water system can count an LSL as replaced if the service line is “tested out” or partially replaced. LSLs are “tested out” when sampling shows lead concentrations at or below 15 µg/L throughout the entire profile of the service line. Additionally, many communities around the country split ownership of the service line between the water system and the customer, which can often result in a partial LSLR being conducted when the customer does not agree to have his or her portion removed. “Test outs” and partial LSLR both count as replacements under the current rule, but neither are as effective at reducing lead in drinking water as full LSLR.
Additionally, the current rule does not require the water system to plan for its LSLR program before it is required to conduct mandatory LSLR. Water systems must work out the technical, financial, customer coordination, and other logistics of starting a LSLR program in the same period they must begin replacement of LSLs. This approach can create challenges for the water system because planning for LSLR takes time, which jeopardizes the system's ability to meet the seven percent replacement rate. It could also render LSLR more expensive if the water system has not evaluated and optimized the operational and financial aspects of LSLR.
1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan
The EPA is proposing that all water systems with LSLs or service lines of unknown material, and regardless of their 90th percentile lead level, must prepare an LSLR plan. Under this proposal, a water system would submit the plan by three years after the final rule publication date. Developing an LSLR plan while creating an LSL inventory provides efficiencies in the planning process and will prepare water systems to quickly commence a goal-based, or mandatory full LSLR program should they exceed the lead trigger or action level, or to coordinate a replacement with an emergency repair or a customer initiating a replacement of their line.
Under this proposal, the plan would include procedures to conduct full LSLR and to alert and inform consumers before a full or partial lead service line replacement. It must also include a lead service line replacement goal rate,
developed in coordination with the State, should the water system exceed the lead trigger level. To address short term increases in lead levels following LSLR, the plan must include a pitcher filter tracking and maintenance system and flushing procedures for the service line and premise plumbing inside the home. Water system organizations, such as AWWA, have developed guidance and procedures for LSLR and flushing that a water system could use or reference in its LSLR plan. The plan must also include a funding strategy for conducting lead service line replacements.
In the plan's funding strategy, the water system would identify how it will pay for the replacement of the water system-owned portion of the LSL, such as through its capital improvement fund or the use of a low-interest rate loan from the DWSRF. Although water systems are not required to pay for replacement of customer owned lead service lines, the EPA encourages water systems to develop programs to financially assist these customers in replacing their lead service lines. The EPA has identified several types of assistance, such as loans and grants from the federal government or funded by rate revenue, as well as private funding partnerships (Strategies for Achieving Full LSLR, docket EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).
The LSLR plan would include a procedure for customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of particulate lead. Flushing reduces particulate lead that may have been released into drinking water after LSL disturbance or replacement. For purposes of the flushing requirements in the proposed rule, the EPA considers a service line disturbance as planned work or an emergency repair that requires water service to the consumer be shut off. Water shutoffs can disturb lead pipes due to hydraulic scouring as the water is turned back on, and if shut off for an extended period of time, can cause the lead scales on the pipe interior to dry and flake off. Under this proposed rule, these disturbances would require consumer flushing instructions to be delivered to the consumer before their water is turned back on. Although other types of pipe disturbances may occur, such as vibration from the work of other utilities (for example, gas and electric utilities), the water system may not always be aware of the other utilities' activities. Defining pipe disturbance based on when water service is temporarily shut off ensures the water system is aware of the disturbance and can execute the proposed flushing requirement. For disturbances caused by other utilities, the EPA encourages water systems to inform other utilities of the potential for LSL disturbance to cause elevated lead levels in drinking water and attempt to coordinate with them on development and implementation of measures to reduce disturbances and mitigate impacts.
The replacement of a meter, gooseneck, pigtail, or connector entails disconnecting and reconnecting the LSL, it is expected to be a more significant disturbance of the LSL than when the water service is temporarily shut off. Therefore, the EPA is proposing additional risk mitigation measures for these disturbances. Under this proposal the water system would be required to provide flushing instructions, as well as deliver the consumer a pitcher filter certified to remove lead along with three months of replacement cartridges for risk mitigation.
The EPA is proposing that regardless of their 90th percentile lead level, water systems must replace lead goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors owned by the water system as they are encountered in the course of planned or emergency infrastructure work, such as main replacement. This proposed requirement was recommended by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2015). Water systems that replace lead goosenecks, pigtails and connectors would be required within 24 hours to notify consumers of the replacement and provide flushing instructions and a pitcher filter and replacement cartridges to last for three months. Water systems would be required to collect a follow up tap sample after three months but no later than six months after the gooseneck, pigtails, or connector is replaced. In many cases, routine infrastructure work involves the excavation of the water main under the street and exposure of the goosenecks, which then undergo reconnection to the new main. The EPA expects that mandatory replacement of these connectors as they are encountered would provide a beneficial and lower burden opportunity for the water system to remove a lead source from its distribution system. The water system is encouraged but not required to engage with the customer to coordinate replacement of a customer-owned lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; however, the water system would not be required to bear the cost of replacement of the customer-owned materials under this proposal. Replacement of a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector regardless of ownership would not count towards goal-based or mandatory LSLR rates.
2. Partial Lead Service Line Replacement
The EPA sought an evaluation by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of current scientific data to assess the effectiveness of partial LSLRs in reducing water lead levels. 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. However, the SAB concluded that partial LSLRs have not been shown to reliably reduce drinking water lead levels and may even increase lead exposure in the short-term of days to months, and potentially even longer. The NDWAC recommended requiring full LSLR except during emergency repairs or infrastructure improvement projects when a customer is unable or unwilling to replace their portion of the LSL (NDWAC, 2015).
