issue-1996-04-12•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-12
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-12
issue-1996-04-12Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-12Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9168 New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16237-16238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9168]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Parts 650 and 651
[I.D. 040396A]
New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold
a 2-day public meeting to consider actions affecting New England
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone.
DATES: The meeting will convene on Wednesday, April 17, 1996, at 10
a.m. and on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at 8:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Providence Biltmore Hotel,
Kennedy Plaza, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 421-0700.
Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New
England Fishery Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097;
telephone: (617) 231-0422.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas G. Marshall, Executive
Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (617) 231-0422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
April 17, 1996
The April 17, 1996, session will begin with reports from the
Council Chairman, Council Executive Director, NMFS Regional Director,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center liaison, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council liaison, and representatives from the Coast Guard,
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. A report on the
most recent meeting of the Council's Monkfish Committee will follow.
Discussion will include a review of the development of management
options for public hearing purposes.
The afternoon agenda will include a discussion on the gear conflict
emergency regulations and the Council will explore alternatives for
extending these emergency regulations, which are due to expire on June
25, 1996. Following that will be a report from the Council's Sea
Scallop Committee. The Council may initiate action on a framework
adjustment to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (Sea
Scallop FMP) that would allow some vessels fishing with dredges to also
use nets to harvest scallops, if they meet certain criteria. Sea
scallop regulations currently prohibit dredge vessels from using nets
to harvest scallops. The Herring Committee will report on its
deliberations concerning internal waters processing and joint venture
allocations for 1996-97.
April 18, 1996
On April 18, 1996, the Large Pelagics Committee will report to the
Council on the current situation in the fisheries for pelagic sharks,
swordfish, bluefin and other tunas, and on management issues and
activities for those fisheries. The Marine Mammal Committee will then
brief the Council on its recommendations concerning action to further
reduce the bycatch of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise and its
discussion on the status of the northern right whale. The Groundfish
Committee will discuss its recommendation to initiate action on a
framework adjustment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan (Northeast Multispecies FMP). The adjustment would modify days-at-
sea (DAS) allocated to sea scallop net vessels. A second framework
adjustment may be initiated for the purpose of implementing gillnet
effort restrictions to replace those measures currently proposed in
Amendment 7 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. The Council meeting will
conclude with a discussion of the Enforcement Committee's
recommendations on measures contained in the Amendment 7 proposed rule
and other broader enforcement issues. Any other outstanding business
will be addressed at the end of the day.
Abbreviated Rulemaking Action--Atlantic Sea Scallops
At the recommendation of its Scallop Committee, the Council will
consider initial action on Framework Adjustment 8 to the Sea Scallop
FMP under the framework for abbreviated rulemaking procedure contained
in 50 CFR 650.40. The Council proposes to allow vessels that have used
a scallop dredge 5 times or less from 1998 through 1994 to continue to
use a net to catch scallops. Other options for determining whether it
is impractical for vessels to use dredges include a change of owners,
total refitting of the vessel, and horsepower limits.
[[Page 16238]]
Abbreviated Rulemaking Action--Northeast Multispecies
The Council will consider initial action on Framework Adjustment 15
to the Northeast Multispecies FMP under the framework for abbreviated
rulemaking procedure contained in 50 CFR 651.40. The action is intended
to further reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine
sink gillnet fishery by increasing the area and possibly changing the
time period for the closure referred to as the Northeast Area,
currently in place from August 15 through September 13 of each fishing
year.
Two additional framework adjustments to the Multispecies FMP may be
initiated. One would adjust groundfish DAS allocations to scallop net
vessels and the other would implement alternative gillnet effort
reduction measures to replace Amendment 7 proposals.
The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two
Council meetings prior to making any final recommendations to the
Director, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Director) under the
provisions for abbreviated rulemaking cited above. If the Regional
Director concurs with the measures proposed by the Council, he will
publish them as a final rule in the Federal Register.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Douglas G. Marshall (see ADDRESSES) at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: April 8, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9168 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9165 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16234-16236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5453-9]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site
(EPA ID# CAT000646208) from the National Priorities List, request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces
its intent to delete the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site (the Site) in
Richmond, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 400 CFR Part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and
the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control have
determined that the Site poses no significant threat to human health or
the environment and, therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to
CERCLA are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL may be submitted by May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Keith Takata, Director, Superfund
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the EPA
Region 9 public docket which is located at EPA Region 9's Superfund
Records Center, at the address above, and is available for viewing
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Additional information on the Liquid Gold Superfund Site, including
that contained in the public docket, is also available for viewing at
the Site repository located at: State of California, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, 700 Heinz Avenue, 2nd floor, Berkeley, CA
94710-2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Lincoff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-2245
or
Ben Hargrove, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 700 Heinz Avenue,
2nd floor, Berkeley, CA 94710-2737, (510) 540-3845.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, announces its
intent to delete the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site, located in
Richmond, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests comments on this deletion. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. EPA identifies sites that present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the
NPL as a list of those sites. As described in Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in
the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site
and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from, or recategorized on the NPL when no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the
NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of
the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and
no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment, and
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and
[[Page 16235]]
unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a subsequent review of the
site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation
of the remedial action at the site to ensure that the site remains
protective of public health and the environment. Consistent with the
Operations and Maintenance Plan for the site, the State of California
Department of Toxic Substances Control will oversee the five-year
review of this final remedy in January, 1999. If new information
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate remedial actions. Wherever there is a significant release from
a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL
without the application of the Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this Site: (1) EPA Region 9 has recommended deletion and has prepared
the relevant documents; (2) The State of California has concurred with
the proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in the
local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state,
and local officials and other interested parties announcing the
commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of
Intent to Delete; and (4) All relevant documents have been made
available for public review in the local Site information repository.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
As mentioned in Section II of this Notice, Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions.
For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and
evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before
making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to
interested parties by the Regional Office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
A. Site Background
The Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Superfund Site is located in the
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, west of Interstate
580 and southwest of the Bayview West interchange. The Site is bounded
by Hoffman Marsh on the east and southeast, and by drainage channels
connecting to San Francisco Bay on the west and southwest. The area of
the Site is approximately 18 acres.
The Site is currently fenced and unoccupied. Current and expected
future zoning of the Site permits only commercial and industrial uses.
Land use restrictions selected as part of the Site remedy will also
permit only non-residential uses in the future.
B. History
The Site is owned by Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(``SPTCo'') and was leased to several tenants from the 1940s to the
early 1980s. An asphalt manufacturing plant was operated on the Site in
the 1940s and '50s. Later the Site was leased to the Liquid Gold Oil
Corporation (``Liquid Gold''), which operated an oil and solvent
collection, storage and transfer facility. In the 1970s and early '80s,
investigations by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the U.S. Coast Guard documented spills of oil and chemicals
at the Site. Liquid Gold cleaned up some surface spills after ceasing
operations in 1980, and then abandoned the facility. The Site was
placed on the California State Superfund List in January 1983, and on
the NPL in September, 1983.
The property owner, SPTCo, performed a number of interim response
actions prior to and after California and NPL listing. These actions
included the removal and off-site disposal of 25 bulk storage tanks in
1982 and '83; the removal and off-site disposal of 73 drums of
hazardous waste in 1984; the excavation and off-site disposal of 760
cubic yards of contaminated soil; and the demolition of remaining site
buildings and off-site disposal of the demolished buildings along with
some asbestos contaminated debris, in 1989. On January 13, 1988, DTSC
issued a Consent Order to SPTCo requiring completion of an RI/FS for
the Site.
C. Characterization of Risk
Site investigations included sampling and analysis of surface and
subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water, and marsh sediments. The
soils at the Site consist of 5-10 feet of fill material over the
original bay mud. The contaminants of potential concern which remained
in soils were lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (``PAHs'').
Average lead levels across the Site were low (42 ppm) and were well
below the most stringent health-based levels for residential use by
children (370 ppb). One subsurface area of approximately 5 acres in the
center of the Site contains elevated lead levels. The average lead
concentration in this area was 400 ppm. The average lead concentration
in the most contaminated layer (5-6.5 feet below ground surface) was
1,000 ppm. This area also has the highest PAH levels onsite with an
average of approximately 5 ppm. This area was identified as the area of
concern for the analysis of risks and remedial alternatives. PAH levels
for the rest of the Site were generally not detectable.
Due to the Site's proximity to San Francisco Bay, the groundwater
at the Site is naturally saline and is not a source of drinking water
under state or federal law. Average concentrations of copper, lead, and
nickel exceeded the State basin plan marine chronic water quality
objectives by roughly a factor of two.
The ecological assessment found evidence of biological stress in at
least one drainage channel leading away from the Site. The resource
agencies believed that there was also sufficient evidence to
demonstrate biological stress in another drainage channel. Although
chemical analyses did not clearly establish a link with Site
contaminants, the resource agencies believed that the makeup of the
biological communities in these areas was indicative of petroleum
contamination.
The human health risk assessment demonstrated that the interim
remedial measures performed at the Site had reduced the level of
contamination to acceptable levels for all uses permitted under current
zoning. Contaminant levels are also acceptable for trespassing
children. The risk assessment also considered the safety of a
hypothetical residential development even though residential
development would not be permitted under current zoning and is not
expected to occur. The results indicate that lead concentrations,
particularly in subsurface soils in the area of concern, could cause
unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks if childhood residential exposure
were to occur (using an uptake-biokinetic model derived criteria of 370
ppm). However, the maximum lifetime cancer risk levels are within EPA's
range of acceptable risk under both residential and commercial
scenarios.
[[Page 16236]]
D. Remedial Actions
In February, 1993 DTSC released a proposed plan and final RI/FS for
the Site.
The major components of the proposed remedy included:
--A deed restriction prohibiting residential development;
--Grading, addition of soil, and seeding to control runoff patterns;
--Groundwater monitoring for a minimum of five years; and
--Removal of sediments and debris from two drainage channels leading to
the adjacent marsh to mitigate possible past adverse impacts from
Liquid Gold.
A public meeting was held on March 30, 1993 to describe the
proposed remedy and receive comments. The Record of Decision for the
Site was issued by EPA on June 21, 1993 and selected the proposed
remedy without change. It was determined that the selected remedy would
provide overall protection of human health and the environment, comply
with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements of federal and
state environmental laws, and provide the best overall balance of
alternatives under the nine selection criteria of Section 300.430(f) of
the NCP.
A preliminary design meeting and Site inspection by regulatory
agencies occurred on August 13, 1993. The Draft Design Report was
submitted on October 12, 1993. Design approval was given by DTSC on
January 11, 1994. Construction began on July 5, 1994. Grading,
placement of clean fill, and excavation of marsh sediments were
completed, followed by the planting of native grasses and shrubs on the
new cap. An initial inspection was performed by regulatory agencies on
February 2, 1995 and additional sampling and minor cap repair were
required. The final Site inspection occurred on July 28, 1995. The
State certified completion of the remedy by letter dated August 14,
1995.
E. Community Relations Activities
Four fact sheets have been released describing activities at the
Site. In February, 1993, DTSC released a proposed plan and RI/FS for
the Site. Site documents were made available at the lead agency offices
and a local repository, and a public notice was published allowing 30
days for public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. A public
meeting was held on March 30, 1993 to describe the proposed remedy and
receive comments. Four members of the public asked questions at the
public meeting, and two written comments were received from the
community. The comments were favorable. DTSC responded to all comments
received during this period, which were primarily from other State
agencies. A fact sheet describing the remediation was released
approximately 30 days prior to the initiation of construction. Finally,
a public notice of this proposed deletion is being published
concurrently in a local newspaper.
F. Summary of Operation and Maintenance
The Operations and Maintenance Plan was finalized on July 24, 1995.
The plan provides for routine monitoring, inspection and maintenance of
the vegetated cap, fencing and groundwater wells, and submission of
reports. The plan also provides for inspection of the marsh channels
and biological testing.
The deed restriction for the Site, which prohibits residential use,
was signed on July 25, 1995 and recorded on September 13, 1995.
Southern Pacific provided financial assurance of its ability to perform
long-term O&M at the Site to the State on September 19, 1995.
SPTCo. has been required to monitor and report the quality of
groundwater in sixteen wells quarterly. Results to date consistently
indicate that contaminants, including metals, are not moving offsite
through groundwater.
G. Protectiveness
All the completion requirements for this Site have been met as
specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09, ``Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites.'' Specifically, all cleanup actions
specified in the ROD have been implemented. The human health risk
assessment performed during the remedial investigation demonstrated
that prior response measures performed at the Site had reduced the
level of contamination to acceptable levels for all uses permitted
under current zoning. A deed restriction prohibiting residential use is
in place. Ongoing confirmatory groundwater and marsh biological
sampling and capping with clean soil provide further assurance that the
Site no longer poses a threat to human health or the environment. The
only remaining activities to be performed are Operations and
Maintenance which will be performed by the property owner under a
written agreement with the State, pursuant to a State Order.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ``responsible parties or other parties
have implemented all appropriate response actions required.'' EPA, with
the concurrence of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met.
Consequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Regional NPL
Docket.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9165 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9115 Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries; Public Hearings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16236-16237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9115]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 630
[I.D.040896C]
Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS will hold four public hearings to receive comments from
fishery participants and other members of the public regarding proposed
amendments to regulations governing the Atlantic swordfish fisheries.
The proposed rule would: Reduce the total allowable catch to 2,625
metric tons dressed weight via a split season (June 1 - May 31),
decrease the minimum size to 73 cm (29 inches) cleithrum to caudal keel
measure and eliminate the trip allowance for undersized fish, and make
technical changes to ensure consistency of regulations.
To accommodate people unable to attend a hearing or wishing to
provide additional comments, NMFS also solicits written comments on the
proposed rule.
DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and times of the public
hearings. Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or
before May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the public hearing
locations. Written comments should be sent to William Hogarth, Acting
Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of
Fisheries Conservation and Management (F/CM), National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Clearly mark
the outside of the
[[Page 16237]]
envelope ``Atlantic Swordfish Comments.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Hogarth at 301-713-2339; Kevin
Foster at 508-281-9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed regulatory amendments that are
the subject of the hearings are necessary to improve management and
monitoring of the U.S. Atlantic swordfish fisheries, to implement
recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, and to enhance collection of data to improve assessment
of the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the fisheries.
A complete description of the measures, and the purpose and need
for the proposed action, is contained in the proposed rule published
April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15212) and is not repeated here. Copies of the
proposed rule may be obtained by writing (see ADDRESSES) or calling one
of the contact persons (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The public hearings are scheduled as follows:
Friday, April 19, 1996, Barnegat Light, NJ, 7-10 p.m.
Barnegat Light Firehouse
West 10th Street
Barnegat Light, NJ 08006
Monday, April 22, 1996, Silver Spring, MD, 2-5:00 p.m.
NOAA Building 4, Room 1W611 (Lobby Conference Room)
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tuesday, April 23, 1996, Fairhaven, MA, 7-10 p.m.
Seaport Inn (Nantucket Room)
110 Middle Street
Fairhaven, MA 02719
Thursday, April 25, 1996, New Orleans, LA, 7-10 p.m.
Quality Inn Midtown (Napoleon Room)
3900 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119
The purpose of this notice is to alert the interested public of
hearings and provide for public participation. These hearings are
physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign
language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to
William Hogarth by April 15, 1996 (see ADDRESSES).
Dated: April 8, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9115 Filed 4-9-96; 10:10 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9114 Claims, Administrative Regulations Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9114]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 16231]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
7 CFR Part 1
Claims, Administrative Regulations Amendment
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Administrative Regulations
of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) relating to
claims submitted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
contained in 7 CFR Part 1, Subpart D, as part of the USDA regulatory
reinvention initiative to improve its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Robert L. Siegler, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, Research and Operations Division, Office of
the General Counsel, USDA, room 2321, South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-6035.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert L. Siegler at the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The President directed the heads of all departments and agencies to
review all regulations and eliminate or revise regulations that are
outdated or otherwise in need of reform. This proposed rule updates the
USDA regulation contained in 7 CFR Sec. 1.51 relating to claims
submitted under the FTCA to remove those provisions relating to claims
submitted prior to 1967 and to update the procedure for filing FTCA
claims.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule will not have any economic impact.
Under these circumstances, the Secretary has determined that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule: (1) preempts all state and
local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2)
has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Claims.
Accordingly, it is proposed to amend 7 CFR part 1, subpart D as
follows:
PART 1--ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Subpart D--Claims
1. The authority citation for Subpart D continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680; 28 CFR part 14.
2. Section 1.51 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.51 Claims based on negligence, wrongful act or omission.
(a) Authority of the Department. Under the provisions of the
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680, and
the regulations issued by the Department of Justice contained in 28 CFR
part 14, the Department may, subject to the provisions of the FTCA and
regulations, consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and
settle claims for money damages against the United States for personal
injury, death, or property loss or damage caused by the negligent or
wrongful act or omission of any employee of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) while acting within the scope of his
or her office or employment, under circumstances where the United
States, if it were a private person, would be liable, in accordance
with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
(b) Procedure for filing claims. Claims must be presented by the
claimant, or by his or her duly authorized agent or legal
representative as specified in 28 CFR 14.3. Standard Form 95, Claim for
Damage or Injury, may be obtained from the agency within USDA that
employs the employee who allegedly committed the negligent or wrongful
act or omission. The completed claim form, together with appropriate
evidence and information, as specified in 28 CFR 14.4, shall be filed
with the agency from which it was obtained.
(c) Determination of claims. (1) Delegation of authority to
determine claims. The General Counsel, and such employees of the Office
of the General Counsel as may be designated by the General Counsel, are
hereby authorized to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine,
compromise, and settle claims pursuant to the FTCA, as amended, and the
regulations contained in 28 CFR part 14 and in this section.
(2) Disallowance of claims. If a claim is denied the General
Counsel, or his or her designee, shall notify the claimant, or his or
her duly authorized agent or legal representative.
Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 1996.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 96-9114 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8974 Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; Detectable Warnings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16231-16234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8974]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16232]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Part 36
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1191
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines;
Detectable Warnings
AGENCIES: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
Department of Justice, and Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Joint notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board), the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation propose to extend the suspension of the requirements for
detectable warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular areas, and
reflecting pools in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) from July 26, 1996 to July 26, 1998. The Access
Board has established an advisory committee to conduct a comprehensive
review of ADAAG, including the detectable warning requirements, and
plans to initiate rulemaking to revise and update ADAAG based on the
advisory committee's recommendations. Extending the suspension date for
the detectable warning requirements will allow the Access Board to
consider the advisory committee's recommendations and available
research data, and to address the detectable warning requirements in
the rulemaking to revise and update ADAAG.
DATES: Comments should be received by May 13, 1996. Comments received
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. The Access
Board will provide copies of all comments received to the Department of
Justice and the Department of Transportation.
Comments will be available for inspection at the above address from
9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on regular business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Access Board: James J. Raggio, General
Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone
(202) 272-5434 extension 16 or (800) 872-2253 extension 16 (voice), and
(202) 272-5449 (TTY) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY).
Department of Justice: The ADA Information Line, Disability Rights
Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20530. Telephone (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).
Department of Transportation: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., room 10424, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone (202) 366-9306 (voice) or (202) 755-7687 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Alternate Formats
Copies of this proposed rule are available in the following
formats: standard print, large print, Braille, audio cassette tape, and
computer disk. Single copies may be obtained at no cost by calling the
Access Board's automated publications order line (202) 272-5434 or
(800) 872-2253, pressing 1 on the telephone keypad, then 1 again and
requesting publication DW1 (Detectable Warnings Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking). Persons using a TTY should call (202) 272-5449 or (800)
993-2822. Please give your name, address, and telephone number when
ordering publications. Persons who want a copy in large print, Braille,
audio cassette tape, or computer disk should specify the type of format
they want.
The proposed rule is available on electronic bulletin board at
(202) 272-5448 (Access Board) and (202) 514-6193 (Department of
Justice). These telephone numbers are not toll-free numbers.
The proposed rule is also available on the Internet. It can be
accessed with World Wide Web software (http://www.usdoj.gov).
Background
The Access Board is responsible for issuing guidelines to assist
the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation in
establishing accessibility standards for newly constructed and altered
facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 1991, the
Access Board issued the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191), which is commonly referred to as ADAAG.
Sections 1 through 10 of ADAAG have been adopted as the accessibility
standards for the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Department of
Justice (28 CFR part 36) and the Department of Transportation (49 CFR
part 37).
As issued in 1991, ADAAG required that a pattern of small, raised
truncated domes be built in or applied to walking surfaces at certain
locations on a site to warn pedestrians who are blind or visually
impaired of hazards on a circulation path. The detectable warnings were
required at:
Curb ramps (ADAAG 4.7.7);
Hazardous vehicular areas (i.e., where pedestrian ways
adjoin vehicular ways and there are no curbs, railings, or other
elements separating the pedestrian and vehicular ways) (ADAAG 4.29.5);
and
Reflecting pool edges that are not protected by railings,
walks, or curbs (ADAAG 4.29.6).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Detectable warnings were also required at platform edges in
train stations that are not protected by platform screens or guard
rails (ADAAG 10.3.1 (8)). The requirement for detectable warnings at
platform stations in train stations is not affected by this
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1994, the Access Board, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Transportation issued a joint rule that suspended the
requirements for detectable warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular
areas, and reflecting pools until July 26, 1996. 59 FR 17442 (April 12,
1994). This action was taken to allow the agencies to consider the
results of a research project on the need for detectable warnings at
vehicular-pedestrian intersections. The research project, which was
sponsored by the Access Board and was conducted by the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, was completed in January
1995.
The research project showed that vehicular-pedestrian intersections
are very complex environments and that pedestrians who are blind or
visually impaired use a combination of cues to detect and cross
intersections. The research project also showed that the travel skills
and experience of the pedestrian who is blind or visually impaired are
also important factors in negotiating an intersection. The research
project found that detectable warnings helped some pedestrians who are
blind or visually impaired locate and identify curb ramps. However, the
detectable warnings had only a modest impact on
[[Page 16233]]
overall performance because, in their absence, pedestrians who are
blind or visually impaired used whatever other cues were available to
detect and cross the intersection. The research project indicated that
there may be a need for additional cues at some types of intersections.
The research project did not identify the specific conditions where
such cues should be provided. The research project suggested that other
technologies be explored for providing information about intersections,
which may be less costly and equally or more effective than detectable
warnings.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The research project also examined whether detectable
warnings introduce barriers to other pedestrians. The research
project found that most pedestrians ignored the detectable warnings
and no major problems were encountered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Access Board, in cooperation with Project ACTION, has taken
steps to further define specific areas of research that are necessary
in order to provide adequate information for pedestrians who are blind
or visually impaired at crossings, intersections, hazardous vehicular
areas, and reflecting pools. A panel of experts representing people who
are blind or visually impaired, designers and engineers, educators,
researchers, and State and local governments was assembled in June 1995
to review the existing research on pedestrians who are blind or
visually impaired and to develop a statement of research needs. It is
anticipated that a final statement of research needs will be available
by the summer of 1996.
The Access Board has also established an advisory committee to
conduct a comprehensive review of ADAAG. The advisory committee has
formed several subcommittees, including a communications subcommittee
which considered the detectable warning requirements. The subcommittees
have presented their recommendations to the full advisory committee
which is reviewing the recommendations and will issue a final report to
the Access Board by September 1996. The Access Board plans to initiate
rulemaking to revise and update ADAAG based on the advisory committee's
report in fiscal year 1997. The Access Board intends to address the
requirements for detectable warnings in the planned rulemaking to
revise and update ADAAG, after considering the advisory committee's
recommendations and available research data.
In view of advisory committee's activities and the planned
rulemaking to revise and update ADAAG, the Access Board, the Department
of Justice, and the Department of Transportation propose to extend the
suspension of the detectable warnings requirements at curb ramps,
hazardous vehicular areas, and reflecting pools from July 26, 1996 to
July 26, 1998. This extension will allow the Access Board to consider
the recommendations of the advisory committee that is currently
reviewing ADAAG and available research data, and to address the
requirements in the planned rulemaking to update and revise ADAAG.
Regulatory Process Matters
The Access Board, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation have independently determined that this proposed rule is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, a regulatory analysis is not required. It is a significant
rule under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures since it amends the agency's Americans with Disabilities Act
regulations, which are a significant rule. The Department of
Transportation expects the economic impacts to be minimal and has not
prepared a full regulatory evaluation.
Executive Order 12875 prohibits agencies from promulgating any
regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate
upon a State, local, or tribal government unless certain conditions are
met. This proposed rule creates no new mandate. Consistent with the
spirit of Executive Order 12875, this proposed rule continues the
suspension of an existing regulatory requirement to allow for further
review of the requirement.
The Access Board, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation have also independently certified under section 605(b)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this proposed rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because it continues the suspension of an existing
regulatory requirement and does not impose any new requirement.
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Text of Proposed Common Rule
The text of the common rule is revised to read as follows:
Sec. ______.______ Temporary suspension of certain detectable warning
requirements.
The detectable warning requirements contained in Secs. 4.7.7,
4.29.5, and 4.29.6 of appendix A to this part are suspended temporarily
until July 26, 1998.
Adoption of Proposed Common Rule
The agency specific proposals to adopt the proposed common rule,
which appears at the end of the common preamble, are set forth below.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Part 36
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 36
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcoholism, Buildings and
facilities, Business and industry, Civil rights, Consumer protection,
Drug abuse, Historic preservation, HIV/AIDS, Individuals with
disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Authority and Issuance
By the authority vested in me as Attorney General by 28 U.S.C. 509,
510; 5 U.S.C. 301; and 42 U.S.C. 12186, and for the reasons set forth
in the common preamble, part 36 of chapter I of title 28 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 36--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 36 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12186(b).
Sec. 36.407 [Revised]
2. Section 36.407 is revised to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1191
List of Subject in 36 CFR Part 1191
Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, part 1191 of
title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
[[Page 16234]]
PART 1191--AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for 36 CFR part 1191 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12204.
Sec. 1191.2 [Revised]
2. Section 1191.2 is revised to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Authorized by vote of the Access Board on February 23, 1996.
John H. Catlin,
Chairman, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37
Buildings and facilities, Buses, Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities, Mass transportation, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, part 37 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
(ADA)
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 37 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101-12213); 49 U.S.C. 322.
Sec. 37.15 [Revised]
2. Section 37.15 is revised to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Dated: April 5, 1996.
Nancy E. McFadden,
Acting Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-8974 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 4410-01-P, 8150-01-P, 4910-62-P]
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7738 Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16348-16371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7738]
[[Page 16347]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 16348]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-5449-7]
RIN 2040-AC27
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is giving notice that it is considering several minor
changes to the national primary drinking water regulations for lead and
copper to improve its implementation. The intended effect of this
action is to eliminate unnecessary requirements, streamline and reduce
reporting burden, and promote consistent national implementation. The
changes proposed in this action do not affect the lead or copper
maximum contaminant level goals or the basic regulatory requirements.
DATES: Written comments should be postmarked or delivered by hand by
July 11, 1996. Comments provided electronically will be considered
timely if they are submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (Eastern
time) July 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the proposed revisions only to the
Lead and Copper Rule Comment Clerk; Water Docket MC-4101; Environmental
Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. See
Supplementary Information under the heading ``Submission of Comment
Information'' for additional details.
Supporting documents for this proposed rulemaking are available for
review at EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
For access to the Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll
free (800) 426-4791, or Judy Lebowich; Drinking Water Implementation
Division; Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; EPA (4604), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comment Information
Commenters are requested to submit any references cited in their
comments. Commenters also are requested to submit an original and 3
copies of their written comments and enclosures. Commenters who want
receipt of their comments acknowledged should include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. The Agency
would prefer for commenters to type or print comments in ink.
Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments
will be transferred into a paper version for the official record. EPA
will attempt to clarify electronic comments if there is an apparent
error in transmission.
EPA is experimenting with electronic commenting, therefore
commenters may wish to submit both electronic comments and duplicate
paper comments. This document has also been placed on the Internet for
public review and downloading at the following location:
gopher.epa.gov.
A. Background
In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs) for lead and copper (``Lead and Copper
Rule''). (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991) The goal of the rule is to provide
maximum human health protection by reducing lead and copper levels at
consumers' taps to as close to the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish
this goal, the regulations established requirements for community water
systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs).
These systems must conduct periodic monitoring and optimize corrosion
control. In addition, these systems must perform public education when
the level of lead at the tap exceeds the lead action level, treat
source water if it is found to contribute significantly to high levels
of lead or copper at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the
distribution system if the level of lead at the tap continues to exceed
the lead action level after optimal corrosion control has been
installed. Implementation of the rule was phased based on system size.
Large-size systems (those serving more than 50,000 people) were to
begin monitoring January 1, 1992. Medium-size systems (those serving
between 3,301 and 50,000 people) were to begin monitoring July 1, 1992.
Small-size systems (those serving 3,300 or fewer people) were to begin
monitoring July 1, 1993.
Today's action proposes several minor revisions to improve
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. Most of these changes were
recommended by a work group EPA formed in 1993 composed of Headquarters
and Regional EPA staff, and several State drinking water officials, to
identify implementation issues. The proposed changes resulting from
those recommendations cover the following topics: requirements for
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control; accelerated reduced
monitoring; monitoring waivers for ``all plastic'' systems; selection
of sample sites under reduced monitoring; systems that have reduced the
number and frequency of monitoring and that change treatment or water
source; entry point monitoring for water quality parameters in ground
water systems; NTNCWS sampling locations and times; public education;
source water monitoring; holding times for acidified lead and copper
samples; and reporting requirements for systems and States. In
addition, EPA is requesting comment on the following paperwork burden
reduction suggestions that the Agency has not had time to fully assess
but believes are worth considering and may include in the final rule:
eliminate the requirement for systems to calculate and report 90th
percentile values; reduce the frequency of entry point water quality
parameter monitoring; allow flushing and bottled water instead of
corrosion control in NTNCWSs; eliminate the requirement for systems to
justify not recommending specific corrosion control treatment; allow
alternatives to tap samples to assess the effectiveness of corrosion
control; and reduce the frequency of State reporting of 90th percentile
values and treatment milestones.
Two other revisions proposed today result from legal challenges to
the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule brought by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
(AWWA et al. v. EPA, Nos. 91-1338, 91-1343 (DC Circuit) First, as a
result of settlement discussions with AWWA in that litigation, EPA
agreed to propose regulatory provisions that would authorize States to
invalidate the results of lead and copper sampling under certain
circumstances. That issue is discussed in section B.3 below. Second,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in
this case that the Agency had failed to provide adequate notice and
opportunity for public comment regarding the provision in the
regulations defining the extent to which a public water system (PWS)
has
[[Page 16349]]
``control'' over lead service lines, for purposes of determining the
systems's obligation to replace such lines under the rule. The Agency
is therefore proposing a revised definition of this term for public
comment.
NRDC challenged the rule's exclusion of transient, non-community
water systems (TNCWSs). In AWWA, the court granted the Agency's request
for a voluntary remand so that the Agency could provide a more detailed
justification of this exclusion. The Agency is not proposing in this
rulemaking to alter the current exclusion that exists in the regulation
for TNCWSs. Based on the information currently available, the Agency
believes that this exclusion continues to be appropriate in light of
the fact that the chronic health effects associated with lead in
drinking water should not be of concern in such systems (e.g., gas
stations, motels, restaurants, campgrounds, rest stops). EPA is
currently collecting additional information relevant to this issue that
will be made available for public review and comment prior to the
promulgation of a final rule. The Agency solicits comment regarding the
continued appropriateness of this exclusion, whether modification of
the current exclusion would be appropriate and, if so, what alternative
approaches are available for addressing these systems. After
consideration of the additional information being collected by the
Agency and public comments, EPA will either retain the current
exclusion or make appropriate modification. If EPA decides to retain
the current exclusion, EPA's preamble to the final rule will fully
explain the Agency's rationale for such a decision.
In that same ruling, the Court addressed two other NRDC challenges
to the 1991 rule: (1) the decision to establish a treatment technique
in lieu of a maximum contaminant level (MCL); and (2) the schedules for
completing the rule's treatment requirements. The Court upheld the
Agency's decisions on these two issues as consistent with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
B. 40 CFR 141, Subpart I--Control of Lead and Copper
1. Requirements for Systems Deemed To Have Optimized Corrosion Control
Section 141.81(b) specifies three ways by which a water system can
demonstrate that corrosion control already has been optimized and,
following such a demonstration, forego the steps of conducting
treatment studies and installing additional treatment. EPA
inadvertently omitted requirements for systems making such a
demonstration under two of the Sec. 141.81(b) provisions and is today
proposing the modifications discussed below to correct that oversight.
(a) Water Systems Deemed to Have Optimized Corrosion Control in
Accordance with Sec. 141.81(b)(2). A water system deemed to have
optimized corrosion control in accordance with Sec. 141.81(b)(2) has
demonstrated to the State that it already has completed activities
equivalent to the corrosion control steps specified in Sec. 141.81(d)
for large-sized systems or in Sec. 141.81(e) for medium- and small-
sized systems. The rule requires systems that have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(2) to meet water quality parameters
specified by the State as reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment. This requirement ensures that these systems will continue to
provide adequate treatment to minimize lead and copper levels at the
tap. The Agency intended that, once the State designated the optimal
water quality control parameters, the system would continue monitoring
in the same manner as those systems that installed corrosion control
treatment to comply with Sec. 141.81 (d) or (e). This requirement is
not clear in the current regulations. EPA today proposes to clarify
this requirement by revising Sec. 141.81(b)(2) to require that systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under that paragraph comply
with the same continuing monitoring requirements as any system that
optimizes corrosion control pursuant to Sec. 141.81 (d) or (e) of the
regulations.
(b) Water Systems Deemed to Have Optimized Corrosion Control in
Accordance with Sec. 141.81(b)(3). Under Sec. 141.81(b)(3), systems may
show they have optimized corrosion control by demonstrating that the
difference between the 90th percentile lead level measured at the tap
and the highest source water samples lead concentration is below the
Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) for lead (0.005 mg/L) for two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. In these instances, the primary
source of lead contamination, if any, is the source water and the
Agency does not believe that systems could produce quantifiable
improvements in lead levels at the tap through corrosion control when
corrosion is introducing, at most, minimal amounts of lead. (56 FR
26480-26481)
The current rule does not require these water systems with minimal
lead corrosion to meet the copper action level in order to be deemed to
have optimized corrosion control. This clearly was not the intent of
the rule which seeks to minimize the levels of both lead and copper at
the tap. To correct this problem, EPA proposes to add a criterion to
Sec. 141.81(b)(3) requiring water systems to meet the copper action
level to qualify as having optimized corrosion control under the
provisions of Sec. 141.81(b)(3).
This requirement would become effective 18 months after
promulgation. In cases where systems have been deemed as having optimal
corrosion control under Sec. 141.83(b)(3) based on source water and tap
water lead samples, the State should review those systems in terms of
their copper tap sample results from the initial rounds of monitoring
as well. If a system meets the lead criteria (difference between source
water and 90th percentile tap water concentrations is below the lead
PQL), but exceeded the copper action level during initial monitoring,
the State could direct the system to conduct a new round of sampling
consistent with Sec. 141.86(a)-(c) for both copper and lead to
determine current levels before this requirement becomes effective and
the system is triggered into the corrosion control treatment steps. In
such cases, the latest round of sampling should be used in determining
whether the system meets the requirements of Sec. 141.81(b)(3).