Based upon the SAB's and the NDWAC's recommendations, the EPA is proposing to eliminate current requirements for water systems to only replace the portion of the LSL that is owned by the water system, if any, in situations where customers do not choose to replace the portion of the line that is owned by the customer. Typically, if a water system owns a portion of the service line, it is the portion that connects the water main under the street to the customer-owned portion of the service line, which often begins at the curb-box or water meter. The proposed changes to the LSLR requirements would remove the compliance incentive to conduct partial LSLR that is inherent in the current rule. The EPA recognizes that certain activities, such as emergency repairs (
i.e.,
a water main break that must quickly be repaired) or planned infrastructure improvements (
i.e.,
a water main replacement program) may still need to proceed regardless of customer participation and may result in unavoidable pipe disturbances and at times, partial LSLR. For example, a water system replacing a water main as part of its capital improvement program may encounter LSLs on both the water system- and customer-owned portions of the service line. If a single customer served by an LSL does not accept the water system's offer to replace the customer-owned portion (the water system is not required to bear the cost of replacement), the water system may proceed to conduct a partial LSLR at that location in order to complete the main replacement project. In another scenario, a water system-owned portion
of an LSL could fail, requiring emergency replacement. In this case, the water system would be allowed to replace just the water system-owned portion should the customer refuse or is unable to have his or her portion replaced.
Whenever a water system conducts partial LSLR, it would be required to notify the affected consumers and follow the risk mitigation procedures in their LSLR plan to ensure that customers are promptly alerted and informed of the actions they can take to reduce their exposure to lead following the partial LSLR, when concentrations of lead in drinking water are expected to be the highest. These proposed risk mitigation steps required after partial LSLR include customer notification, delivering flushing guidance to remove particulate lead, providing a pitcher filter certified to remove lead in accordance with applicable standards established by the American National Standards Institute, as well as replacement cartridges to last no less than three months, and taking a tap sample after three months, but no more than six months after the partial LSLR. Tap sample results would be provided to the consumer within 30 days, unless the tap sample exceeds the lead action level, in which case the EPA proposes notifying the customer within 24 hours. The same mitigation steps would also be required if a water system undertook a full lead service line replacement (see section III.D.3 of this notice).
The EPA is proposing that all water systems with LSLs, regardless of their 90th percentile level, must replace the water system-owned portion of the LSL when a customer replaces their portion of the LSL. Water systems would have to include information about this requirement in their annual notification to LSL customers. In those cases where a customer notifies the system in advance of replacing the customer portion of an LSL, the EPA is proposing that the water system make a good faith effort to coordinate replacement with the customer to minimize disturbances that may result in particulate lead release and to prevent a partially replaced LSL from being left in place. The water system would also have 45 days from learning of the customer's replacement or intention to replace his or her-owned portion of the LSL to replace the portion owned by the water system. Given that water systems routinely perform construction involving installation and replacement of water mains and service lines, and that the logistics of LSLR have been established in its LSLR plan, the EPA believes that it is feasible for water systems to replace their portion of a lead service line within 45 days of notification of the customer-initiated replacement, however the Agency requests comment in Section VII of this notices on whether a longer or shorter time frame is appropriate. In cases where the water system learns that a customer has replaced the customer-owned portion of LSL and the replacement has occurred more than three months in the past, the water system is not required to complete the lead service line replacement.
After a LSLR, the EPA proposes that water systems deliver flushing instructions to the customer, provide a pitcher filter certified to remove lead with replacement cartridges to last three months (the expected timeframe for lead levels to decrease following a lead service line replacement), and collect a follow-up tap sample after three months, but no later than six months after the LSLR.
The EPA is proposing that any water system that becomes aware that a customer has already replaced his or her portion of the LSL in the last three months be required to provide a filter to the home within 24 hours to mitigate the elevated lead levels associated with customer-initiated partial LSLR. Additionally, the water system would have 45 days after learning of the customer-owned LSLR to replace its portion of the LSL. If a water system is conducting goal-based or mandatory LSLR in the period which these replacements occur, the water system would count these replacements towards its goal or mandatory replacement rate. If the water system is notified of the customer-initiated replacement more than three months after the replacement occurred, it would not be required to replace its portion or provide a pitcher filter and replacement cartridges because the elevated lead levels associated with partial LSLR would be expected to have subdued.
3. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Trigger Level Exceedance
The EPA is proposing that, in addition to any requirements relating to CCT under 141.82(d) or 141.81(e) discussed above, CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons that exceed the trigger level for lead (10 µg/L) but do not exceed the action level for lead (15 µg/L) would be required to implement a full LSLR program with an annual replacement goal rate approved by the State, as stated in its LSLR plan. The goal rate would be established to require actions that will promote the elimination of a significant source of lead in those water systems with 90th percentile concentrations that are approaching the action level. This provision is designed to require water systems with higher lead levels to take steps to reduce lead exposure and upgrade their infrastructure.
There is widespread support at all levels for upgrading American's water infrastructure, including lead service line replacement. President Trump's 2020 budget proposes significant investment in infrastructure, directing $200 billion for priorities such as water infrastructure (The White House, 2019a). Lead service line replacement represents an opportunity to replace water infrastructure which can be over one hundred years old, constructed with material specifications not lawful for use in new plumbing products today, which can create risk of lead exposure to Americans. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signaled the Agency support of water infrastructure projects and their ability to create jobs, noting that since 2017 the EPA water infrastructure loans have totaled over $2 billion and will create 6,000 jobs (The White House, 2019b). In a policy statement, the American Water Works Association encouraged communities to “develop a lead reduction strategy that includes identifying and removing all lead service lines over time” and supported the NDWAC's recommendations for the “complete removal of lead service lines while ensuring optimal corrosion control measures” (AWWA, 2017). The EPA is also aware of many communities and water systems across the country that are choosing to conduct LSLR proactively. The proposed LCR incorporates actions that water systems can take to encourage full LSLR irrespective of the lead action level, helping to spur removal of lead sources rather than waiting to act only after consumers have already been exposed to greater levels of lead.
The flexibility of the goal based LSLR provision allows water systems with higher lead levels make manageable progress in reducing lead exposure and upgrading their infrastructure. The State could take multiple factors into account when setting the goal rate, such as the number of LSLs in the distribution system, planned infrastructure improvement programs, as well as the financial circumstances of the water system and its customers. The EPA believes that as communities conduct projects to replace aging infrastructure, they can replace lead service lines as part of these projects. This will reduce costs and minimize the disruption to their customers. Madison, WI stated in its Federalism letter to the EPA that it
“achieved cost-saving efficiencies through effective planning that concentrated capital improvement projects in the lead service area. Lead service replacement costs never exceeded 20% of our annual capital budget. In addition, the compressed schedule and coordination with local plumbing contractors led to reduced mobilization costs.” The EPA expects that systems that exceed the trigger level will consider integrating lead service line replacements into their planned infrastructure replacement activities.
The EPA is proposing that a water system may discontinue its goal-based LSLR program after two consecutive annual monitoring periods at or below the lead trigger level, which equates to two years where the lead 90th percentile is consistently at or below the trigger level. The EPA is also proposing that a water system that does not meet its annual LSLR goal must conduct proposed outreach activities as described in 141.85(g). (See Section III.F.2. of this notice). The proposed rule also provides the EPA authority to determine a different goal-based replacement rate, if appropriate.
4. Lead Service Line Replacement After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
The EPA is proposing that CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons that exceed the lead action level would be required to conduct mandatory full LSLR at a minimum rate of three percent annually. Small CWSs serving 10,000 persons or fewer people as well as Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) of all sizes have compliance alternatives, outlined in Section C below. The mandatory replacement rate would be applied to the number of inventoried LSLs at the time the action level is first exceeded plus the number of service lines of unknown material.
The EPA is proposing to reduce the mandatory minimum LSLR rate from seven percent to three percent, but to allow only full LSLRs to count towards the replacement rate. This differs from the current rule, which allows for “test-outs” and partial LSLR to count as “replaced.” Partial LSLR removes only a portion of the LSL, usually the water system-owned portion and may, in the short-term, increase lead concentrations at the tap (USEPA, 2011). Test-outs allow an individual LSL to remain in place but be counted as “replaced” if the lead concentration in all service line samples from that line are less than or equal to 15 µg/L. Studies have shown that LSLs which have been “tested-out” may contribute to lead release in drinking water at a later date (Del Toral et. al., 2013). Due to concerns that the practices of both “test-outs” and partial LSLR contribute to lead exposure, the EPA is proposing to eliminate these practices. While the current rule requires seven percent LSLR after a lead ALE, the EPA is aware that compliance is not necessarily achieved by conducting full LSLR. A Black and Veach survey of water systems found that LSLR was comprised of 72 percent partial replacements (USEPA, 2004b). The EPA best professional judgement used in the proposed rule's economic analysis assumes that due to the cost-savings of test-outs over LSLR, that 25 percent of CWSs serving more than 10,000 people would take an LSL sample before replacing the LSL, and that 80 percent of LSLs would meet the test-out criteria. Given these assumptions, the proposed rule requirement of three percent full replacement would likely result in a greater number of full LSLR in comparison to the current rule's seven percent replacement. Similar to the current rule, the State would be required to set a shorter LSLR schedule, taking into account the number of LSLs in the system, where such a shorter replacement schedule is feasible. For example, if the water system has a very low number of LSLs compared to its total number of service lines, the State would determine it is feasible for the water system to replace greater than three percent of full LSLs per year and require the water system to do so.
The mandatory LSLR rate would be applied to the number of inventoried LSLs when the water system first exceeds the action level, plus the number of service lines of unknown material. Should the water system subsequently exceed the lead action level again, the water system would continue to use the original number of LSLs and unknowns, used following the first exceedance of the lead action level, for the LSLR rate calculation. In other words, the water system would not revise the LSLR rate using the number of LSLs at the time of the subsequent lead action level exceedance. The minimum mandatory three percent LSLR rate is intended to eliminate LSLs within approximately 33 years of exceeding the action level. If the water system updated the LSLR rate based on its current number of LSLs whenever it exceeded the lead action level, the replacement timeframe would reset to an additional 33 years each time, significantly delaying LSLR. Service lines of unknown material discovered to be non-lead would not be considered replaced nor contribute to the LSLR rate. Verifying that a service line of unknown material is non-lead would, however, reduce the total number of replacements required per year by adjusting the initial number of LSLs in the distribution system. If verifying a service line of unknown material as non-lead was counted as a LSLR, the water system could effectively remove less than three percent of its actual number of LSLs per year. It could also incentivize water systems against creating a thorough LSL inventory upfront, because should they exceed the lead action level, they could achieve compliance with the less costly service line verification as opposed to full LSLR. For these reasons, the proposed rule would not count verifying service lines of unknown material as non-lead as a LSLR. The proposed rule allows flexibility for water systems to include service lines of unknown materials in their inventory and verify them at their own pace, while avoiding disincentivizing or discouraging full LSLR.
The EPA is aware of several full LSLR programs throughout the nation that have been largely successful (EDF, 2019), sometimes achieving a significant number of full LSLR at replacement rates well above three percent. Even when LSLR is coupled with the pace of a water system's capital improvement work, communities are conducting LSLR rates between 1 and 17 percent annually (USEPA, 2019a).The State of Michigan's revised LCR requires all water systems to fully remove LSLs proactively at the rate of five percent, and at the rate of seven percent when the lead action level is exceeded (State of Michigan, 2017).
Under this proposal, a water system that has exceeded the action level may cease its mandatory LSLR program after four consecutive six-month monitoring periods below the lead action level. This equates to two years of six-month monitoring with 90th percentile values consistently at or below the lead action level, which provides the water system assurance that distribution system chemistry has stabilized, especially if CCT was installed or re-optimized after the exceedance. The water system would be in violation of the LCR treatment technique if it fails to meet the annual three percent full replacement rate unless the water system obtains documented refusals from all customers served by an LSL to participate in the replacement program. This mechanism is intended to be used towards the end of a LSLR program, where a small number of customers remain who do not consent to have the customer-owned portion of the LSL
replaced. The EPA is proposing this provision to allow for situations where customers' decisions are outside of the system's control but is not meant as a substitute for the water system making a meaningful effort to engage with customers to meet the three percent full replacement rate.