Even though systems meeting the Sec. 141.81(b)(3) criteria are not
required to install corrosion control treatment, they may be treating
the water for other water quality considerations, or they may install
treatment in the future. Changes in treatment such as disinfection for
microbial contamination can affect the corrosivity of the water in the
distribution system (56 FR 26486-24867). Thus it is important that
these systems continue to monitor periodically to ensure that lead and
copper levels do not increase in the future. EPA therefore proposes to
further modify Sec. 141.81(b)(3) to require such systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control in accordance with Sec. 141.81(b)(3) to
continue tap water monitoring for lead and copper at least once every
three calendar years (triennially) using the reduced number of sample
sites specified in Sec. 141.86(c) and following the requirements of
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) regarding the location and timing of such
sampling. Since some large systems may not have monitored since 1992,
the Agency proposes that the first round of this triennial monitoring
occur during the first June-September period that occurs after the
effective date of the revision, with the exception that systems that
have monitored pursuant to Sec. 141.86 (d)(3) or (d)(4) during the
three years prior to the effective date be allowed to
[[Page 16350]]
use those results and continue triennial monitoring based on the date
of that monitoring.
EPA believes that, in most instances, this reduced monitoring will
provide information to help ensure that these systems maintain minimal
levels of corrosion in the distribution system. The Agency recognizes
that system-specific circumstances such as changes in the source water,
or changes in treatment to comply with existing or future regulations,
may necessitate more frequent monitoring or other appropriate action to
ensure that such systems maintain minimal corrosion in the distribution
system. Adequate data and case histories are not available to ensure
accurate a priori estimates of time and location of problems associated
with treatment changes in different types of systems. EPA therefore
proposes to add language to Sec. 141.81(b)(3) giving States flexibility
to require additional monitoring and/or other action(s) the State deems
appropriate in these situations.
Finally, EPA recognizes that the revised requirements in
Sec. 141.81(b)(3) may result in a few systems being triggered into
corrosion control treatment. The Agency is proposing that any such
system comply with the requirements of Sec. 141.81(e) and that any such
large system adhere to the schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-sized systems.
2. Accelerated Reduced Monitoring for Water Systems With Very Low Lead
and Copper Levels
(a) Monitoring for Lead and Copper at the Tap. EPA is proposing to
allow water systems that demonstrate for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that they have very low lead and copper levels at
the tap to reduce the frequency of lead and copper tap water monitoring
to once every three years (triennial monitoring) more rapidly than the
current regulations permit. Under the current regulations, qualifying
systems must demonstrate they have maintained optimal corrosion control
for three consecutive years of monitoring before they are eligible to
reduce to triennial monitoring.
Sampling results for the initial two rounds of monitoring submitted
by large and medium-size systems indicate that over 20% of these
systems had 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/
L for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.1 EPA expects
similar results for the small-size systems. EPA believes it is
reasonable to allow systems with lead and copper results significantly
below the action levels during consecutive monitoring periods to reduce
the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper at the tap to
triennially without first going through three years of monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on 90th percentile lead levels for large and medium-
size systems reported to EPA through March 20, 1995 (EPA, 1995a).
Prior to August 15, 1995, the EPA data system of record was known as
the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). Effective August 15, 1995,
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) became the
official EPA data system of record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to add provisions for accelerated reduced monitoring
to Sec. 141.86(d)(4) by redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as (d)(4)(vi)
and adding a new paragraph (d)(4)(v) containing the accelerated reduced
monitoring provisions. In order to qualify for accelerated reduced
monitoring, a water system would need to demonstrate to the State that
its 90th percentile lead level was less than or equal to the PQL for
lead (i.e., the lead level was less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L) and
its 90th percentile copper level was less than or equal to one-half the
copper action level (i.e., the copper level was less than or equal to
0.65 mg/L) for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
Because of the high degree of variability in lead and copper levels
at household taps, EPA believes it is important to establish criteria
that minimize the risk of allowing systems that are likely to have
elevated levels of lead or copper at the tap during subsequent
monitoring periods to accelerate reduced monitoring. The PQL represents
the lowest level that laboratories can reliably and consistently
measure within specified limits of precision and accuracy. The Agency
considered using the PQL as the upper limit for allowing accelerated
reduced monitoring for both lead and copper. EPA believes the PQL for
lead, which is one-third of the lead action level, is the appropriate
lead level to set for accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA believes the
PQL for copper for these purposes would be unnecessarily restrictive,
however. The copper PQL is less than one-tenth the copper action level.
Moreover, unlike the lead action level, the copper action level is the
same as the copper MCLG. For these reasons, EPA proposes to use one-
half the copper action level as the copper threshold for determining
eligibility for accelerated reduced monitoring.
The Agency believes water systems that have met these low levels
for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods will still provide
adequate public health protection if such systems are allowed to
conduct accelerated reduced monitoring while saving significant
monitoring costs and minimizing the inconvenience to homeowners in the
sampling pool.
(b) Monitoring for Water Quality Parameters at the Tap. EPA is
proposing that water systems which meet the criteria for accelerated
reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap also be allowed to
accelerate reduced monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap
to once every three years more rapidly than currently allowed. Because
small and medium-size systems that have very low levels of lead and
copper at the tap are not required to conduct water quality parameter
monitoring, this proposed change would apply only to large water
systems. EPA proposes to add provisions for accelerated reduced water
quality monitoring by redesignating the current Sec. 141.87(e)(2) as
Sec. 141.87(e)(2)(i) and adding a new Sec. 141.87(e)(2)(ii) containing
the provisions for accelerated reduced monitoring at the tap. Systems
eligible for this accelerated reduced monitoring would have to continue
to monitor for water quality parameters at the entry points to the
distribution system. The frequency of this monitoring is one sample
every two weeks, as specified in Sec. 141.87(c).
3. Sample Invalidation
EPA proposes to add provisions, in a new Sec. 141.86(f), to allow
States to invalidate samples under four circumstances: (1) if the
laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous
results; (2) if the State determines that the sample was taken from a
site that does not meet the site selection criteria of Sec. 141.86; (3)
if the sample container is damaged in transit; or (4) if the State has
substantial reason to believe that the sample was subject to tampering.
EPA agrees that these circumstances are likely to yield results that
may not represent the tap water levels of lead and copper from the
water system's high risk sites and therefore the State should have
authority to exclude such results.
Systems will be required to report the results of all samples to
the State and must provide evidence of documentation for any sample the
system believes should be invalidated. The proposed Sec. 141.86(f)(3)
requires States to document all decisions in writing and prohibits
States from invalidating a sample solely on the grounds that a follow-
up sample is higher or lower than the original sample. In addition,
Sec. 141.86(f)(4) would require that any replacement sample be taken at
the same location as
[[Page 16351]]
the invalidated sample or, if that is not possible, then at a location
other than those already used for sampling during the monitoring
period. Any replacement samples also must be taken by the end of the
applicable monitoring period, if possible, or within 20 days of the
date the State invalidates the sample, whichever date is later.
Allowing at least a 20-day window to replace invalidated samples
provides water systems the opportunity to correct what might otherwise
be a monitoring violation. The Agency recognizes that, in some cases,
the system may not know before the end of the applicable monitoring
period that a sample has been invalidated. Some water systems take only
the required number of samples, and, in such cases, any invalidated
samples would mean an insufficient number of samples would be available
for 90th percentile calculations. Absent the opportunity to replace
invalidated samples, the system would incur a monitoring violation
under this scenario. EPA believes it is reasonable to allow such
systems to replace invalidated samples as long as the replacement
samples are taken in a timely manner. Any replacement samples taken
after the end of the applicable monitoring period cannot also be used
to meet the sampling requirements of the subsequent monitoring period.
A water system would need to replace invalidated samples only if it
did not have sufficient valid samples to meet minimum sampling
requirements. EPA encourages systems to take more samples than required
by the rule and not to wait until the end of the monitoring period to
complete sampling. In this way, if one or more samples is invalidated,
the system has a ``cushion'' and should not need to take replacement
samples. If replacement samples are required, however, the system will
still have the opportunity to avoid a monitoring violation.
Adding provisions for sample invalidation necessitates a change to
the system reporting requirements in Sec. 141.90. EPA proposes to add
the requirement, as a new Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(ii),2 for a system
requesting sample invalidation to submit the appropriate documentation
to the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA is proposing to eliminate the current requirement at
Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(ii). See preamble discussion in section B.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Monitoring Waivers for ``All Plastic'' Systems
Small systems that believe they are free of sources of lead and
copper contamination within the system view the tap water monitoring
requirements for lead and copper to be excessive. Some States also have
requested relief from monitoring requirements for such systems from
both a common sense and a public health standpoint. EPA believes such
relief makes sense for small systems, so long as the State is satisfied
that the system is free of faucets, valves, and water meters made of
brass or bronze containing lead, lead service lines, lead solder pipe
joints, copper pipes, and other sources of lead and copper
contamination within the system itself and all buildings, and that
source waters are not subject to lead or copper contamination.
Many manufacturers of brass and bronze fittings and fixtures (e.g.,
faucets) are attempting to meet the standard recently established by
NSF, International for lead leaching from faucets (NSF, 1995) by
producing faucets that contain low levels of lead or are completely
free of lead-containing materials. EPA believes the existence of so-
called ``all plastic'' systems will become more common as industry
practices evolve. This makes it more likely that smaller systems can
demonstrate that they are free of lead-containing materials. The Agency
is therefore proposing to give States discretion to waive some of the
monitoring requirements for small systems where the State has
determined that, after at least one round of standard tap water
monitoring for lead and copper performed since the system became ``all
plastic,'' that the system is free of lead and copper-containing
materials in the distribution and plumbing systems.
EPA proposes to provide States this discretion by adding a new
paragraph (g) to Sec. 141.86. This provision specifies that any small-
size system, in which the distribution system and service lines, and
all buildings (e.g., residences, schools, commercial buildings), are
free of lead or copper pipes or service lines, leaded brass or bronze
fittings or fixtures, lead soldered pipe joints and other sources of
lead and copper contamination, may apply to the State for a waiver from
the tap water monitoring requirements of Sec. 141.86(d) once it has
completed one six-month round of standard tap water monitoring for lead
and copper since it became free of these materials. The system must
demonstrate that the 90th percentile lead level for any monitoring
period since the system became free of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials did not exceed 0.005 mg/L and that the 90th
percentile copper level did not exceed 0.65 mg/L. The system must also
support this request with certification regarding the absence of lead
and copper materials throughout the system, including buildings.
States would have to notify the system of its determination in
writing, setting forth the basis of its decision and any conditions of
the waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the State may require certain
activities such as monitoring at specific sites or public education.
Even if a waiver is approved, limited monitoring at a reduced number of
sites would be required once every nine years. A system would have to
resume more frequent tap water monitoring if it could no longer certify
that it was free of materials containing lead or copper and the State
would have the discretion to require the system to resume more frequent
tap water monitoring based on changes in treatment, source waters, or
tap water lead or copper levels.
In some cases, States or local communities may have plumbing codes
that prohibit the use of faucets not meeting the NSF, International
lead leaching standard. Where such codes do not exist, States may
decide, as a condition of the waiver, to require that systems provide
consumers with public education materials encouraging the use of
faucets meeting the standard. Some States may wish to review all
waivers periodically even in the absence of any changes in treatment or
materials which would necessitate such a review.
EPA does not expect any decrease in public health protection if
States implement the proposed waiver provisions. The Agency believes
that these waivers will be granted where States have substantive
documentation or equivalent evidence that the system is truly free of
lead and copper, e.g., uniform construction and plumbing specifications
requiring lead-free and copper-free materials. In the circumstances
under which a waiver would be permitted (very low lead and copper
levels in tap water monitoring, absence of lead and copper materials in
the system), the Agency sees no value to requiring States and water
systems to invest limited resources on a situation that appears to be
non-existent. EPA believes such resources should be redirected to areas
of the program where the potential of higher public health risk exists.
These provisions necessitate two changes to the system reporting
requirements in Sec. 141.90. The introductory text at Sec. 141.90(a)
specifies that water systems must provide monitoring data to the State
within the first 10 days following the end of each applicable
monitoring period specified in Secs. 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. EPA
[[Page 16352]]
proposes to revise this paragraph to include a frequency of ``every 9
years'' to reflect the monitoring frequency of ``all plastic'' systems
with monitoring waivers. EPA also proposes to include the reporting
requirements associated with applying for the waiver at a new
Sec. 141.90(a)(4).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA is proposing to eliminate the current reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(4). See preamble discussion in section
B.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sample Site Location
(a) Systems Unable to Locate Sufficient Tier 1, 2, and 3 Sites. The
current regulations do not address situations where a water system is
unable to locate a sufficient number of sites meeting the tiering
criteria specified in Sec. 141.86(a). This has resulted in some
confusion regarding whether such systems are required to monitor and,
if so, how they should select sample sites. The Agency intended that
all CWSs and NTNCWSs monitor for lead and copper at the tap. EPA
therefore proposes to revise paragraph 141.86(a)(5) to clarify that any
CWS with insufficient tier 1, 2, and 3 sites shall complete its
sampling pool with representative sites throughout the distribution
system. Likewise, EPA proposes to revise paragraph 141.86(a)(7) to
clarify that any NTNCWS with insufficient tier 1 and 2 sites shall
complete its sampling pool with representative sites. EPA's guidance,
Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual; Volume I: Monitoring, contains
suggestions for selecting sites in these circumstances.
(b) NTNCWSs Without Enough Taps That Can Provide First-Draw
Samples. The existing regulations require that lead and copper tap
samples must ``have stood motionless in the plumbing * * * for at least
six-hours.'' This is known as a ``first-draw'' sample. In implementing
the regulations, States have found that some NTNCWSs cannot achieve
this standing time because they operate 24 hours a day. Such facilities
may include factories operating on a three-shift basis and other
facilities that provide drinking water continuously. These systems are
unable to ensure that water will have stood in the plumbing for at
least six hours. EPA believes that requiring such systems to sample
after a standing time that does not exist is unnecessary. The Agency
therefore proposes to add paragraph Sec. 141.86(b)(5) to allow NTNCWSs
that do not have enough taps where the water will have stood in the
plumbing for at least six hours to ask the State, in writing, for
approval to sample from taps where the water will have stood for less
than six hours. Such systems will be required to collect first-draw
samples from as many appropriate taps as possible. Section 141.86(b)(5)
also will require such systems to identify sampling times and locations
that would likely result in the longest standing time and to sample at
times and locations approved by the State for the remaining required
samples. EPA also proposes to add the corresponding reporting
requirements in a new paragraph 141.90(a)(2).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA is proposing to eliminate the current reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(2). See preamble discussion in section
B.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency invites comment on an alternative which would allow
NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps where the water will have stood in
the plumbing for at least six hours to proceed without up-front State
approval to sample from taps where the water will have stood less than
six hours. The system would still be required to sample from taps with
the longest standing times possible, however, States would not need to
specify sites prior to monitoring. States would have discretion to
verify at any time that the proper sample was conducted.
(c) Sample Site Justifications. Sections 141.86(a)(8) and
141.90(a)(2) and (3) require any water system that uses non Tier 1
sites in its sampling pool to send a letter to the State demonstrating
why it is necessary to use non Tier 1 sites. Sections 141.86(a)(9) and
141.90(a)(4) require any water systems with lead service lines that
cannot identify enough sites connected to lead service lines for its
sampling pool to send a letter to the State demonstrating why it is
unable to collect 50 percent of the samples from sites served by lead
service lines. EPA included these requirements to help ensure that
systems collect samples from high risk sites. The Agency expected these
to be ``one time'' requirements that would be completed, if necessary,
prior to the start of initial monitoring.
Water systems, particularly those not exceeding the lead and copper
action levels, are finding it necessary to adjust the sampling pool
every monitoring period because they are experiencing difficultly
obtaining continued access to the same sites. Changes to the sampling
pool frequently trigger the need for letters to the State justifying
the selection of new sampling sites. EPA believes that requiring
systems to justify the use of other than high risk sites on an ongoing
basis imposes an unnecessary burden as States can determine whether
systems are sampling routinely at appropriate sites through other
mechanisms such as periodic on-site inspections and file reviews. The
Agency therefore proposes to eliminate these requirements. To
accomplish this, EPA proposes to: (a) delete the current
Secs. 141.90(a)(2) through (4); and (b) revise Sec. 141.86(a) by
deleting paragraph (8) and revising paragraph (9) and redesignating it
as paragraph (8).
(d) Selection of Sample Sites Under Reduced Monitoring. Section
141.86(d)(4) allows systems serving more than 100 people that qualify
for reduced monitoring to decrease the number of required sample sites
by fifty percent. Section 141.86 currently does not specify which
sampling sites should be included in the reduced sampling pool. EPA is
concerned that, rather than select representative locations, some
systems might select those sites which yielded the lowest
concentrations of lead and copper during the previous rounds of tap
water sampling. EPA proposes to clarify Sec. 141.86(c) so that systems
shall choose representative sites and States shall have the authority
to designate which sample sites must be used for reduced monitoring in
those situations where the State believes that such designation is
appropriate. The Agency believes this proposed revision minimizes
additional regulatory burden. The State will not be required to specify
sampling sites for any system. Rather, the proposed revision allows
States to specify locations for those systems that they believe may
attempt to ``game'' the system, thus allowing the State to concentrate
on water systems that need the extra attention.
6. Optimized Systems That Change Treatment or Source Water
EPA expects most systems that have optimized corrosion control will
continue to apply the same chemicals and maintain roughly uniform
dosage rates in order to maintain suitable passivation or corrosion
inhibition. Some systems, however, may find it necessary to change
their treatment to comply with other regulatory requirements or changes
in source water. For example, more stringent regulations for
disinfection and disinfection by-products could result in a water
system switching from one corrosion control treatment (e.g., pH/
alkalinity adjustment) to another (e.g., phosphate-based inhibitor). In
addition, over time, some systems may find it necessary to switch from
one source water to another and, as a result, some would have to change
their corrosion control treatment to account for different water
chemistry.
It is important that corrosion control treatment be maintained even
in the
[[Page 16353]]
face of changes in other aspects of water quality (either because of a
new source or changes in other treatment). Without properly maintained
treatment, protective films in the distribution system can be
solubilized within weeks or even days (Fuge et al., 1992, Colling, et
al., 1992; Schock et al., 1996) and lead and/or copper can be released
from the interior surfaces of pipes and other plumbing or distribution
system materials. This is addressed in the current rule by requirements
for systems that install treatment to continue to monitor for lead and
copper as well as various water quality parameters. There is a concern,
however, that the current rule may not adequately address systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion control who later make changes in
their treatment for reasons discussed above. Because these systems
would be monitoring at a reduced frequency, increases in lead and/or
copper that may occur within a relatively short time may not be
detected for up to three years.
The Agency believes this will be a relatively uncommon problem.
Further, the Agency recognizes that any increases in lead and/or copper
levels would be unintended in systems that previously expended
significant resources demonstrating they had optimized corrosion
control. Nevertheless, EPA believes that such a contingency should be
addressed and is proposing to amend Sec. 141.86(d)(4) by adding a new
paragraph (vii) that would apply to systems that have been on a reduced
monitoring schedule and either (a) change their source water, or (b)
change any water quality treatment process, including disinfection,
disinfection by-product removal, and corrosion control. EPA also
proposes to add the corresponding reporting requirement in a new
paragraph at Sec. 141.90(a)(3).\5\ Systems falling into this category
would have to inform the State of such a change. Adequate data and case
histories are not available for EPA to ensure accurate a priori
estimates of time and location of problems associated with treatment
changes in different types of system. Based on such information, the
State could require the system to resume standardized lead and copper
tap water monitoring, or other appropriate steps such as increased
water quality parameter monitoring or re-evaluation of its corrosion
control treatment given the potentially different water quality
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA is proposing to eliminate the current reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(3). See preamble discussion in section
B.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Entry Point Monitoring for Water Quality Parameters in Ground Water
Systems
Sections 141.81 (d) and (e) require monitoring for various water
quality parameters at entry points to the distribution system in those
systems that install corrosion control treatment. Based on
conversations with States since the rule became effective, the Agency
believes that for some systems that rely on ground water sources,
monitoring for water quality parameters at each entry point to the
distribution system may not be necessary. Some ground water systems,
especially in the western states, can have dozens or even hundreds of
wells, and monitoring for numerous water quality parameters at all
entry points can be difficult to coordinate and expensive.
For example, ground water systems can have distinct hydraulic zones
where water from the different zones do not mix. In many of these
cases, it is possible that corrosion control treatment is needed at
some wells but not all. The Agency believes that there would be little
value in monitoring at all wells with identical water qualities in the
same hydraulic zone if the same treatment is being applied. Similarly,
it would not be reasonable to monitor water quality parameters at all
wells receiving no treatment, especially if the water from these
sources is in a distinct hydraulic zone from wells that do receive
treatment and therefore do not blend with treated water. In these
cases, it could be sufficient to monitor at a representative number of
wells to ensure that the treatment being applied is appropriate for the
current water quality and that treatment conditions are being
maintained.
The Agency proposes to amend Sec. 141.87 by adding a new paragraph
(c)(3) to allow ground water systems that have installed corrosion
control treatment and are required to monitor for the water quality
parameters listed in Sec. 141.87(c), to limit their entry point
monitoring to those locations that are representative of water quality
conditions throughout the system. For those systems, monitoring for
water quality parameters would be required at some entry points
receiving treatment as well as at some points receiving no corrosion
control treatment if the water from those points mixes with other
source water in the system that is treated. Systems taking advantage of
this provision would be required to provide the State the same kinds of
detailed records regarding chemical additions and water quality at
those entry points that are monitored, as well as documentation showing
that those points are in fact representative of water quality
throughout the system. EPA proposes to add the corresponding reporting
requirement in a new Sec. 141.90(a)(5).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA is proposing to eliminate the current reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(5). See preamble discussion at B.8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also proposes to revise the summary table at the end of
Sec. 141.87 to reflect this change as well as the current and proposed
provisions in Sec. 141.87(e) allowing reduced monitoring for water
quality parameters at the tap to occur on an annual or triennial
frequency.
8. Other Changes Pertaining to Tap Water Monitoring for Lead and Copper
(a) First Draw Certifications. Sections 141.90(a)(1) (ii) and (iii)
currently contain requirements for water systems to provide a
certification that each sample collected by the system pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(d) meets the first-draw specifications in Sec. 141.86(b)
and that each tap sample collected by residents was taken after the
water system informed them of the proper sampling procedures. EPA
included these requirements to help ensure use of the proper sampling
protocol contained in Sec. 141.86. Most water systems have now
completed at least two rounds of monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap and have experience collecting first drawn samples. The Agency
believes the continued requirement to provide these certifications
every monitoring period imposes a burden that can no longer be
justified. EPA therefore proposes to eliminate this requirement by
deleting these paragraphs.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As discussed in section B.3 above, EPA proposes to replace
paragraph 141.90(a)(1)(ii) with a new requirement pertaining to
sample invalidation requests. EPA proposes to reserve paragraph
141.90(a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) State Approval for Reduced Monitoring. Section 141.86(d)(4)
(ii) contains provisions for any water system that maintains the range
of values for the water quality control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f)
during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods to request
State approval to reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap to once per year and to reduce the number of samples
in accordance with Sec. 141.86(c). Section 141.86(d)(4)(iii) contains
similar provisions for such water systems to request approval from the
State to further reduce the frequency of lead and copper tap water
monitoring to once every three years after
[[Page 16354]]
demonstrating they have maintained optimal corrosion control during
three consecutive years of monitoring. The Agency believes State
approval is appropriate in these instances because of the number of
factors that must be considered when determining eligibility for
reduced monitoring.
Based on conversations with States since the rule became effective,
EPA believes the requirement for systems to explicitly request such
approval is redundant. States routinely review system eligibility for
reduced monitoring as part of their regular compliance determination
and notify those systems that are eligible to begin reduced monitoring.
Under these circumstances, the Agency believes that asking systems to
request such a determination adds unnecessary transaction costs. EPA
therefore is proposing to revise Secs. 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii) to
remove the requirement that systems explicitly request State approval
for reduced monitoring and to delete the corresponding system reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(5).
This revision reduces system burden but would not change the
State's role. The revised Secs. 141.86(d)(4) (ii) and (iii) will
continue to require States to review monitoring records and notify the
system in writing of its determination and to review the determination,
as appropriate, as new data become available.
(c) Sampling for Water Systems That Do Not Operate Year Round.
Water systems sampling once per year or less must take samples in June,
July, August, or September. This requirement causes problems for some
NTNCWSs, such as schools and ski resorts, that may not be open, and
therefore do not serve water, during these months. The intent of the
rule is that the sampling be done during the warmest months of the
year. EPA did not intend, however, that seasonal systems sample during
months when the system is not in operation as the results of such
sampling would not be representative of the water used for drinking.
EPA proposes to revise the current Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to require
water systems that do not operate between June and September to monitor
at times most likely to represent their warmest months of operation.
(d) Holding Time for Acidified Lead and Copper Samples. EPA
proposes to change Sec. 141.86(b)(2) by decreasing the holding time for
acidified lead or copper samples from 28 to 16 hours. EPA originally
required 28 hours for acid to redissolve metals in water samples. The
Agency has since obtained data 8 to show that 16 hours is
sufficient to solubilize all metals including lead and copper. In a
recent methods update rule (59 FR 62456, December 5, 1994) EPA changed
the holding time for acidified samples to 16 hours but neglected to
correct the rule at Sec. 141.86(b)(2) to reflect this change. This
change would reduce the burden on utilities and laboratories to have
separate acidification holding times for lead and copper, and it
increases the number of samples that can be analyzed in a day. This
proposed change does not affect the accuracy or reliability of lead or
copper determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These data are discussed in conjunction with EPA Methods
200.8 and 200.9 in the manual, Methods for the Determination of
Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement 1. [EPA, 1994]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Public Education
(a) Public Education Language. The regulations prescribe specific
language that systems must include in the text of all written materials
they distribute as a part of their lead public education program.
Delivery of educational materials by systems that have exceeded the
lead action level has done much to educate the public on lead in
drinking water. Some EPA Regions and States have raised concern,
however, that the required public education material, while appropriate
for CWSs that serve water to residential customers, may not be
appropriate for NTNCWSs and even some small CWSs such as prisons and
hospitals. To address these concerns, EPA is proposing alternative
language that is more appropriate for such systems.
EPA proposes to make numbering changes to Sec. 141.85. Paragraph
(a) will continue to contain the public education language; however, in
order to add language specific to NTNCWSs, EPA proposes to split
paragraph (a) into two paragraphs. Paragraph (a)(1) will contain public
education material for CWSs; paragraph (a)(2) will contain public
education material for NTNCWSs. The numbers inside paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) will be changed accordingly and conforming changes will be
made in Sec. 141.85(c).
The new NTNCWS language in paragraph (a)(2) provides more relevant
and helpful information for persons consuming water in such a system
than the existing public education language. EPA proposes to replace
phrases such as ``some homes in the community'' with ``some drinking
water samples [taken from this facility]'' because a NTNCWS typically
does not serve water to homes. EPA proposes to delete the reference to
having water tested for lead because customers of a NTNCWS are unlikely
to have water tested for lead as they tend to consume the water for
only a short period of time and have little or no control over the
water in the distribution system. For similar reasons, EPA proposes
deleting references to having a plumber check pipes for solder and
having an electrician check for possible improper grounding.
Additionally, EPA proposes to replace references to home treatment
devices with a recommendation that bottled water be consumed if lead
levels at the tap cannot be reduced. EPA also proposes to change the
language for flushing taps for NTNCWSs. Persons using taps at such
water systems likely will not know the nature of the plumbing system as
would homeowners. For example, reference to lead service lines in the
CWS notice does not have any added health benefit for NTNCWSs where the
consumer is unlikely to be aware of the existence of such lines. EPA
therefore proposes to limit the discussion of flushing to suggesting a
15-30 second flush, which should clear any water with high lead levels
that come from the faucet.
EPA believes that the public education language in
Sec. 141.85(a)(1) is not appropriate for some types of CWSs, such as
prisons and hospitals. The notice for CWSs in these institutions is
inappropriate. Inmates and patients who are not capable of installing
home treatment devices or having their water tested should not be given
the CWS public education language. References to ``your home'' and
``your family's health'' also are inappropriate. Therefore, EPA
proposes to add Sec. 141.85(c)(7) to allow a CWS to request that the
State allow it to issue public education materials as if it were an
NTNCWS if the system is a facility where the population served is not
capable of, or is prevented from, making improvements to plumbing or
installing point of use treatment devices and the system provides water
as part of the covered services and does not directly bill for water
consumption. EPA believes this is appropriate for certain institutions
and should be allowed where the State believes it better protects
public health. The Agency also invites comment on an alternative
whereby a community water system for which the NTNCWS public education
would be appropriate would not require up-front approval from the State
before issuing the public education materials. The system would still
have to submit certification that it completed its public
[[Page 16355]]
education requirements, including the NTNCWS material that it used.
EPA recognizes that many public water systems, especially CWSs with
large populations, have had public education material printed and that
making changes would be costly. The Agency believes, however, that none
of the changes to the public education language will be applicable for
most CWSs and expects them to continue to be able to use already
printed materials.
(b) Mailing and Timing of Notices. Water systems that exceed the
lead action level must perform public education tasks within 60 days of
the initial exceedance. As part of this activity, CWSs are required to
include the required materials with the water bill and print an alert
on the billing statement. EPA's intent in establishing these
requirements was to provide customers timely notification that the
system had exceeded the lead action level, information about health
risks, sources of exposure, and steps the consumer can take to reduce
exposure. While the Agency believes there is value in requiring notice
in the water bill and that such an approach saves the cost of a
separate mailing, the EPA Regions and States responsible for
implementing the regulations have found that these requirements pose
unintended problems for many water systems.
Many water utilities do not bill frequently enough to meet the 60-
day requirement; ninety days is more the norm. Also, many systems use
postcards or computer-generated self-mailers. These formats do not
allow the enclosure of additional materials nor do they have sufficient
space to include the required alert on the bill itself. Systems
exceeding the action level that have one, or both, of these problems
face difficulty complying with the current requirements unless they
change their billing system. This is not the Agency's intent. EPA
therefore proposes to revise Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow community
water systems more flexibility in the mailing of public education
materials.
First, EPA proposes, in a new paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A), to allow such
systems to mail these materials on the same schedule as the system's
billing cycle, as long as the mailing occurs within 6 months of the
exceedance. EPA also proposes to revise the language of
Sec. 141.85(c)(2) by adding the phrase, ``Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section, * * *'' to be consistent with
this new provision.
Second, EPA proposes to add a new paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) to allow
systems that do not bill using envelopes, or that will not bill within
6 months of exceeding the lead action level, the option of distributing
the lead public education materials to billing units through a separate
mailing as long as the mailing is completed within 6 months of
exceeding the lead action level and achieves at least equal coverage.
Systems using an alternative delivery of lead public education would be
required to include an alert with the public education materials to
minimize the risk that the materials would be discarded as ``junk
mail.''
(c) Systems Serving 500 or Fewer People. In addition to mailing
notices to billing units, CWSs must submit notices to the major daily
and weekly newspapers circulated throughout the community, provide lead
information to facilities and organizations visited frequently by
children and pregnant women, and submit public service announcements to
radio and television stations with the largest audiences that broadcast
to the community served by the water system. The preamble to the final
rule (56 FR 26500-26503) explains why the Agency believes these steps
are necessary and appropriate.
For some small systems, particularly those that provide water only
to a small number of people in a larger urban or suburban area, these
requirements have created unintended consequences. The rule requires
systems to include their telephone number so consumers can call with
questions about lead in their drinking water. In some cases, small
systems that serve only a small portion of a larger metropolitan area
have been flooded with calls from individuals not served by the system
who heard or read these announcements. Such systems are ill-equipped to
respond appropriately to a large-scale public response. The requirement
to distribute materials to locations visited frequently by pregnant
women and children similarly imposes a significant burden on these
systems since it may involve a large number of locations if the system
is near an urban or suburban area.
EPA does not believe it is appropriate to impose such burdens on
systems serving few people. EPA considered the option of allowing CWSs
serving 500 or fewer people to use the same method of delivery as
NTNCWSs. Non-transient non-community systems are required to post
informational posters on lead in drinking water in a public place or
common area in each of the buildings served by the system and to
distribute information pamphlets and/or brochures to each person served
by the system. EPA believes the requirement to post in every building
served by the system could be a problem for a community system since it
would require access to residences and other buildings not controlled
by the system in order to post notices in appropriate locations.
The Agency therefore proposes to add provisions, in a new
Sec. 141.85(c)(8), to allow CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to limit
or omit some of the required tasks. Section 141.85(c)(8) will allow
such systems to omit tasks requiring submission of information to
newspapers and radio and television stations. In place of these tasks,
EPA proposes to require these systems to mail or hand deliver the same
lead public education materials the system is required to mail to
billing units to all other regular consumers (e.g., tenants of multi-
family residences whose water is included in their rent). EPA also
proposes to allow such systems to limit the number of locations to
which they must furnish informational pamphlets. EPA proposes that such
systems be required to provide these materials to locations frequented
by pregnant women or children within the system's service area and only
those locations outside the system's service area that are regularly
visited by the system's consumers. Finally, EPA proposes that a system
performing public education in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 141.85(c)(8) repeat the tasks every 12 months for as long as the
system continues to exceed the lead action level. The Agency believes
this proposed approach will significantly reduce the burden imposed on
these systems without jeopardizing the effectiveness of their lead
public education programs.
In addition to eliminating the requirement for CWSs serving 500 or
fewer people to provide public service announcements to radio and
television stations every six months for as long as the system exceeds
the lead action level, EPA solicits comment regarding the option of
also eliminating this requirement for CWSs serving between 501 and
3,300 people. Since the ``local'' radio and televisions stations for
communities served by small-sized water systems frequently belong to
larger listening and viewing areas, this option should reduce small-
sized system burden by reducing the need for the system to respond to a
large number of inquiries from those not served by the system. In
addition, since radio and television stations often do not air public
service announcements that affect only a small subset of their
audience, omitting this task may not affect the effectiveness of the
system's public education program. On the other hand, the use of
multiple media to deliver lead public education to as many people as
possible and the use of
[[Page 16356]]
public service announcements have been found to be very effective.
Omitting the public service announcement requirement may reduce the
effectiveness of the lead public education program for the larger
small-sized systems (i.e., those serving between 501 and 3,300 people)
because these systems are more likely to have consumers who cannot be
reached effectively through other approaches (i.e., direct mailing to
billing units, newspaper notices, and brochures distributed to
locations visited frequently by pregnant women and children).
Commenters should address the effect this option would have on the lead
public education program for CWS serving 501 to 3,300 people, what, if
any, tasks should be required in lieu of public service announcements
for these systems, and the burden implications of this option.
(d) Schedule for Reporting Completion of Public Education Tasks.
Section 141.90(f) requires that each water system subject to the public
education requirements submit a letter to the State by December 31st of
each year demonstrating that the system has delivered the required
public education program. The letter must be accompanied by a list of
all newspapers, radio and television stations, and facilities and
organization to which the system delivered the public education
materials during the previous year.