Although this proposal lowers the required LSLR rate from seven percent to three percent, the elimination of “test-outs” and partial LSLRs and the requirement for full LSLR will result in greater reductions in exposure to lead in drinking water. The EPA estimates that the proposed mandatory three percent and the goal-based LSLR requirements of the rule would result in an incremental increase of 205,452 to 261,701 full LSLRs over a 35-year period compared to the current rule (see Appendix C, Exhibit C.1 of the Economic Analysis for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019)). The EPA is also requesting comment in Section VII of this notice on an alternative sampling technique for sampling locations with lead service lines. As indicated in section VI.F.2 of this notice, this alternative would increase the numbers of systems that would be required to take actions including LSLR. The EPA has estimated that other proposed rule provisions may also influence LSLR. For example, consumers will learn from their water system if they are served by an LSL, about the risks of lead in drinking water, and about the actions they can take to reduce lead in drinking water and remove their LSL. Some of these customers are expected to voluntarily initiate LSLR, regardless of the water system's 90th percentile lead level. These provisions are expected to result in approximately 214,000 to 350,000 LSLRs over the next 35 years. The EPA has not evaluated to what extent these anticipated voluntary LSLRs may be additional to the LSLRs undertaken in systems with 3% or goal-based LSLR requirements. The EPA also estimates that the availability of DWSRF program loans and subsidies to fund customer-side LSLRs is expected to result in an estimated 149,200 full LSLRs over 35 years with approximately 91% of the funds used for proactive LSLR as opposed to mandatory LSLR that is required after exceeding the lead action level (USEPA, 2019d). As the proposed requirements in this section require the water system to complete any consumer-initiated LSLR, these replacements are expected to result in full replacements.
E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
Under the current LCR, small and medium water systems (
i.e.,
systems serving 50,000 or fewer people) are not required to implement CCT unless the water system exceeds the lead action level. The EPA has determined that greater flexibility is needed for small Community Water Systems (CWSs) and all Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) because they tend to have more limited technical, financial, and managerial capacity to implement complex treatment techniques. 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). These challenges include, but are not limited to: (1) Lack of adequate revenue or access to financing; (2) aging infrastructure; (3) retirement of experienced system operators and the inability to recruit new operators to replace them; (4) managers and operators who lack the requisite financial, technical or managerial skills; (5) lack of planning for infrastructure upgrades or the ability to respond to and recover from natural disasters (
e.g.,
floods or tornadoes); and (6) lack of understanding of existing or new regulatory requirements and treatment technologies. As a result, some small systems may experience frequent or long-term compliance challenges in reliably providing safe water to their customers while others may be in compliance now but lack the technical capacity to maintain compliance (OIG, 2006).
The EPA is proposing three compliance alternatives for a lead action level exceedance to allow increased flexibility for small CWS that serve 10,000 or fewer people and four compliance alternatives for NTNCWS of any size. The proposed rule would allow these water systems to choose among options, which would allow them to select the most financially and technologically viable strategy that is effective in reducing lead in drinking water. The EPA is proposing the following compliance alternatives for small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) installation and maintenance of OCCT, or (3) installation and maintenance of point-of-use (POU) devices. The EPA is proposing the above three flexibilities for NTNCWS and an additional option of replacement of all lead bearing plumbing fixtures at every tap where water could be used for human consumption. The NTNCWS must have control of all plumbing materials to select this option.
Under this proposal, small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead and copper action levels would need to evaluate the 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 exceeds the lead action level. The State would need to approve the recommendation within six months of submittal. In the event these water systems exceed the lead action level, they must implement the State-approved compliance option.
Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for implementation of optimized CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action level would be required to implement the State-approved option for CCT in accordance with proposed requirements in § 141.81(e). Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for the POU option and subsequently exceed the lead action level, would be required to implement a POU program on a schedule specified by the State, but not-to-exceed three months. Small water systems that select and are approved for LSLR and subsequently exceed the lead action level would be required to replace all LSLs on a schedule specified by the State, not-to-exceed 15 years.
Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead action level but not the copper action level, had not previously exceeded the trigger level, would need to evaluate the compliance alternatives and make a recommendation to the State within six months. The State must approve the system's recommendations within six months; these water systems would then implement the State-approved compliance option on a schedule specified by the State.
1. Lead Service Line Replacement
The EPA is proposing that NTNCWSs and small CWSs with LSLs that exceed the lead action level of 15 µg/L may choose to fully replace all of their LSLs until none remain. Those that choose this compliance alternative would need to ensure they have the authority or consent to remove the customer-owned portion of every LSL in its distribution system. 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 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 need to be continually operated and maintained. Rather than split resources between installing CCT and conducting LSLR, this proposal allows resources to be focused on LSLR to accelerate completion of the program and permanently remove a significant potential source of lead in drinking water. Water systems would have to replace LSLs on a schedule approved by the State not to exceed 15 years. The EPA has determined in its analysis that water systems with a small number of LSLs may find that removing relatively few LSLs is more cost effective than installing and maintaining optimized CCT indefinitely, and logistically less burdensome than installing and maintaining POU devices (see section VI.C.4 of this notice).
2. Corrosion Control Treatment
The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and maintain optimized CCT as a compliance alternative after exceeding the lead action level. The EPA has determined in its analysis that some water systems may choose this alternative as the most effective and viable strategy for reducing lead in drinking water (
e.g.,
small water systems with many LSLs to replace or a large number of households that would make installation and maintenance of POU devices logistically challenging) (see section VI.C.4 of this notice). The EPA is proposing to require water systems, including small water systems, that have already installed CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action level to re-optimize CCT.