The Agency believes the current reporting requirement fails to
provide the States and EPA with information in a manner timely enough
to oversee systems' compliance with the public education program
mandated in the final rule. In some cases, the current provision in
Sec. 141.90(f) gives a public water system as much as ten months before
it submits a letter to the State certifying that it has delivered the
public education materials to its customers in accordance with
Sec. 141.85(c). For example, under the current provision a system that
initially exceeds the lead action level in the monitoring period ending
January 1 is required to deliver the public education program within 60
days of the exceedance (e.g., by March 1), but does not have to submit
the certification letter to the State until December 31. If the system
fails to deliver the public education program in a timely manner, the
State would have difficulty knowing of a violation until months after
it has occurred.
In place of the current requirement for a letter submitted by
December 31st, EPA is proposing to require that each water system
subject to the public education requirements submit a letter
demonstrating compliance with the public education requirements within
ten days after the end of each period 9 in which it is required to
perform public education tasks. The ten days allows systems to assemble
records and notify the State. Such a requirement is consistent with the
time frame allowed in other reporting requirements, which allow ten
days after an action or the end of a reporting period for a system to
report to the State. The letter would have to be accompanied by a list
of all newspapers, radio and television stations, and facilities and
organization to which the system delivered the public education
materials during the most recent period during which the system was
required to perform public education tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The regulations require a CWS to provide public service
announcements to the broadcast media every six months as long as the
system continues to exceed the lead action level. A water system
must repeat the appropriate written public education tasks every 12
months as long as it continues to exceed the lead action level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that this proposed revision will require community
water systems that must deliver public service announcements to radio
and television stations every six months to submit two letters to the
State during a calendar year instead of the single letter that is now
required. EPA believes, however, that accelerating the public education
reporting requirement will improve compliance because, in addition to
making the requirements easier to enforce, it also will encourage water
systems that exceed the lead action level to deliver the public
education program to their customers.
10. Control of Lead Service Lines
In the June 7, 1991, regulations, EPA promulgated a broad
definition of ``control'' as it applies to lead service lines in the
distribution system that included: (1) Authority to set standards for
construction, repair or maintenance of the line; (2) authority to
replace, repair or maintain the service line; or (3) ownership of the
service line. As discussed above, AWWA challenged this definition,
arguing that systems should not be required to replace lead service
lines they do not own and that EPA had substantially changed the
definition of control from that which had been proposed without
providing opportunity for public comment. The Court agreed with AWWA
that the Agency had failed to give adequate public notice that it was
considering requiring systems to replace portions of service lines that
the system does not own. The Court remanded and vacated the definition
of control as it applies to portions of line beyond a water system's
ownership. (AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) Because the
Court vacated the rule on this procedural ground, it did not address
AWWA's substantive argument that EPA was without statutory authority to
require replacement of privately owned portions of service lines.
After further consideration, EPA has decided to propose a revised
definition of ``control'' of lead service lines (LSLs) that would
obligate water systems to replace the portion of the line that they
own, as well as any additional portion which the system has the
authority to replace, in order to protect the quality of water
delivered to the user. EPA is concerned that the LSL replacement
requirements in the original rule, which required systems to also
replace the privately owned portion of the line where the system had
standard setting authority or other forms of authority, could result in
confusion and delay in implementation of the rule. Confusion could have
resulted from different perceptions of the precise scope of the
system's legal authority, and resolution of such disputes would have
required the intervention of the State, a potentially time consuming
process.
To accommodate the revised definition of LSL control and to further
streamline the LSL replacement requirements, the Agency proposes that
the rule would not include the rebuttable presumption contained in the
original rule. Rather, the rule's provision would be ``self-
implementing'' and not require affirmative demonstrations by the
systems or a priori review by the State. For this reason, EPA proposes
to eliminate the reporting requirement at Sec. 141.90(e)(4) for any
system seeking to rebut the presumption that it controls the entire
service line to send a letter to the State. EPA solicits comment
specifically regarding the degree to which systems may have the
authority to replace the privately owned portions of lead service
lines.
EPA also solicits comment regarding the option of only requiring
replacement of the portion of the line owned by the water system. Such
an approach would further simplify implementation of the rule, since
the division in ownership between the system and the user should be
clear to all parties.
11. Source Water Monitoring
(a) Composite Samples. Section 141.88(a)(1) requires any system
that exceeds an action level to collect entry point samples to
determine the contribution from source water to lead and copper tap
water levels. These
[[Page 16357]]
systems may composite source water samples in accordance with the
requirements regarding sample location, number of samples, and
collection methods specified for inorganic chemical sampling in
Sec. 141.23(a).
Section 141.23(a)(4) specifies that a water system may composite
samples from as many as five sampling sites. When the final rule was
published in June 1991, Sec. 141.23 tied the resampling triggers for
inorganic chemicals in source water to the method detection limit
(MDL). These provisions were modified by the Phase V Rule (57 FR 31776,
July 17, 1992). Section 141.23(a)(4)(I) now requires that follow-up
samples be collected if any composited inorganic chemical sample
concentration is greater than or equal to one-fifth of the maximum
contaminant level (MCL). The use of one-fifth of the MCL as the
resampling trigger for source water lead and copper levels is
inappropriate since there are no MCLs for lead or copper.
EPA considered a resampling trigger of one-fifth the action level
for lead and copper in a composite source water sample on the basis
that such a resampling trigger might be analogous to a resampling
trigger of one-fifth of the MCL for all other regulated inorganic
compounds in drinking water. While using one-fifth of the MCL as the
resampling trigger is sufficient for most inorganic chemicals, lead and
copper are regulated through a slightly different means. That is, an
action level at the 90th percentile as measured in tap samples does not
directly correspond to any particular source water levels.
Contributions to lead and copper levels at the tap can come from source
water and through corrosion of the distribution system. In some cases,
the contribution from the source may be significant and merits
treatment. EPA believes that using one-fifth of the action level as the
resampling trigger is inappropriate for lead and copper.
EPA's guidance, Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual Volume II:
Corrosion Control Treatment dated September 1992 (Document number EPA
811-B-92-002), provides levels below which treatment is not an
advisable option for lead and copper in source water. Below these
levels, the Agency believes it would be more expedient to control lead
and copper levels through corrosion control treatment of the
distribution system than through source water treatment. The Agency
believes source water treatment for lead is generally not advisable
when lead levels in the source water are less than or equal to 0.005
mg/L. The Agency also believes that source water treatment for copper
is generally not advisable when copper levels in the source water are
less than or equal to 0.8 mg/L.
EPA therefore believes the water system and the State generally
should be concerned when source water lead levels exceed 0.005 mg/L or
source water copper levels are greater than 0.8 mg/L. As discussed
above, EPA believes that the less conservative level of concern for
copper is appropriate since the copper action level is the same as the
copper MCLG. Since the rule allows compositing of up to 5 samples, the
composite sample concentration can be as much as one-fifth the level at
any of the sites included in the composite before treatment would be
considered. EPA believes the resampling trigger should be set at one-
fifth the level of concern to ensure that sampling sites with lead and/
or copper levels greater than the level of concern are identified.
EPA proposes that water systems resample for lead and copper in
source water at each of the sites from which the composite sample was
taken when the composite sample concentration is greater than 0.001 mg/
L for lead and/or greater than 0.160 mg/L for copper. The Agency
believes these levels are appropriate because the final rule specifies
that the State may require a water system to treat its source water at
the lower levels and it is therefore crucial that EPA, the States, and
water systems, have information at the lower levels to make informed
decisions on proper treatment.
The proposed lead resampling trigger of 0.001 mg/L is the method
detection limit (MDL) for lead. The Agency is aware that there is
concern about using MDLs as
FR Doc. 96-7738 Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
monitoring and compositing criteria
because, statistically, half the samples whose true value is at the MDL
could be reported as false negatives. The Agency therefore also is
soliciting comment on the option of not allowing composite source water
samples.
EPA proposes to revise Sec. 141.88(a)(1) by dropping the reference
to Sec. 141.23(a) (1) through (4) \10\ and incorporating the
requirements regarding sample location, number of samples, and
collection methods at a new Sec. 141.88(a)(1) (i) through (iii). The
proposed new Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii) will contain the provisions for
compositing source water samples for lead and copper as well as the
resampling triggers for lead and copper. This paragraph also clarifies
that compositing of samples must be done by certified laboratory
personnel and provides a cost-savings option that, if duplicates of or
sufficient quantities from the original samples from each sampling
point used in the composite are available, the system may use these
instead of resampling, if resampling is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 141.23(a)(1) through (4) contains the requirements
regarding sample location, number of samples, and timing for
inorganic chemicals. Since the requirements pertaining to sampling
for lead and copper in source water differ somewhat from those in
Sec. 141.23(a) (1)-(4), the Agency believes it will be less
confusing to specify the requirements regarding lead and copper in
Subpart I, where all other lead and copper sampling is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised resampling triggers for lead and copper at
Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii) necessitate revisions to the laboratory
certification procedures at Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii). Currently
Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii) requires that laboratories that accept composite
samples be capable of achieving the MDLs that previously were the
resampling triggers for lead and copper. For lead, at
Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii)(A), the MDL of 0.001 mg/L corresponds to the
resampling trigger discussed above that is proposed to be added to
Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii). However, for copper, the MDL is below the
resampling trigger proposed to be added at Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii). The
MDL for copper is 0.001 mg/L, or 0.020 mg/L if atomic absorption direct
aspiration is used. EPA therefore proposes to revise
Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii) to delete the requirement concerning the copper
MDL because the laboratory will be sufficiently tested on its
capabilities under Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii)(B) where it is required to
achieve a quantitative acceptance limit of 10 percent of
the actual amount of the performance evaluation sample when the actual
amount is greater than or equal to 0.050 mg/L.
(b) Reduced Source Water Monitoring. Systems that exceed the lead
or copper action level at the tap are required to monitor for lead or
copper in their source water. States are required to determine whether
source water treatment is needed and, if treatment is required, to
establish maximum permissible levels for lead and copper in the
system's source water. The current regulations, at Sec. 141.88(e),
allow source water monitoring at a reduced frequency ultimately for
water systems that meet the maximum permissible source water lead and
copper levels set by the State. This reduced monitoring is not
currently allowed for systems required to conduct source water
monitoring but for which the State has not set maximum permissible
source water levels. In these instances, the State effectively has
determined that source water treatment is not necessary and that the
source water does not contribute significantly to lead and
[[Page 16358]]
copper levels at the tap. EPA believes it is appropriate to allow such
systems to reduce the frequency of source water monitoring. Some water
systems will exceed the lead or copper action level on a continuing
basis with little or no contamination originating from the source. For
these systems, corrosion control treatment may require a number of
years to take full effect.
EPA therefore proposes to revise Secs. 141.88(e)(1) and (2) to
allow water systems that exceed the action level, but for which the
State has not set maximum permissible source water levels, to reduce
the frequency of source water monitoring for lead and copper if the
system maintains source water lead levels below 0.005 mg/L and source
water copper levels below 0.8 mg/L for three consecutive monitoring
periods, if using an exclusively ground-water source, or three
consecutive years, if using a surface water or combined surface and
ground-water source. As explained above, these are the levels for lead
and copper in source water below which EPA generally believes source
water treatment is not necessary. The proposed monitoring protocol is
consistent with current rule requirements for systems that meet State-
set maximum permissible levels after installation of source water
treatment. The preamble to the rule (56 FR 26529) explained that this
protocol is consistent with the monitoring protocols for other
inorganic chemicals.
12. System Reporting Requirements
As discussed above, EPA is proposing a number of changes to water
system reporting requirements at Sec. 141.90. The following chart
summarizes these changes.
Summary of Proposed Changes to System Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preamble
Paragraph Proposed revision discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.90(a)(1)(ii)............... Remove requirement for B.8(a)
certification of
first draw samples
collected by the
system.
Replace with new B.3
requirement for
documentation to
accompany sample
invalidation requests.
141.90(a)(1)(iii).............. Remove requirement for B.8(a)
certification
pertaining to first
draw samples
collected by
residents.
Reserve paragraph.....
141.90(a)(2)................... Remove requirement for B.5(b)
CWSs to send letter
to State
demonstrating why
sufficient Tier 1
sites cannot be
located.
Replace with new B.5(d)
requirement for
NTNCWSs that cannot
find enough first
draw sampling sites
to send a letter to
the State.
141.90(a)(3)................... Remove requirement for B.5(b)
NTNCWSs to send
letter to State
demonstrating why
sufficient Tier 1
sites cannot be
located.
Replace with new B.6
requirement for
systems subject to
reduced monitoring to
notify the State if
there are any changes
in treatment or
source water.
141.90(a)(4)................... Remove requirement to B.5(b)
send letter to State
demonstrating why 50%
of sampling sites are
not served by lead
service lines.
Replace with new B.4
reporting
requirements
associated with ``all
plastic'' system
monitoring requests.
141.90(a)(5)................... Remove reporting B.8(b)
requirements
associated with
requesting reduced
monitoring.
Replace with new B.7
reporting requirement
demonstrating
representative
locations for
biweekly entry point
water quality
parameter monitoring
after the
installation of
corrosion control
treatment.
141.90(e)(4)................... Remove reporting B.10
requirements
associated with
rebutting presumption
of control of lead
service lines.
141.90(f)...................... Revise deadline for B.9(d)
reporting completion
of public education
tasks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Other Revisions Suggested by Stakeholders
As part of a broad ``Government Reinvention'' initiative, EPA has
been examining ways to reduce the paperwork burden on regulated parties
and States associated with environmental regulations. Through public
meetings, EPA has solicited input from States, water utilities, and
environmental groups regarding ways to reduce the burden associated
with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, including the lead
and copper rules. Some of the suggestions made by these
``stakeholders'' were already part of the set of revisions that are
being proposed for public comment in this notice. Several other
suggestions are not being formally proposed at this time because the
EPA has not had time to fully assess them, but the Agency believes that
they are worth considering. Thus, the Agency is requesting comment,
data, or other relevant information on these additional suggested
revisions to the lead and copper rule, summarized below, so that it can
more fully evaluate their merits for possible inclusion in the final
rule, or proposal in subsequent rulemaking. Stakeholder suggestions
regarding other aspects of the drinking water program are being
addressed through other regulatory and programmatic pathways.
(a) Eliminate PWS Requirement to Calculate and Report 90th
Percentile Values. Under Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(i), water systems are
required to submit to the State the results of all tap samples for lead
and copper. Systems are also required under Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(iv) to
submit the 90th percentile lead and copper concentration measure from
the tap water samples. Some States have found that many systems,
especially smaller systems, submit incorrect values for the 90th
percentiles. As a result, some States routinely re-calculate 90th
percentile values based on the individual tap sample data. Given this
problem, it has been suggested that the rule be revised to give States
flexibility to eliminate the requirement that systems submit 90th
percentile values provided that the State performs the calculation. The
Agency has received other input that the current requirement for
systems to calculate the 90th percentile values is helpful because it
helps systems that do exceed an action level begin follow-up steps,
especially water quality parameter monitoring. Also, 90th percentile
values, especially for smaller systems, are often obvious to the
trained eye reviewing the actual data and it allows States to quickly
sort through many reports to focus on high priority cases. Comments on
this issue are invited.
(b) Allow Monthly Monitoring of Water Quality Parameters at Entry
Points. For systems required to install corrosion control treatment,
the rule requires collection of one sample, at least every two-weeks
(bi-weekly) for pH, and if alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is
adjusted as part of optimal corrosion control treatment, a reading of
the dosage rate of the chemical used to adjust alkalinity or the
inhibitor used,
[[Page 16359]]
and the alkalinity concentration or concentration of orthophosphate or
silica (whichever is applicable). It has been suggested that monitoring
for these water quality parameters can be reduced to a once per month
frequency which would significantly reduce both system and State
burdens. On the other hand, monthly monitoring may not provide systems
and States with frequent enough information to insure that corrosion
control treatment is consistently applied so that protective films are
maintained. Further, even though the requirement is for bi-weekly
monitoring, systems typically conduct this monitoring on a daily basis.
As such, bi-weekly measurements should not present an added burden for
most systems. EPA invites comment on this issue.
(c) Allow Flushing and Bottled Water Instead of Corrosion Control
in NTNCWSs. Some stakeholders recommended that the rule be revised to
give States flexibility to allow non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs) that exceed the lead and/or copper action level, to
substitute flushing and/or the use of bottled water rather than having
to install corrosion control treatment. These systems usually do not
have access to trained operators who can study and properly maintain
corrosion control treatment, and handle potentially hazardous
chemicals, and facilities that can easily house the chemical feeders,
especially in systems with wells and buried pressure tanks. Further,
NTNCWSs can control the use of individual taps and many are confined to
one or a few buildings that would be amenable to a flushing program.
Allowing the water to run for several minutes each morning or prior to
a work shift could effectively reduce elevated lead concentrations,
especially if the source of lead is in the outlets (e.g., brass
faucets, water coolers) or building plumbing (i.e., lead solder). Use
of bottled water (certified to meet all EPA standards), combined with
permanently posted notices informing customers, is another alternative
that would free the system of having to install and maintain treatment.
Drawbacks to such a provision include the lack of clear performance
measures, short of more extensive monitoring than currently required,
that States could use in monitoring the efficacy of the flushing
program in reducing exposure. EPA welcomes input on this issue
particularly regarding the availability and reliability of automated
flushing devices, and appropriate monitoring requirements that could be
used to insure compliance.
(d) Eliminate PWS Need To Justify Not Recommending Specific
Corrosion Control Treatment. A PWS required to conduct a corrosion
control study is also required under Sec. 141.82(c)(6) to recommend to
the State the treatment option that the study indicates will constitute
optimal corrosion control for that system. The system is required to
provide a rationale for its recommendation including supporting data
and documentation regarding constraints on other treatment options that
could have adverse effects on other water quality treatment processes.
Some stakeholders have recommended eliminating the requirement for
systems to explain under Sec. 141.82(c)(4) why they did not choose a
specific treatment as long as they identify a corrosion control
treatment that works. The benefits of such a change would be to reduce
paperwork which in some, and possibly many, cases is extraneous. In
determining what constitutes optimal corrosion control, however, it is
important that States know the potential adverse effects and other
constraints associated with alternative treatments. Without this
requirement, it could add to the burden on States in assembling the
necessary data and documentation to make their decision. EPA invites
comment on this issue.
(e) Allow Alternatives To Tap Samples To Assess Effectiveness of
Corrosion Control. Collection of lead and copper tap water samples has
presented water systems with significant challenges in terms of
conducting materials surveys, identifying high risk sites, soliciting
assistance from individual households, and gaining access to homes at
often inconvenient hours or arranging for sample pickup. Water systems,
with considerable assistance from States, have met these challenges
such that compliance with the tap water monitoring requirements is
almost complete. As implementation of the rule progresses, it would be
useful if there were alternatives to tap water sampling to assess lead
and copper levels that occur at the tap and that provide sufficient
information for systems and States in tracking the efficacy of
corrosion control treatment, for example. At this time, the Agency does
not have data to develop alternative sampling methods that would
provide information with as much certainty as direct sampling at taps.
The Agency agrees with some stakeholders that information is needed on
an alternative monitoring framework to evaluate corrosion control
compliance, without going into customers' homes. The public is invited
to submit suggestions, and especially technical data, that could be
used in developing reliable monitoring methods that do not involve
household tap water sampling, that could be used to measure and predict
actual and/or relative exposures of the public to lead and copper, and
that could measure compliance with, and the efficacy of, corrosion
control treatment requirements.
C. State Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR Part 142
1. Proposed Revisions
Section 142.15(c)(4) contains State reporting requirements for lead
and copper. The current reporting requirements are as follows.
Lead and Copper Exceedances--Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i).
Systems required to conduct corrosion control studies and
the date of completion--Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(ii).
Systems for which the State has designated optimal
corrosion control treatment, the date of the designation, and those
systems that have completed installation--Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii).
Systems for which the State has designated optimal water
quality parameters and the date of the designation--
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iv).
Systems which are required to install source water
treatment and those which have completed installation--
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(v).
Systems for which the State has specified maximum
permissible source water levels--Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(vi).
Systems required to replace lead service lines, those
systems for which an accelerated replacement schedule is required, and
those systems in compliance with their schedules--
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(vii).
EPA proposes to modify these State milestone reporting requirements
to eliminate redundant or unnecessary requirements and to add
requirements to report other key information. EPA anticipates these
changes will result in little or no cost to the States and water
systems. The Agency presented most of these proposed changes in EPA's
May 1992 guidance, entitled Lead and Copper Rule, Definitions and
Federal Reporting for Milestones, Violations, and SNCs, in which EPA
explained the Agency's intention to modify the regulation. In addition,
as discussed below, the Agency is today proposing to eliminate one of
the milestones pertaining to the installation of corrosion control
treatment. The specific changes proposed are discussed below.
(a) 90th Percentile Lead Levels. Section 141.90(a) requires public
water
[[Page 16360]]
systems to submit to the States the results of all tap water lead
levels, including the 90th percentile values for lead and copper.
States are required to submit only a portion of this information to the
Agency. The current State reporting requirement at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i)
requires each State to submit the name and PWS identification number of
each public water system that exceeds the lead and copper action level
and the date the exceedance occurred. EPA intended this information to
be reported if either the lead or the copper action level is exceeded,
not just in those instances where a system exceeds both levels. EPA
also believes that the term ``date upon which the exceedance occurred''
is confusing and has advised States to use the last day of the
compliance period in which the exceedance occurred. EPA proposes to
revise the language of Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i) to clarify its intent by
replacing the term ``lead and copper action levels'' with the term
``lead or copper action level'' and by replacing the term ``date upon
which the exceedance occurred'' with the term ``last date of the
compliance period in which the exceedance occurred.''
The Agency also is proposing to broaden this reporting requirement
by adding a new Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to require that each State submit
to EPA the 90th percentile lead levels reported by all large- and
medium-size water systems. EPA is proposing to require reporting of
these data because it believes it is essential that the Agency maintain
a data base on the national distribution of tap water lead levels
before and after public water systems install optimal corrosion control
treatment or source water treatment. EPA believes that data collected
by water systems in accordance with the monitoring protocol specified
in Sec. 141.86 will greatly assist the Agency in determining the
effectiveness of treatment to reduce drinking water lead levels, and in
estimating the benefits that accrue to the public as a result of
systems installing treatment. Moreover, EPA believes that collection of
such data will prove invaluable when the Agency reviews the lead and
copper regulations in the future. While the Agency would like these
data for small systems also, the Agency is not proposing to require it
because EPA believes that such a requirement would impose too great a
burden on the States.
The States have shown support for this effort to collect crucial
data on lead levels and the effectiveness of treatment around the
country by submitting 90th percentile lead levels for large- and
medium-size systems. The cost of this change will be minimal. The
States already have the data in question and, for most of them, the
process of transferring it to the Agency involves only a minor
programming change to electronically transfer the extra piece of
information during the normal reporting process. States without
automated data tracking systems will find it more difficult to report
these data. However, these States do have the data on hand and the
extra reporting steps are minimal.
(b) Treatment Technique Milestones. (i) Corrosion control study
milestones. The current Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(ii) requires States to submit
the name of each water system that is required to conduct a corrosion
control study and the date the study is completed. EPA is proposing to
eliminate this requirement because a public water system that fails to
conduct a corrosion control treatment study is in violation of the
regulation and will be automatically identified for EPA in the data
system. Because all violations are reported to EPA through the data
system, the Agency does not believe a separate report identifying each
system required to conduct a study will provide EPA with information
that will be useful in assessing the status of systems' compliance with
the regulations.
(ii) Optimal corrosion control treatment designation/corrosion
control treatment installation milestones. Section 142.15(c)(4)(iii)
requires each State to report the name of every system for which it has
designated optimal corrosion control treatment, the date of that
determination, and each system that completed installation of treatment
as certified under Sec. 141.90(c)(3). EPA is proposing to revise this
paragraph to eliminate reporting of systems that have completed
installation of corrosion control treatment. Failure of a system to
complete this installation is a violation that must be reported to EPA.
EPA therefore believes that separate reporting of this milestone is
redundant.
(iii) Requirement for source water treatment milestones. Section
142.15(c)(4)(v) requires the State to report the name of the system for
which it requires installation of source water treatment and the
effective date of that requirement. EPA is not proposing to change this
requirement. This paragraph also requires States to report each system
that has completed installation of source water treatment. EPA proposes
to move this requirement to a new paragraph, 142.15(c)(4)(vi), and to
make a minor change to include the date the State receives
certification from the system that the treatment was installed
properly. EPA proposes to add this reporting requirement so that the
Agency can use the verifiable date of installation to ensure that
further monitoring proceeds as required by the rule.
The current Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(vi) requires the State to report the
name of the system for which it has specified maximum permissible
source water levels for lead and copper. EPA is proposing to eliminate
this reporting requirement. The Agency can determine those systems for
which the State will set maximum permissible levels from the
information reported for the source water treatment/source water
treatment installation milestones. In addition, EPA will know if a
system fails to meet its maximum permissible source water levels
because the system will incur a violation which would be reported to
the data system. The Agency does not see any added value from having
the State separately report the date it designated maximum permissible
levels.
(iv) Cost of changing treatment technique milestones. As with the
change regarding reporting of 90th percentile lead levels, the cost of
changing the requirement to report the date that the system certified
completion of source water treatment installation will be minimal. The
State will already have this information on hand and reporting it with
the other required information will be a minimal increase of effort
that will be more than offset by eliminating the reporting of several
treatment milestones altogether.
(d) Reporting Lead Service Line Replacement Milestones. Section
142.15(c)(4)(vii) requires the State to submit three separate pieces of
information on each public water system required to replace lead
service lines: Each system that must begin replacing lead service
lines; each system for which the State has established an accelerated
replacement schedule; and each system reporting compliance with its
replacement schedule. EPA proposes that instead of the current
reporting requirement, the State report each water system that must
replace lead service lines and the date replacement must begin. Reports
identifying water systems in compliance with the replacement schedule,
or with a State-specified accelerated schedule, would be redundant
because systems in violation of their replacement schedule would be
reported to the data system as violations. The Agency also can require
this information from States, if needed. EPA proposes to revise
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(vii) accordingly. EPA estimates there will be no
costs associated with this change.
[[Page 16361]]
2. Other Possible Changes to State Reporting Requirements
(a) Reporting of State-Designated Optimal Water Quality Control
Parameters, Maximum Permissible Source Water Levels and Accelerated
Lead Service Line Replacement Schedules. Although EPA is not proposing
the following reporting requirements today, EPA is considering them and
seeks public comment. These requirements are the reporting of State-
designated optimal water quality control parameters and maximum
permissible source water levels and the retention of the requirement to
report accelerated lead service line replacement schedules.
For all systems that have to install corrosion control treatment,
the regulations require States to designate the range of optimal water
quality control parameters within which a system must operate once it
has optimized treatment. For systems with high source water levels of
lead or copper, the rule also requires States to specify whether source
water treatment is required, and, if so, to specify maximum permissible
source water levels after treatment has been installed. Finally, the
rule allows States to establish an accelerated lead service line
replacement schedule.
Unlike other NPDWRs in which EPA establishes maximum contaminant
levels with which PWS must comply, in the lead and copper rule, the
levels with which systems must comply (i.e., the optimal water quality
control parameters and maximum permissible source water levels) are set
by the States. Unless the State reports those levels to EPA, EPA does
not know the limits with which each system must comply. This lack of
information could place the Agency in a weaker oversight position and
could require EPA to rely on ad-hoc requests to the States for this
information.
In the same way, when a State establishes an accelerated lead
service line replacement schedule for a PWS, this schedule becomes the
federal requirement. Unless this new schedule is reported or EPA
contacts the State, the Agency would not know the requirement with
which the PWS must comply. If a system on an accelerated lead service
line replacement schedule fails to replace the number of lines in a
given year required by the State, EPA would know that they are out of
compliance, however, just as if the system was on the standard
replacement schedule.
EPA is sensitive to the burden which additional reporting places on
the States and this is one reason why the Agency is not proposing to
add this requirement. EPA also recognizes that States are required to
maintain this information and that if it is needed, EPA may request it
from the States. It should be noted, however, that responding to ad-hoc
requests for information can take the States a good deal of time and
resources.
EPA requests comment on whether or not to require the reporting of
optimal water quality control parameters, the maximum permissible
source water levels, and to retain the requirement to report
accelerated lead service line replacement schedules. EPA requests
comment on requiring this reporting for:
(a) all PWSs subject to the lead and copper rule;
(b) only PWSs serving 50,000 or more persons;
(c) only PWSs serving 10,000 or more persons; and
(d) only PWSs serving 3,300 or more persons.
Commenters should address both the need for the federal government
to have access to the information on a routine basis as well as the
burden of providing it for each of the options listed above. EPA may
decide to promulgate final requirements to report this information for
all PWSs, or for a subset of PWSs, as noted above.
(b) Reduce State Reporting to EPA of Lead and Copper Action Level
Exceedences and Treatment Technique Milestone Information from
Quarterly to Annually. In addition to the paperwork burden suggestions
described above in section B.13, EPA is considering a stakeholder
suggestion to reduce the frequency of reporting data required pursuant
to Sec. 142.15(c)(4). This section requires States to report
information about action level exceedences and information related to
treatment technique milestones for those systems that are triggered
into corrosion control, source water treatment, and lead service line
replacement. This section currently requires States to report such
information on a quarterly basis--e.g., when a reportable milestone is
completed, the information about that milestone is to be reported to
EPA in the following calendar quarter.
Some stakeholders have suggested a modification to this section to
change the reporting frequency for this information from quarterly to
annually. As an example, the Agency might specify a date (e.g., January
1) and require that all new 90th percentile and treatment technique
milestone information resulting from activities that occurred during
the previous federal fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) be
reported to EPA by that date (January 1). Such a change would mean that
States would need to transmit the 90th percentile and treatment
technique milestone information only once a year instead of four times
a year.
If such a modification were made, costs associated with
transmission of data should be reduced. Also, since the States will be
retaining the information for a longer period of time before reporting
to EPA, this change would give the States more time to review, edit,
and correct the information that they are submitting and may help to
improve the quality of the data being transmitted. Reducing the
reporting frequency may, on the other hand, increase State burden
because States would need to distinguish between those data elements
which still must be reported quarterly (violation and enforcement
information under Sec. 142.15(a)) and those which may be reported
annually. States do not currently need to make such a distinction since
they submit all new information on a quarterly basis. Further, reducing
the reporting frequency to annually means that some of the data will be
as much as 12 months old by the time EPA has access to it. As an
example, a milestone completed and reported to the State in February
would not be reported to EPA in May, as is currently required, but
instead would not be reported to EPA until the following January. This
delay could affect the Agency's ability to quickly conduct nation-wide
trend analyses and to assist with follow-up actions to encourage the
system to return to compliance.
EPA asks for comments on this suggestion and requests that
commenters address the following: (1) Whether such a reporting
frequency change would significantly reduce or increase burden; (2)
whether EPA and the public needs this information in a more current
fashion (i.e., quarterly or semi-annually); and (3) whether reducing
the reporting frequency to annually would likely have any effect on
data quality. EPA may decide to include provisions to reduce the
frequency of reporting lead and copper information pursuant to
Sec. 142.15(c)(4) in the final rule.
D. Proposed Effective Dates
EPA proposes to promulgate revisions pertaining to monitoring,
analytical methods, reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 141.81, Secs. 141.86 through 141.90, and Sec. 142.15 pursuant to
both sections 1445 and 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
proposes that these revisions take effect
[[Page 16362]]
30 days after promulgation. Although Section 1412(b) of the SDWA
provides that National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (as defined
in Section 1401), and amendments thereto, shall take effect 18 months
after their promulgation, under Section 1445, there is no such
limitation for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping compliance. To
allow these revisions to be effective 30 days after promulgation of
these revisions, EPA proposes promulgating these provisions of the
revisions under section 1445. Effective 18 months after promulgation,
these revisions will also be deemed effective under section 1412.
The Agency proposes to promulgate revisions pertaining to treatment
technique requirements, including public education provisions, in
Secs. 141.81, 141.84, and 141.85, pursuant to section 1412 of the SDWA
and proposes that these revisions take effect 18 months after
promulgation.
E. Request for Comments
The Agency invites all interested persons to submit comments within
90 days on all aspects of this proposal to make minor revisions to the
language of 40 CFR 141 and 142. However, the Agency only solicits
comment on the proposed changes and the suggestions for reducing
paperwork burden discussed in this preamble, and not on provisions of
the existing regulation that would not be altered by this proposal.
After carefully considering all public comments pertaining to the
proposed changes, EPA will promulgate final language for these
provisions.
F. Impact of These Revisions
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
(a) Costs. At the time of promulgation, based on data from a select
group of U.S. cities, the Agency estimated that the cost for water
systems to comply with the various treatment requirements would total
between $500 and $790 million per year. Household costs were estimated
to range from less than $1 per year for large systems (serving over
50,000 people) to $2 to $20 per year per household in smaller systems.
Now that water systems have collected lead samples from hundreds of
thousands of household taps around the country to comply with the
monitoring requirements of the rule, much more reliable predictions of
costs (and benefits) can be made. It is clear that significantly fewer
systems will be required to install corrosion control and, therefore,
both costs and benefits associated with the rule are less than
originally predicted. We would now estimate that costs associated with
the rule are roughly $200 million per year, resulting in reduced lead
exposure for approximately 40 million Americans. Health benefits
associated with these exposure reductions would still be substantial,
totaling over $1 billion per year and resulting in an estimated 200,000
young children whose blood lead levels are reduced to below the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC)/EPA action level of 10 micrograms per
deciliter.
To calculate the relative magnitude of the regulatory revisions
proposed here, the original cost model and the same basic assumptions
regarding impacts of the individual rule components were used.
Regardless of the baseline used, it is clear that the projected impacts
of the proposed regulatory revisions, discussed below, will be minimal
compared to the total national costs associated with the lead and
copper regulations. Overall, we estimate the proposed changes will
result in a very minor reduction and we do not believe the percentage
reduction will change substantially if costs for the entire rule were
recalculated.
The estimated national impact of these proposed changes is shown in
the following table. EPA estimates the total national cost of the lead
and copper regulations will decrease by approximately $1.9 million per
year.
Summary of Cost Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Lead and Copper
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (EPA, 1996b)
[Annual cost estimates in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/7/91 Impact of Revised LCR
Major rule components final rule proposed cost
\2\ revisions estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring....................... 39 -1.02 38
Corrosion Control Treatment
(including Corrosion studies)... 220 0 220
Source Water Treatment........... 90 0 90
Public Education................. 30 -0.54 29
Lead Service Line Replacement.... 80-370 -0.01 80-370
State Implementation Costs....... 40 -0.31 40
---------------------------------------
Total...................... 499-789 -1.88 497-787
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise noted, the costs presented in this table represent
water system costs.
\2\ Costs for the 1991 final rule were estimated at the time of
promulgation and do not reflect actual costs associated with
implementation since then.
\3\ Includes impact of proposed revisions to both the public education
requirements and the deadline for system reporting completion of lead
public education tasks to the State.
[[Page 16363]]
Overall, EPA estimates that national system costs will decrease by
approximately $1.5 million annually. Although most water systems should
benefit somewhat, the systems most likely to benefit are those that are
able to take advantage of proposed provisions allowing less frequent
monitoring and/or from the proposed changes to the public education
requirements. Despite this reduction in overall national costs, EPA
recognizes that a few individual water systems may incur increased
costs as a result of these proposed revisions. For example, water
systems affected by the changes to Secs. 141.81(b)(2) and 141.81(b)(3)
may incur additional costs if they are not already conducting
monitoring consistent with the proposed revised requirements.