3. Point-of-Use Devices
The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and maintain POU devices certified to remove lead as a compliance alternative to a lead action level exceedance in lieu of CCT and LSLR. The EPA proposes to require small CWSs to provide a minimum of one POU device per household, regardless of whether that household is served by an LSL, to ensure the residents can access filtered water from at least one tap. Since system-wide CCT is not being provided under this option, even homes 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. The EPA proposes to require 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 would be 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 most effective and viable compliance alternative (see section VI.C.4 of this notice). Small CWSs would need to ensure water system personnel have access to the homes of the residents to install and maintain the POU devices, including changing the filters.
4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
The EPA is proposing to provide an additional compliance alternative for NTNCWS. Under this proposal, a NTNCWS that has control over all plumbing in its buildings may choose to replace all lead bearing plumbing in response to a lead action level exceedance. Research has shown that corrosion of lead bearing premise plumbing has the potential to leach higher levels of lead in drinking water (Elfland et. al., 2010). Lead from premise plumbing contributes on average 20-35 percent of lead in drinking water where an LSL is present (AwwaRF, 2008), and could potentially represent an even greater percentage where no LSL is present. The EPA proposes that the replacement of all lead bearing plumbing occur on a schedule set by the State which must not exceed one year. The EPA is proposing this compliance alternative only apply to NTNCWS, because it is highly unlikely that a small CWS has access to every residence and building it serves or that the CWS has the authority to inspect and require replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing materials in these locations.
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 monitoring period in which the action level exceedance occurred. The purpose of public education is to inform consumers that the water system has exceeded the action level, provide information about the health effects of lead, the sources of lead in drinking water, actions consumers can take to reduce exposure, and explain why there are elevated levels of lead and actions the water system is taking. Targeted public education for customers with an LSL or a service line of unknown material is intended to raise awareness of people in a household that may have higher lead exposures so that consumers may take actions to reduce exposure to lead and participate in LSLR programs.
The EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory health effects language required for public education materials as follows.
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.
The EPA is also proposing enhancements to improve consumer awareness and collaboration efforts with community organizations to communicate lead risks. Proposed enhancements include a requirement for systems to update public education materials with revised mandatory health effects language and for systems with lead service lines to include information about lead service line replacement programs and opportunities available to customers for replacement. In addition, the EPA is proposing to modify requirements to provide customers with their tap sample results within 24 hours if the sample is greater than the action level of 15 μg/L, while maintaining the current rule requirement to provide tap sample results within 30 days for samples less than or equal to the action level. The EPA is proposing these additional actions while retaining the current rule requirements for public education following a lead action level exceedance.
1. Notification for Customers With a Lead Service Line
The EPA is proposing to require water systems to conduct an LSL inventory and provide public access to the inventory information (see section III.C.1 of this notice). The EPA is proposing a new requirement for water systems with LSLs to provide notification to households served by an LSL and with unknown service line material, to include information on: The health effects and sources of lead in drinking water (including LSLs), how to have water tested for lead, actions
customers 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. The EPA is proposing that a water system provide this notification to existing customers served by an LSL and service lines of unknown material within 30 days of completing its LSL inventory and for new customers that initiate new water service from a home or building with an LSL or a service line of unknown material at the time service (
i.e.,
billing) is initiated. This proposal would require CWSs to send a notification on an annual basis to customers until the LSL is replaced or the unknown service line is determined not be an LSL. This notification must include a section describing programs that provide innovative financing solutions for customers seeking to replace their portion of a lead service line. Small systems may wish to refer to a national information source, such as one provided by EPA; large systems may wish to tailor such information to their circumstances. This section must also include a clear explanation of how the water system defines ownerships of lead service lines, who has financial responsibility for the replacement, and the legal basis for that determination. Additionally, the EPA proposes that CWSs provide notification to LSL and unknowns service line customers informing them of actions consumers can take to reduce their exposure including replacing their lead service line when they exceed the lead trigger level of 10 µg/L but do not exceed the lead action level of 15 µg/L. The EPA believes that these proposed notification requirements have value for both occupants of rental properties as well as homeowners. Information regarding the existence of an LSL will provide important information for renters on potential lead exposure in their home and could prompt a communication with their landlord regarding lead service line replacement. Occupants of rental properties will also benefit from the information on other actions they can take to reduce lead exposure in drinking water. The CWS must provide the same information noted above and include an invitation to participate in the LSLR program and repeat the notice annually until it is at or below the lead trigger level.
2. Outreach Activities After Failing To Meet a Lead Service Line Replacement Goal
The EPA is proposing to require CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons that fail to meet their annual LSLR goal to conduct public outreach activities. Failure to meet the LSLR goal would not be a violation, however, failure to conduct public outreach activities would result in a treatment technique violation. To increase customer awareness of the potential higher exposure to lead from a LSLR and advance customer interest in participating in the goal based LSLR program, the EPA proposes that water systems conduct annual public outreach activities until the water system meets its replacement goal. Water systems can stop their goal LSLR program when tap sampling shows that the 90th percentile of lead is at or below the trigger level for two consecutive monitoring periods. To enhance community engagement and allow water system flexibility as suggested by the NDWAC, the EPA is proposing to provide options to meet this requirement, so water systems can conduct effective community engagement. A water system that does not meet its LSLR goal rate would select one of the proposed outreach activities that would be most appropriate for that community. Outreach activities include one or more of the following activities: (1) A social media campaign (
e.g.,
face book, twitter), (2) outreach to organizations representing plumbers and contractors to discuss identification of LSLs during home repair, (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) direct contact (by phone or in person) to customers to discuss LSLR program and opportunities for LSLR, or (6) obtain written refusal from all LSL customers to participate in the LSLR program. Water systems would be required to complete at least one activity in the year following failure to meet the replacement goal. If the water system continues to fail to meet the annual replacement goal in the following year, the EPA is proposing that the number of efforts be increased to two per year to promote participation in the LSLR program. The NDWAC recommended this approach to enhance engagement with homeowners and promote their participation in LSLR programs. Water systems would provide written certification to the State that they have conducted the required outreach activities under this proposal.
3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach
The EPA proposes for any individual tap sample that exceeds the lead action level of 15 µg/L, the water system would notify consumers at the site within 24 hours of learning of the lead tap sampling result. This is in addition to the current 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 the lead action level, the 30-day notice will remain in effect. Under this proposal, water systems that have individual tap samples greater than 15 µg/L would also be required to implement the “find-and-fix” provisions as described in section III.K. of this notice.
In addition, the EPA is proposing that community water systems conduct annual outreach to State and local health agencies to explain the sources of lead in drinking water, discuss health effects of lead, and explore collaborative efforts. This annual outreach would help to ensure that caregivers and health providers hear and respond appropriately to information about lead in drinking water and 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).
G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water Sampling
Unlike most contaminants that are found in sources of drinking water, lead and copper enter drinking water as it moves through the distribution system and comes into contact with leaded materials, such as lead service lines, leaded solder, brass/bronze fittings, galvanized piping, faucets, and water meters. Therefore, measurements of lead and copper are taken at the consumers tap. Tap sampling is a fundamental part of the LCR designed to target sites expected to have the highest lead levels and is used to assess the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment and/or source water treatment in the water system. This is done through targeted site selection (
i.e.,
sampling locations with lead service lines) and the use of a tap sample collection protocol.
All CWSs and NTNCWSs must collect lead and copper tap samples. The water system may choose to have staff collect the samples if feasible, or have residents collect the samples. Due to the required six hour stagnation period prior to sample collection, it is often less
disruptive for the customer to collect the tap sample themselves. 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 should 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, the EPA recommends including more sampling sites in the pool of targeted sampling sites than the minimum number of tap samples required be identified. Under the proposed rule, water systems would be required to provide resident volunteers must be provided with a wide-mouth collection bottle each time and a tap sample collection protocol, including instructions on how the water system will pick up samples for laboratory analysis, which must be done within two weeks after the tap sample is drawn. The water system would then be required to calculate a 90th percentile separately for lead and copper at the end of each monitoring period. This 90th percentile value would be reported to the State and is used to determine whether the system must comply with other requirements of the rule, such as corrosion control treatment, public education and LSLR.
This proposal describes several revisions to the current LCR to improve tap sampling requirements in the areas of site selection tiering criteria, sample collection, and frequency provisions based on the lead 90th percentile level. The current LCR requires water systems to obtain samples from consumer's taps and use these samples to calculate their 90th percentile value. The EPA is proposing revisions to tap sampling procedures to increase the likelihood of capturing elevated lead levels by revising tap sample site selection criteria,
i.e.,
tiering, and ensuring tap sample protocols contain accurate instructions that will capture elevated lead levels at the tap. In addition, to improve transparency and raise consumer awareness, the EPA proposes to require water systems to make the results of all tap samples collected in accordance with 141.86(b) publicly available within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period.
1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites
The LCR requires water systems to select sites for tap sampling based on certain characteristics (
i.e.,
single family home, multi-family residence) and material of the service line (
i.e.,
lead, copper pipes with lead solder). Tiers establish the priority of sites selected for tap sampling, with tier 1 being the highest priority, or highest potential for elevated lead and tier 3 being the lowest priority. The EPA is proposing to revise the tiering criteria for selection of tap sampling sites to better target locations most likely to have higher levels of lead in drinking water.
The EPA is proposing that 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 in its sampling pool as Tier 1 sampling sites, as provided in the current LCR. The EPA is proposing that Tier 2 sampling sites for CWSs are buildings, including MFRs that are served by an LSL. The EPA also proposes that Tier 3 sampling sites for CWSs consist of single SFSs that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before the effective date of the applicable State's lead ban. The EPA is proposing 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). The EPA is not modifying the definition of a “representative site” but is referring to it as a “Tier 4” site. The revised tiering structure is outlined below.
Exhibit 1—Revised Lead and Copper Site Selection Criteria
Tier
CWSs
NTNCWSs
Tier 1
Collect samples from SFSs served by LSLs. Tier 1 samples can be collected from MFRs if they represent at least 20 percent of structures served by the water system
Collect samples from building.
Tier 2
Collect samples from buildings and MFRs served by LSLs
N/A.
Tier 3
Collect samples from SFSs with copper pipes with lead solder installed before
the effective date of the State's lead ban
Collect samples from buildings with copper pipe and lead solder installed before
the effective date of the State's lead ban.
Tier 4
Representative sample where the plumbing is similar to that used at other sites served
Representative sample where the plumbing is similar to that used at 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.
The 1991 LCR made a clear distinction between the copper pipes with lead solder installed after 1982, but before the effective date of applicable state lead ban and designated these sites as Tier 1. However, copper pipe with lead solder installed before 1983 are designated as Tier 3 sites. In the 1991 LCR, the EPA based this distinction on studies in which lead leaching from solder was found to decrease with age (USEPA, 1990; Oliphant, 1982) and, as a result, samples from copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983 were expected to have lower lead levels.
The EPA is basing its current proposal to revise the tiering criteria for lead solder on the increased understanding of corrosion mechanisms and sources of lead, in particular, lead from solder, as a result of the studies conducted since the 1991 rulemaking (for example, De Rosa and Williams, 1992; Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2010). Additionally, given that it has been over 30 years since lead solder was banned in all jurisdictions, and considering lead solder's ability to leach lead is reduced by age (USEPA, 1990), lead levels in samples collected from sites containing copper pipe with lead solder installed between 1983 and 1988 no longer present as significant a source of lead as assumed in 1991. Based on the most recent science, the EPA is proposing the above revisions to the tap sample site selection tiering criteria to assure prioritization of sites that are
currently the most likely to yield elevated lead levels in drinking water.