EPA estimates that the total national cost for States to implement
the proposed revised regulations will decrease by approximately
$300,000 annually. This decrease results primarily from revisions that
will result in fewer compliance determinations (since some systems will
be monitoring less frequently) and changes in State reporting to EPA.
(b) Benefits. The intent of this proposed rulemaking is to improve
implementation of the lead and copper regulations by eliminating
unnecessary requirements, streamlining and reducing burden, and
promoting consistent national implementation. EPA does not intend these
revisions to modify the level of health protection extended by the lead
and copper regulations and no modification is expected. While there are
no known changes in health benefits associated with these proposed
changes, improved implementation should result in some health benefits
being achieved sooner.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to consider the effect
of regulations on small entities (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq.) If there is a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,
the Agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
describing alternatives that would minimize the impact. The impact on
small entities resulting from the requirements of the lead and copper
rule was assessed at the time the requirements were imposed. As
discussed above, the impact of the revisions proposed in this action
will be to reduce total national annual monitoring costs slightly and
EPA anticipates many small systems will benefit from these changes.
States are not considered small entities under this rulemaking for RFA
purposes. Thus, there is no additional impact on small entities imposed
by these regulations.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 0270.36) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
This proposed rule would add recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for some water systems and the States in the following
categories: Sampling plans; sample invalidation; ``all plastic'' system
waiver requests; and notifications of changes in treatment or source
water. This proposed rule also would require more frequent reporting of
the completion of public education tasks for CWSs serving more than
500. This information collection is necessary to evaluate system-
specific needs, including examining treatment effectiveness; to adjust
monitoring frequencies and schedules to address possible public health
concerns, and to determine whether the public is receiving timely
notification of possible health risks associated with high levels of
lead at the tap. In addition, this proposal includes requirements for
States to report to EPA the 90th percentile lead values for large and
medium-size systems that do not exceed the lead action level and the
date associated with one of the treatment technique milestones about
which States currently are required to report. This information will be
used to develop national compliance trends and to help evaluate whether
changes in national policy or regulations are necessary to protect
public health. The information collection in this proposed rule is
mandatory, is authorized under sections 1401(1)(D), 1413(a)(3) and 1445
of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and is considered
public information. The additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this proposal are offset by other proposed provisions
that will reduce monitoring burden and eliminate some system and State
reporting requirements.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to decrease the base Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS) program burden (ICR No. 270.30 approved
under OMB Control Number 2040-0090) for 78,703 respondent public water
systems by an average of 1.2 hours per system annually and to decrease
the burden on each of the 56 State respondents by an average of 179.0
hours annually. The frequency of response includes on occasion,
biweekly, quarterly (State respondents only), every six months, annual,
every 3 years and every 9 years. With one exception (the change in
deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks), this
proposal either leaves unchanged, or reduces, the current frequency of
response. The average annual per system burden cost is estimated to
decrease by approximately $20.00 ($13.45 operations and maintenance and
$6.55 purchase of services). The average annual per State burden cost
is estimated to decrease by approximately $5,600, all of which is
operations and maintenance. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for the information
proposed to be added or eliminated, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send
comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W.;
Washington, DC 20503, marked
[[Page 16364]]
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 12, 1996, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 13,
1996. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''),
P.L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, requires EPA
to prepare a written statement with respect to rules that contain
federal mandates that may result in costs to State, local, or tribal
governments of an estimated $100 million or more in any one year. Also,
before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan.
The UMRA generally defines a federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Today's rule simply addresses
proposed minor revisions to the existing national primary drinking
water regulations for lead and copper. These revisions, when
promulgated, will reduce monitoring burden for some water systems, make
it easier for many water systems to conduct lead public education, and
modify the definition of ``control'' as it applies to the lead service
line replacement requirements of the existing regulation. This proposed
rule also provides additional flexibility to States and modifies the
information that States must report to EPA. This effect of the proposed
rule would make minor revisions to the enforceable duty imposed on
States and other entities. The estimated impact of these proposed
revisions will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of less that
$100 million per year. Thus, there are no federal mandates in this rule
for purposes of the UMRA. In addition, today's action does not
establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, and so
does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
5. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Executive Order 12875, Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
requires Federal agencies to consult with State, local, and tribal
entities in the development of rules and policies that will affect
them. EPA has coordinated extensively with these entities in proposing
these minor revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule in the following
ways.
First, the EPA distributed a strawman draft proposal to interested
parties, including State program officials, the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and major trade associations
(e.g., the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), the
American Water Works Association (AWWA)) in August 1993. The Agency
took the resulting comments into consideration while developing this
proposal.
Second, representatives from three States participated on the
Agency work group. These States were selected in consultation with
ASDWA. In addition, EPA Regional work group members consulted with the
States in their Region, in some cases sharing draft work group products
with their States.
Third, in November 1995, the Agency provided national, local, and
tribal organizations (e.g., the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Towns and Townships, the National Association of County
Health Officers, the Native American Water Association, etc.) a brief
article for inclusion in their newsletters announcing upcoming plans to
publish the proposal. The article encouraged readers to provide EPA
comment on the proposed revisions and provided information on how
interested parties could obtain a copy from EPA.
Fourth, the Agency is developing generic contacts with State,
Tribal, and local fiscal and program officials which will enable
various programs to consult with affected parties in a coordinated
fashion. Identification of appropriate contacts was not accomplished in
a time frame which enabled EPA's Office of Water to have extensive
consultation with affected parties before proposal. EPA is committed to
expanded dialogue and collaboration with State, Tribal and local
governments, however, and plans to work with these contacts to provide
for the maximum input from the regulated community for the drafting of
the final rule. EPA will also send copies of this proposed rule to
these governmental bodies, as well as to appropriate national and local
associations.
G. References
The following references are referred to in this document and are
included in the public docket. The public docket is available as
described at the beginning of this document.
American Water Works Association, et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266
D.C. Cir. 1994).
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E., and Harward, C.
Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in Hard Waters. J. IWEM, 6:259-
268. (June, 1992). [Colling et al., 1992]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 20. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations--Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic
Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations Implementation; National Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed. Jan. 30, 1991), 3526-
3614. [56 FR 3526]
Federal Register, Vol 56, No. 110. Drinking Water Regulations--
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991),
26460-26564. [56 FR 26460]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking Water Regulations;
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Correction. (Mon. Jul.
15, 1991), 32113. [[56 FR 32113]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic
Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri. Jul. 17, 1992), 31776-31849. [57 FR
31776]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking Water Regulations;
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Correcting Amendments.
(Mon. Jun. 29, 1992), 28785-28789. [57 FR 28785]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking Water; Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Technical corrections.
(Thu. Jun. 30, 1994), 33860-33864. [59 FR 33860]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232, Analytical Methods for
Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon. Dec. 5,
1995), 62456-62471. [59 FR 62456]
Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analytical Methods for
Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants; Final Rule. (Thu. Jun. 29,
1995), 34084-34086. [60 FR 34084]
Fuge, Ronald, Pearce, J.G. Nicholas, and Perkins, William T.
Unusual Sources of Aluminum and Heavy Metals in Potable Waters.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 14:15-18. (April, 1992).
[Fuge et al., 1992]
NSF, International Personal communication from Ann Marie
Gebhart, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Jeff Cohen, U.S. EPA, Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, July 28, 1995. [NSF 1995]
Schock, Michael R., Wagner, Ivo, and Oliphant, Roger. The
Corrosion and Solubility of Lead in Drinking Water. Ch. 4
[[Page 16365]]
in Internal Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems, Second Edition,
AWWARF/EBI. (1995, in press). [Schock et al., 1996]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper. Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (April 1991). [EPA,
1991a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead and Copper Rule
Guidance Manual; Volume I: Monitoring. Prepared by Black & Veatch,
ECOS, Inc., and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (Sep. 1991, NTIS PB 92-112101).
[EPA, 1991b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead and Copper Rule;
Definitions and Federal Reporting for Milestones, Violations and
SNCs. (May 1992, ERIC G405, NTIS PB-93-156131). [EPA, 1992a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead and Copper Rule
Guidance Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control Treatment. Prepared by
Black & Veatch and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (Sep. 1992, NTIS PB-93-
101583). [EPA, 1992b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Determination
of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement 1. (May 1994, NTIS PB
94-184942). [EPA, 1994]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Analysis of Analysis of
Occurrences of Very Low 90th Percentile Lead Levels. (Oct. 1995, EPA
812-X-95-001, NTIS PB 96-129-077). [EPA, 1995]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Addendum; Proposed Changes to National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by The Cadmus Group. (Jan.
1996, EPA 812-B-96-002, NTIS PB 96-141494). [EPA, 1996a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Information Collection
Request; Proposed Changes to National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by The Cadmus Group. (Jan.
1996, EPA 812-B-96-003, NTIS PB 96-141502). [EPA, 1996b]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I,
parts 141 and 142 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4 and 300j-9.
2. Section 141.81 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(b)(2) introductory text and paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to
small, medium-size and large water systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Any water system may be deemed by the State to have optimized
corrosion control treatment if the system demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the State that it has conducted activities equivalent
to the corrosion control steps applicable to such system under this
section. If the State makes this determination, it shall provide the
system with written notice explaining the basis for its decision and
shall specify the water quality control parameters representing optimal
corrosion control in accordance with Sec. 141.82(f). Water systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph shall
operate in compliance with the State-designated optimal water quality
control parameters (Sec. 141.82(g)) and continue to conduct tap
sampling (Sec. 141.86(d)(3) and Sec. 141.87(d)). A system shall provide
the State with the following information in order to support a
determination under this paragraph:
* * * * *
(3) Any water system is deemed to have optimized corrosion control
if it submits results of tap water monitoring conducted in accordance
with Sec. 141.86 and source water monitoring conducted in accordance
with Sec. 141.88 that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that the difference between the 90th percentile tap
water lead level computed under Sec. 141.80(c)(3), and the highest
source water lead concentration is less than the Practical Quantitation
Level for lead specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii). Any such water
system shall continue monitoring for lead and copper at the tap no less
frequently than once every three calendar years using the reduced
number of sites specified in Sec. 141.86(c) and collecting the samples
at times and locations specified in Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv). The first
round of monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) shall be
conducted in [the year of the first May 1 after publication of the
final rule in Federal Register] during the months of June-September
with the exception that systems that have monitored pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(d) (3) or (4) during any of the three years prior to [30
days after publication of final rule in Federal Register] may use those
results and continue monitoring every three years based on the date of
that monitoring. The State may require any system deemed to have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph to conduct
additional monitoring or to take other action the State deems
appropriate to ensure that such systems maintain minimal levels of
corrosion in the distribution system (e.g., if there is a change in
treatment or a new source is added). As of [18 months after publication
of final rule in Federal Register] a system is not deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this paragraph unless it meets the
copper action level. Any system triggered into corrosion control
because it is no longer deemed to have optimized corrosion control
under this paragraph shall comply with the requirements of paragraph
(e) of this section with any such large system adhering to the schedule
specified in that paragraph for medium-sized systems.
* * * * *
3. Section 141.84 is proposed to be amended by removing paragraph
(e), redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (e), (f),
and (g), respectively, and by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.
* * * * *
(d) A water system shall replace that portion of the lead service
line which the system owns as well as that portion of the line which
the system has the legal authority to replace in order to protect the
quality of the water delivered to the user. In cases where the system
does not replace the entire lead service line, the system shall notify
the user served by the line that the system will replace the portion of
the service line specified in the previous sentence and shall offer to
replace the building owner's portion of the line, but is not required
to bear the cost of replacing the building owner's portion of the line.
For buildings where only a portion of the lead service line is
replaced, the water system shall inform the resident(s) that the system
will collect a first flush tap water sample after partial replacement
of the service line is completed if the resident(s) so desire. In cases
where the resident(s) accept the offer, the system shall collect the
sample and report the results to the resident(s) within 14 days
[[Page 16366]]
following partial lead service line replacement.
* * * * *
4. Section 141.85 is proposed to be amended by redesignating
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4)(v) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old paragraph New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(1).................................... (a)(1)(i).
(a)(2).................................... (a)(1)(ii).
(a)(3).................................... (a)(1)(iii).
(a)(3)(i)................................. (a)(1)(iii)(A).
(a)(3)(ii)................................ (a)(1)(iii)(B).
(a)(3)(iii)............................... (a)(1)(iii)(C).
(a)(4).................................... (a)(1)(iv).
(a)(4)(i)................................. (a)(1)(iv)(A).
(a)(4)(ii)................................ (a)(1)(iv)(B).
(a)(4)(ii)(A)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(1).
(a)(4)(ii)(B)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(2).
(a)(4)(ii)(C)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(3).
(a)(4)(ii)(D)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(4).
(a)(4)(ii)(E)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5).
(a)(4)(ii)(F)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(6).
(a)(4)(iii)............................... (a)(1)(iv)(C).
(a)(4)(iii)(A)............................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(1).
(a)(4)(iii)(B)............................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2).
(a)(4)(iv)................................ (a)(1)(iv)(D).
(a)(4)(iv)(A)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(1).
(a)(4)(iv)(B)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2).
(a)(4)(iv)(C)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3).
(a)(4)(v)................................. (a)(1)(iv)(E).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4a. Section 141.85 is further proposed to be amended by adding
paragraph (a)(1) heading and paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(7) and (c)(8) and
by revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii),
(c)(2)(iii) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(4) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 141.85 Public education and supplemental monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Content of printed public education materials for community
water systems--(i) Introduction. * * *
* * * * *
(2) Content of printed public education materials for non-transient
non-community water systems.--(i) Introduction. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and [insert name of water
supplier] are concerned about lead in your drinking water. Some
drinking water samples taken from this facility have lead levels above
the EPA action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams
of lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under Federal law we are required to
have a program in place to minimize lead in your drinking water by
[insert date when corrosion control will be completed for your system].
This program includes corrosion control treatment, source water
treatment, and public education. We are also required to replace any
lead service line that is in place and that we control if the line
contributes lead concentrations of more than 15 ppb after we have
completed the comprehensive treatment program. If you have any
questions about how we are carrying out the requirements of the lead
regulation please give us a call at [insert water system's phone
number]. This brochure explains the simple steps you can take to
protect yourself by reducing your exposure to lead in drinking water.
(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is found throughout the
environment in lead-based paint, air, soil, household dust, food,
certain types of pottery porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead can pose
a significant risk to your health if too much of it enters your body.
Lead builds up in the body over many years and can cause damage to the
brain, red blood cells and kidneys. The greatest risk is to young
children and pregnant women. Amounts of lead that won't hurt adults can
slow down normal mental and physical development of growing bodies. In
addition, a child at play often comes into contact with sources of lead
contamination--like dirt and dust--that rarely affect an adult. It is
important to wash children's hands and toys often, and to try to make
sure they only put food in their mouths.
(iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead in drinking water, although
rarely the sole cause of lead poisoning, can significantly increase a
person's total lead exposure, particularly the exposure of infants who
drink baby formulas and concentrated juices that are mixed with water.
The EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20 percent or more of
a person's total exposure to lead.
(B) Lead is unusual among drinking water contaminants in that it
seldom occurs naturally in water supplies like rivers and lakes. Lead
enters drinking water primarily as a result of the corrosion, or
wearing away, of materials containing lead in the water distribution
system and household plumbing. These materials include lead-based
solder used to join copper pipe, brass and chrome-plated brass faucets,
and in some cases, pipes made of lead that connect houses and buildings
to water mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress banned the use of
lead solder containing greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted the lead
content of faucets, pipes and other plumbing materials to 8.0%.
(C) When water stands in lead pipes or plumbing systems containing
lead for several hours or more, the lead may dissolve into your
drinking water. This means the first water drawn from the tap in the
morning, or later in the afternoon if the water has not been used all
day, can contain fairly high levels of lead.
(iv) Steps you can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking
water. (A) Let the water run from the tap before using it for drinking
or cooking any time the water in a faucet has gone unused for more than
six hours. The longer water resides in plumbing the more lead it may
contain. Flushing the tap means running the cold water faucet for about
15-30 seconds. Although toilet flushing or showering flushes water
through a portion of the plumbing system, you still need to flush the
water in each faucet before using it for drinking or cooking. Flushing
tap water is a simple and inexpensive measure you can take to protect
your health. It usually uses less than one gallon of water.
(B) Do not cook with, or drink water from the hot water tap. Hot
water can dissolve more lead more quickly than cold water. If you need
hot water, draw water from the cold tap and then heat it.
(C) The steps described above will reduce the lead concentrations
in your drinking water. However, if you are still concerned, you may
wish to use bottled water for drinking and cooking.
(D) You can consult a variety of sources for additional
information. Your family doctor or pediatrician can perform a blood
test for lead and provide you with information about the health effects
of lead. State and local government agencies that can b
FR Doc. 96-7738 Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
e contacted
include:
(1) [insert the name or title of facility official if appropriate]
at [insert phone number] can provide you with information about your
facility's water supply; and
(2) [insert the name or title of the State Department of Public
Health] at [insert phone number] or the [insert the name of the city or
county health department] at [insert phone number] can provide you with
information about the health effects of lead.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) or (c)(8) of this
section, a community water system that fails to meet the lead action
level on the basis of water samples collected in accordance with
Sec. 141.86 shall, within 60 days:
(i) Insert notices in each customer's water utility bill containing
the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, along with the
following alert on the water bill itself in large print: ``SOME HOMES
IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR DRINKING WATER.
LEAD CAN POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.''