2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling
The EPA is proposing additional requirements for LSL water systems to enable prioritization of LSL sites in tap sampling. All water systems with LSLs or potential LSLs must re-evaluate their lead sampling sites based on their LSL inventory, prepared in accordance with this proposal. These water systems would also 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 this proposal, water systems with LSLs must collect all tap samples from sites with known LSLs if possible, increasing the likelihood of detecting elevated lead levels in the water system. The EPA is proposing that water systems use the most up-to-date information to select their tap sampling sites and prioritize sites with a higher likelihood of elevated lead. Under this proposal, water systems with an adequate number of LSL sites to meet the required minimum number of tap sampling sites outlined in exhibit 2 below, must calculate their lead 90th percentile using only tap samples from LSL sites (100 percent LSLs), as opposed to the current rule which allows water systems to use samples from at least half LSL sites.
Exhibit 2—Minimum Number of Lead and Copper Tap Samples by Water System Size, 40 CFR 141.86
(c)
System size
(number of people served)
Number of sites
(standard monitoring)
Number of sites
(reduced monitoring)
>100,000
100
50
10,001 to 100,000
60
30
3,301 to 10,000
40
20
501 to 3,300
20
10
101 to 500
10
5
<=100
5
5
The EPA is proposing 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, outlined in § 141.86(c), it may collect the remainder of the samples from non-LSL sites after all the LSL tap sampling sites are utilized. If the water system conducts tap sampling at non-LSL sites beyond what is required under § 141.86(c), the water system must include only the tap samples with the highest lead concentrations to meet the number of sites required for the 90th percentile calculation. This provision would ensure that additional tap samples collected above the minimum required, at sites that are less likely to detect lead at similar levels as LSL sites, cannot be used to “dilute” the lead 90th percentile level. Studies demonstrate that when present, LSLs represents the largest source of lead in tap water (Sandvig et al., 2008). Requiring use of only the highest lead levels from non-LSL sites for the 90th percentile calculation would increase the likelihood that sites with other major sources of lead, such as lead-bearing brass or bronze fixtures and galvanized service lines formerly downstream of an LSL, are captured in the calculation. Using non-LSL sites as part of the 90th percentile calculation is proposed to be utilized solely by water systems with fewer LSL tap sample sites than the number required under § 141.86(c). The EPA proposes that tap samples collected that are not used in the lead 90th percentile calculation must still be reported to the State.
The EPA is proposing to permit the use of grandfathered data to meet initial lead monitoring requirements if the data are from sites that meet the proposed tiering 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 revised tap sample site selection criteria, may use these data to satisfy the initial monitoring requirement. Initial tap sampling establishes the water system's sampling schedule and the number of tap samples it is required to collect. The EPA is proposing to permit grandfathered data for an LSL water system only if the data are from sites that meet the proposed tiering requirements (
i.e.,
all samples collected from LSL sites, if available). Any water system that is conducting tap monitoring every six months and intends to use these data for purposes of grandfathering, must use the higher lead 90th percentile level to establish the monitoring frequency and number of tap samples. The EPA is proposing that water systems that do not have qualifying grandfathered data must use the lead 90th percentile results from the first tap sampling period after the compliance date of the final rule. Following the establishment of the initial sampling schedule and number of tap samples (based on either grandfathered data or data collected during the first tap sampling period after the rule compliance date), the system would be required to commence the appropriate tap sampling schedule. The proposed criteria for using grandfathered data would ensure that historical data are used only if they are from samples with the highest potential lead concentrations.
No changes are being proposed to the copper sampling requirements in the current LCR. However, due to proposed increased tap sampling requirements for lead, each tap sample collected may not be required to be analyzed for both lead and copper. This is a result of the lead and copper tap sampling schedules diverging for some water systems. Under the current rule, any water system that exceeds either the lead or copper action level (15 µg/L or 1.3 mg/L, respectively), would conduct tap monitoring every six months for both lead and copper. Once a water system measures 90th percentile tap concentrations at or below the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive rounds of monitoring, the water system may reduce to annual monitoring for lead and copper. Water systems that meet the lead and copper action levels for three consecutive rounds of annual monitoring may reduce to triennial sampling at a reduced number of sites.
As discussed above, the EPA is proposing to establish a lead trigger level of 10 µg/L that would affect the tap sampling frequency. Under this proposal, water systems that exceed the lead trigger level of 10 µg/L but do not exceed the copper and lead action levels and that are conducting tap sampling on a triennial basis, would be required to begin annual tap sampling at the standard number of sites for lead but may remain on triennial sampling for copper at the reduced number of sites. Water systems that meet the lead trigger level for three consecutive years of annual monitoring and have also met the copper action level, may reduce their lead and copper tap sampling to a triennial basis at the reduced number of sites. Water systems that exceed the lead trigger level and are on annual monitoring would not be eligible for triennial monitoring for lead at a reduced number of sites until the lead 90th percentile result is at or below the lead trigger level for three consecutive years.
In this proposal, changes to reduced monitoring are contingent upon several factors, including but not limited to: Results of lead and copper tap sampling, the size of the water system (
i.e.,
small water system flexibilities), and maintaining water quality parameters (WQPs) if CCT is installed. The schedule for tap sampling may be affected when these factors change.
Opportunities for reduction in tap sampling frequency and number of sites are more stringent under this proposal compared to the current rule. A water system must not exceed the trigger level of 10 µg/L to move into a triennial monitoring schedule at the reduced number of tap sample sites for lead. The proposed revisions to tap sampling frequency and locations are meant to ensure more frequent tap sampling is occurring at the most representative sites to identify elevated lead levels.