[[Page 16367]]
(A) A community water system having a billing cycle that does not
include a billing within 60 days of exceeding the action level may mail
the materials on the same schedule as the system's billing cycle, but
in no case may the mailing occur later than six months after the
exceedance.
(B) A community water system that cannot insert information in the
water utility bill without making major changes to its billing system
may use a separate mailing to deliver the information in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section as long as the information is delivered to each
customer within the time frames specified above. Such water systems
shall include the following alert in the package, in large print: SOME
HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR DRINKING
WATER. LEAD CAN POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.''
(ii) Submit the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to
the editorial departments of the major daily and weekly newspapers
circulated throughout the community.
(iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or brochures that contain the public
education materials in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this
section to facilities and organizations, including the following:
* * * * *
(4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the lead action level, a non-
transient non-community water system shall deliver the public education
materials contained in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as follows:
* * * * *
(7) A community water system may apply to the State, in writing, to
use the text specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section in lieu of
the text in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to perform the tasks
listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section in lieu of the
tasks in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section if:
(i) The system is a facility, such as a prison or a hospital, where
the population served is not capable of or is prevented from making
improvements to plumbing or installing point of use treatment devices;
and
(ii) The system provides water as part of the cost of services
provided and does not separately charge for water consumption.
(8) (i) A community water system serving 500 or fewer people shall
complete the tasks contained in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(iii) of
this section. Such systems may limit distribution of the public
education materials required under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this
section to facilities and organizations that are most likely to be
visited regularly by pregnant women and children served by the system,
including all appropriate facilities and organizations within the
system's service area.
(ii) A community water system serving 500 or fewer people that
delivers public education in accordance with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of
this section shall repeat the tasks contained in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of
this section at least once during each calendar year in which the
system exceeds the lead action level.
* * * * *
5. Section 141.86 is proposed to be amended by removing paragraph
(a)(8), by redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as paragraph (a)(8) and
paragraph (d)(4)(v) as paragraph (d)(4)(vi), by adding a sentence to
the end of paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7), by adding paragraphs (b)(5),
(d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising newly designated
paragraph (a)(8) and paragraphs (b)(1), (c), (d)(4)(ii) through
(d)(4)(iv), and the sixth sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.
(a) * * *
(5) * * * A community water system with insufficient tier 1, tier
2, and tier 3 sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with
representative sites throughout the distribution system.
* * * * *
(7) * * * If additional sites are needed to complete the sampling
pool, the non-transient non-community water system shall use
representative sites throughout the distribution system.
(8) Any water system whose distribution system contains lead
service lines shall draw 50 percent of the samples it collects during
each monitoring period from sites that contain lead pipes, or copper
pipes with lead solder, and 50 percent of the samples from sites served
by a lead service line. A water system that cannot identify a
sufficient number of sampling sites served by a lead service line shall
collect first draw samples from all of the sites identified as being
served by such lines.
(b)(1) All tap samples for lead and copper collected in accordance
with this subpart, with the exception of lead service line samples
collected under Sec. 141.84(c) and samples collected under paragraph
(b)(5) of this section, shall be first draw samples.
(2) * * * If the sample is not acidified immediately after
collection, then after acidification to resolubilize the metals the
sample must stand in the original container for the time specified in
the approved EPA method. * * *
* * * * *
(5) A non-transient non-community water system that does not have
enough taps that can supply first draw samples, as defined in
Sec. 141.2, may apply to the State in writing to substitute non-first
draw samples. Such systems must:
(i) Collect as many first draw samples from appropriate sample taps
as possible;
(ii) Identify sampling times and locations that would likely result
in the longest standing time for the remaining sample sites; and
(iii) Sample at times and locations approved by the State.
(c) Number of samples. Water systems shall collect at least one
sample during each monitoring period specified in paragraph (d) of this
section from the number of sites listed in the first column (``standard
monitoring'') of the table in this paragraph. A system conducting
reduced monitoring under paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall collect
at least one sample from the number of sites specified in the second
column (``reduced monitoring'') of the table in this paragraph during
each monitoring period specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
Such reduced monitoring sites shall be representative of the sites
required for standard monitoring. States may specify sampling locations
when a system is conducting reduced monitoring. The table is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
sites sites
System size (number of people served) (standard (reduced
monitoring) 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality control parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) during each of
two consecutive six-month monitoring periods may reduce the frequency
of monitoring to once per year and reduce the number of lead and copper
samples in accordance with
[[Page 16368]]
paragraph (c) of this section if it receives written approval from the
State. The State shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant
information submitted by the water system in accordance with
Sec. 141.90, and shall notify the system in writing when it determines
the system is eligible to commence reduced monitoring pursuant to this
paragraph. The State shall review, and where appropriate, revise its
determination when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data,
or when other data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.
(iii) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead and
copper action levels during three consecutive years of monitoring may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper from annually to
once every three years. Any water system that maintains the range of
values for the water quality control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f)
during three consecutive years of monitoring may reduce the frequency
of monitoring from annually to once every three years if it receives
written approval from the State. The State shall review monitoring,
treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the water system
in accordance with Sec. 141.90, and shall notify the system in writing
when it determines the system is eligible to reduce the frequency of
monitoring to once every three years. The State shall review, and where
appropriate, revise its determination when the system submits new
monitoring or treatment data, or when other data relevant to the number
and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.
(iv) A water system that reduces the number and frequency of
sampling shall collect these samples from sites included in the pool of
targeted sampling sites identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Systems sampling annually or less frequently shall conduct the lead and
copper tap sampling during the months of June, July, August or
September. If a water system does not operate between June and
September, the system must monitor at times representative of system
operation during the applicable monitoring period. Samples for such
systems must be taken during the month(s) of operation that will likely
be the warmest.
(v) Any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that the tap water lead level computed under
Sec. 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to the PQL for lead specified
in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii) and the tap water copper level computed under
Sec. 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to one-half the copper action
level specified in Sec. 141.80(c)(2) may reduce the number of samples
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and reduce the
frequency of sampling to once every three calendar years.
* * * * *
(vii) Any water system subject to reduced monitoring that either
changes its source water or changes any water treatment shall inform
the State within 60 days. The State may require the system to resume
sampling in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section and
collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring under
paragraph (d) of this section or take other appropriate steps such as
increased water quality parameter monitoring or re-evaluation of its
corrosion control treatment given the potentially different water
quality considerations.
* * * * *
(f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap water samples. A sample
invalidated under this paragraph does not count toward meeting the
minimum monitoring requirements of this section.
(1) The State may invalidate a lead or copper tap water sample only
if the conditions of paragraph (f)(1) (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this
section are met.
(i) The laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused
erroneous results.
(ii) The State determines that the sample was taken from a site
that did not meet the site selection criteria of this section.
(iii) The sample container was damaged in transit.
(iv) There is substantial reason to believe that the sample was
subject to tampering.
(2) The system must report the results of all samples to the State
and all evidence of documentation for samples the system believes
should be invalidated.
(3) To invalidate a sample under paragraph (f)(1) of this section,
the decision and the rationale for the decision must be documented in
writing.
(4) Replacement samples for any samples invalidated under this
section must be taken as soon as possible, but within 20 days of the
date the State invalidates the sample or by the end of the applicable
monitoring period, whichever occurs later. Replacement samples taken
after the end of the applicable monitoring period shall not also be
used to meet the monitoring requirements of a subsequent monitoring
period. The replacement samples shall be taken at the same locations as
the invalidated samples or, if that is not possible, at locations other
than those already used for sampling during the monitoring period.
(g) Monitoring waivers for ``all plastic'' systems. (1) Any small-
size system in which the system's distribution and service lines and
all buildings connected to the system are free of materials containing
lead and copper, including but not limited to, lead or copper service
lines, lead or copper pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded
brass or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures, may apply to the State for
a waiver from the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section once it
has completed one six-month round of standard tap water monitoring for
lead and copper subsequent to becoming free of materials containing
lead and copper. Such monitoring shall be completed at sites approved
by the State and from the number of sites required by paragraph (c) of
this section.
(2) To qualify for a waiver the system must:
(i) Provide certification to the State that the system itself and
all buildings connected to the system are free of all lead-containing
and copper-containing materials, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section; and
(ii) Demonstrate that the 90th percentile lead level for any and
all rounds of monitoring performed since the system became free of all
lead-containing and copper-containing materials, as specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and the
90th percentile copper level for any and all such rounds of monitoring
does not exceed 0.65
mg/L.
(3) A State may grant a waiver to some or all of the monitoring
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section after the State evaluates
the information provided by the system as required by paragraph (g)(2)
of this section. As a condition of the waiver, the State may require
the system to perform specific activities (e.g., limited monitoring or
public education) to minimize the risk of lead or copper contamination
in tap water. The State shall notify the system of its determination in
writing, setting forth the basis of its decision and any conditions of
the waiver.
(4) A system with a waiver must conduct tap water monitoring for
lead and copper at the reduced number of sampling sites identified in
paragraph (c) of this section once every nine years. If the 90th
percentile lead level is
[[Page 16369]]
greater than 0.005 mg/L and/or if the 90th percentile copper level is
greater than 0.65 mg/L, the State may require the system to resume
regular tap water monitoring pursuant to paragraph (d) (3) or (4) of
this section, or to take other appropriate action to ensure that the
system maintains minimal levels of corrosion in the distribution
system.
(5) If a system with a waiver from monitoring requirements adds a
new source of water or changes any water treatment, the system shall
inform the State within 60 days. The State may require the system to
resume regular tap water monitoring pursuant to paragraph (d) (3) or
(4) of this section. Any such system may apply for an extension of the
waiver by repeating the steps listed in paragraphs (g)(2) (i) and (ii)
in this section. If the system continues to satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, a State may extend the waiver as
described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(6) If, due to new construction or repairs, a system can no longer
certify that the system itself and all buildings connected to the
system are free of lead-containing and copper-containing materials, the
system must resume regular tap water monitoring pursuant to paragraph
(d)(4) of this section.
6. Section 141.87 is proposed to be amended by redesignating
paragraph (e)(2) as paragraph (e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3)
and (e)(2)(ii), and by revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text and
the table at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) For surface water systems, at each entry point to the
distribution system, one sample every two weeks (biweekly) for:
* * * * *
(3) Any ground water system can limit entry point sampling
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those entry points
that are representative of water quality and corrosion control
treatment conditions throughout the system. Any such system shall
provide to the State by the commencement of such monitoring
identification of the selected entry points and information sufficient
to demonstrate that the sites are representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the system.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any large water system may reduce the frequency with which it
collects tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section to every three years if it
demonstrates during two consecutive monitoring periods that its tap
water lead level at the 90th percentile is less than the PQL for lead
specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water copper level at
the 90th percentile is less than one-half the action level for copper
in Sec. 141.80(c)(2), and that it also has maintained the range of
values for the water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f).
* * * * *
Summary of Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring period Parameters \2\ Location Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial monitoring................... pH, alkalinity, Taps and at entry .......................
orthophosphate or point(s) to
silica \3\, calcium, distribution systems..
conductivity,
temperature.
After installation of corrosion pH, alkalinity, Taps................... Every 6 months
control. orthophosphate or
silica \3\, calcium
\4\.
pH, alkalinity, dosage Entry point(s) to Biweekly.
rate and concentration distribution system
(if alkalinity \6\.
adjusted as part of
corrosion control),
inhibitor dosage rate
and inhibitor residual
\5\.
After state specifies parameter pH, alkalinity, Taps................... Every 6 months.
values for optimal corrosion control. orthophosphate or
silica \3\, calcium
\4\.
pH, alkalinity dosage Entry point(s) to Biweekly.
rate and concentration distribution system
(if alkalinity \6\.
adjusted as part of
corrosion control),
inhibitor dosage rate
and inhibitor residual
\5\.
Reduced monitoring................... pH, alkalinity, Taps................... Every 6 months,
orthophosphate or annually \7\ or every
silica \3\, calcium 3 years \8\; reduced
\4\. number of sites.
pH, alkalinity dosage Entry point(s) to Biweekly.
rate and concentration distribution system
(if alkalinity \6\.
adjusted as part of
corrosion control),
inhibitor dosage rate
and inhibitor residual
\5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
\2\ Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in
which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level.
\3\ Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must
be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
\4\ Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is sued as part of corrosion control.
\5\ Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured
only when an inhibitor is used.
\6\ Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
\7\ Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six
months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
\8\ Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from
annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters
reflecting optimum control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring.
[[Page 16370]]
7. Section 141.88 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(1), (e)(1), and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source
water.
(a) * * *
(1) A water system that fails to meet the lead or copper action
level on the basis of tap samples collected in accordance with
Sec. 141.86 shall collect lead and copper source water samples in
accordance with the following requirements regarding sample location,
number of samples, and collection methods:
(i) A water system shall take a minimum of one sample at every
entry point to the distribution system after any application of
treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is
representative of each source after treatment (hereafter called a
sampling point).
(ii) If a system draws water from more than one source and the
sources are combined before distribution, the system must sample at an
entry point to the distribution system during periods of normal
operating conditions (i.e., when water is representative of all sources
being used).
(iii) The State may reduce the total number of samples which must
be analyzed by allowing the use of compositing. Compositing of samples
must be done by certified laboratory personnel. Composite samples from
a maximum of five samples are allowed, provided that if the lead
concentration in the composite sample is greater than 0.001 mg/L or the
copper concentration is greater than 0.160 mg/L, then either:
(A) A follow-up sample shall be taken and analyzed within 14 days
at each sampling site included in the composite; or
(B) If duplicates of or sufficient quantities from the original
samples from each sampling point used in the composite are available,
the system may use these instead of resampling.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A water system using only groundwater may reduce the monitoring
frequency for lead and/or copper to once during each nine-year
compliance cycle (as that term is defined in Sec. 141.2) if the system
meets one of the following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in
Sec. 141.83(b)(4) during at least three consecutive compliance periods
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or
(ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not
needed and the system demonstrates that, during at least three
consecutive compliance periods in which sampling was conducted under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the concentration of lead in source
water was less than 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of copper in
source water was less than 0.8 mg/L.
(2) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface
and groundwater) may reduce the monitoring frequency in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section to once during each nine-year compliance cycle
(as that term is defined in Sec. 141.2) if the system meets one of the
following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in
Sec. 141.83(b)(4) for at least three consecutive years; or
(ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not
needed and the system demonstrates that, during at least three
consecutive years, the concentration of lead in source water was less
than 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of copper in source water was
less than 0.8 mg/L.
* * * * *
8. Section 141.89 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.89 Analytical methods.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Achieve the method detection limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L
according to the procedures in appendix B of part 136 of this title.
This need only be accomplished if the laboratory will be processing
source water composite samples under Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
9. Section 141.90 is proposed to be amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and removing paragraph (e)(4), by
revising all references to ``Sec. 141.84(f)'' in paragraph (e)(2) to
read ``Sec. 141.84(e)'', and by revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory
text, (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2) through (a)(5) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.90 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) A water system shall report the following information specified
all tap water samples within the first 10 days following the end of
each applicable monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.86 and
Sec. 141.87 and Sec. 141.88 (i.e., every six-months, annually, every 3
years, or every 9 years):
* * * * *
(ii) Documentation for each tap water lead or copper sample for
which the water system requests invalidation pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(f)(1);
(iii) [Reserved];
* * * * *
(2) By the start of the first applicable monitoring period in
Sec. 141.86(d) that commences after [30 days following publication of
final rule in Federal Register], each non-transient non-community water
system that does not have enough taps that can supply first draw
samples, as defined in Sec. 141.2, shall send a letter to the State
identifying sampling times and locations for enough non-first draw
samples to make up its sampling pool under Sec. 141.86(b)(5).
(3) By 60 days after any change in source water or water treatment,
a water system subject to reduced monitoring pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(d), or subject to a monitoring waiver pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(g), shall send a letter to the State describing the change
along with any appropriate monitoring results.
(4) By the start of the first applicable monitoring period in
Sec. 141.86(d) that commences after [30 days following publication of
final rule in Federal Register], each small-size water system that
requests a monitoring waiver, or any extension of a monitoring waiver,
shall send a letter to the State providing the information listed under
Sec. 141.86(g)(2).
(5) Each ground water system that limits water quality parameter
monitoring to a subset of entry points under Sec. 141.87 (c)(3) shall
provide to the State by the commencement of such monitoring
identification of the selected entry points and information sufficient
to demonstrate that the sites are representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the system.
* * * * *
(f) Public education program reporting requirements. Any water
system that is subject to the public education requirements in
Sec. 141.85 shall submit a letter to the State within ten days after
the end of each period in which the system is required to perform
public education tasks in accordance with Sec. 141.85(c) demonstrating
that the system has delivered the public education materials that meet
the content requirements in Sec. 141.85(a) and (b) and the delivery
requirements in Sec. 141.85(c). This information shall include a list
of all the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and
[[Page 16371]]
facilities and organizations to which the system delivered public
education materials during the most recent period during which the
system was required to perform public education tasks.
* * * * *
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
10. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4 and 300j-9.
11. Section 142.15 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) and (c)(4)(v) through (c)(4)(vii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Each public water system which exceeded the lead or copper
action level and the last day of the compliance period in which the
exceedance occurred;
(ii) For each large and medium-size public water system, all 90th
percentile lead levels calculated during each monitoring period in
Sec. 141.86, and the first and last day of the compliance period for
which the 90th percentile lead level was calculated;
(iii) Each public water system for which the State has designated
optimal corrosion control treatment under Sec. 141.82(d) and the date
of the determination;
* * * * *
(v) Each public water system which the State has required to
install source water treatment under Sec. 141.83(b)(2) and the date of
the determination;
(vi) Each public water system that completed installation of source
water treatment as certified under Sec. 141.90(d)(2) and the date the
State received such certification; and
(vii) Each public water system required to begin replacing lead
service lines as specified in Sec. 141.84 and the date each system must
begin replacement.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7738 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.