3. Sample Collection Methods
The EPA is proposing several changes to the tap sampling protocol, consistent with the Agency's February 2016 memorandum (USEPA, 2016d). Under the current LCR, a one-liter sample is collected from the tap after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing system for at least six hours (
i.e.,
stagnation). This is a called a first-draw sample. Water systems provide residents with a protocol for carrying out tap sampling in accordance with the LCR, if the water system itself is not collecting the tap samples. The EPA is aware that some water systems have provided sampling procedures to residents that included recommendations that may inadvertently reduce the lead levels detected, including a recommendation to run water from the tap, called flushing, prior to initiating the required minimum 6-hour stagnation time. This practice is referred to as pre-stagnation flushing. With pre-stagnation flushing, the water from the tap is run until water from the LSL is flushed out, then the water is turned off for at least six hours prior to sample collection. Based on historical data and more recent studies (
e.g.,
Katner, et al. 2018; Del Toral et al., 2013), it is evident that pre-stagnation flushing may reduce measured lead levels at the tap compared to when it is not practiced. Flushing, or running taps, has long been understood to decrease water lead levels overall, 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). In addition, 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, the 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 samples to determine water system compliance with the LCR, this practice may mask potential higher lead exposure that may be representative of exposure in households that do not regularly flush taps before use. Therefore, EPA is proposing to prohibit pre-stagnation flushing in tap sampling protocols.
The EPA is also aware that some tap sampling protocols contain a recommendation to remove or clean 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 prior to or during 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. However, if customers only remove and clean the aerators prior to or during sample collection, the sample results will not be representative of household use, given residents are not cleaning or removing their aerators before every use. The EPA proposes to prohibit the recommendation to remove and/or clean the faucet aerator prior to or during the collection of lead and copper tap samples.
Based on current information, the EPA endorses best practices to optimize the tap sampling protocol, so that sample results represent the highest lead levels occurring at high risk locations. The EPA is proposing to require tap samples be collected in wide-mouth bottles. 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, therefore, water systems will be responsible for providing those conducting sampling with wide-mouth, one-liter sample bottles.
In summary, the EPA is proposing to prohibit the inclusion of pre-stagnation flushing in all tap sampling protocols, thereby preventing the systematic running of water from taps or faucets prior to beginning the minimum 6-hour stagnation time needed for sample collection. The EPA also proposes the prohibition of cleaning or removing of the faucet aerator in the tap sampling protocol, and a requirement that tap samples be collected in bottles with a wide-mouth configuration. The inclusion of a pre-stagnation flushing step, cleaning or removal of the faucet aerator, and/or using a narrow-necked bottle for collection, is inconsistent with the purpose of lead tap sampling, which is to target sites and collect tap samples in a manner the is likely to capture the highest lead levels. The EPA is also proposing that all water systems submit their sampling protocol to the State for approval prior to the compliance date. In addition, the EPA is also requesting comment on alternative changes to the sampling technique for sampling locations with lead service lines in section VII of this notice.
H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
Under the current LCR, water systems that have CCT must 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.
1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
The EPA is proposing several revisions to the WQP monitoring requirements of the current rule. Because the EPA is proposing to eliminate calcium carbonate stabilization as a potential option for CCT (see section III.B.3. of this notice), the WQPs associated directly with this CCT option will also be removed. These include all parameters related to calcium hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water temperature). The remaining WQP monitoring requirements from the current rule will be maintained. This change is due to recent evidence demonstrating that calcium carbonate stabilization is ineffective at preventing corrosion in lead and copper pipes (see section III.B.3.). The EPA is proposing to remove the three WQPs related to calcium hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water temperature) because the EPA is proposing to no longer allow calcium carbonate stabilization as a potential CCT option. In the current rule, after the water system selects their CCT choice, the State designates OWQPs and the water system must maintain these levels in the ranges determined by the State. In this proposal, the EPA is prioritizing the most effective CCT options and the associated WQPs. Thus, the less effective CCT option currently available, calcium carbonate stabilization, is proposed to be eliminated, together with the associated WQPs.
2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
The EPA is proposing that 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 μg/L. The additional WQP monitoring is a part of proposed revisions described under “find-and-fix” (see section III.K. of this notice) and would require water systems to collect follow-up lead tap samples at every sampling site that has an individual lead sample greater than 15 μg/L. This is proposed to be completed within 30 days of obtaining results of the individual sample greater than 15 μg/L. The EPA is also proposing 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 μg/L. This WQP monitoring is proposed to be completed within five days of receiving results of the individual lead sample greater than 15 μg/L. Water systems with existing distribution system WQP monitoring sites that meet the main size/proximity requirements can conduct the sampling at that location.
The EPA is proposing that any water system which adds sites for the purposes of WQP monitoring specified in this paragraph includes those additional sites in future WQP monitoring. The follow-up WQP samples will aid in determining whether OWQPs set by the State are being met by the water system. If any of the WQPs are off-target, such as pH or indicators of CCT, then the water system may be able to determine how large the problem is, and if it includes the whole water system, a specific area, or the sole residence with the lead action level exceedance. The additional WQP sample taken will aid in the determination of the potential cause of elevated levels of lead so that appropriate actions can be carried out.
3. Review of Water Quality Parameters During Sanitary Surveys
The EPA is proposing that both CCT and WQPs be assessed during sanitary surveys for water systems with CCT. The EPA proposes that States conduct a periodic review of WQP results and tap sampling results 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.
4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Requirements
In addition to the updates for WQP requirements previously specified, the EPA is proposing several supplementary changes to the current rule. First, water systems with CCT would continue collecting one sample for each applicable WQP at each entry point in the distribution system as required in the current rule with the added requirement to do so no less frequently than once every two weeks. Water systems with CCT need to continue bi-weekly monitoring to ensure their treatment techniques are optimal for reducing lead and copper corrosion.
The EPA is also proposing revisions to the prerequisites that are required for water systems to reduce the number of sites sampled and the frequency of WQP sampling. In order to reduce 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. The EPA is proposing 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. In order for the water system to reduce 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. The EPA is proposing that for every phase of potential reduced WQP monitoring, the water system would also be required to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level in addition to the current requirements. This would ensure that the required WQP monitoring sites and frequency continue when water systems have a high lead 90th percentile level. For a water system on reduced monitoring, the use of 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.
I. Source Water Monitoring
The current rule requires 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. The EPA is pro
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.