productivity and increased medical and educational expenditures.
Therefore, EPA has chosen diagnosed cases of ADHD as an endpoint in
this benefits analysis, because literature exists linking ADHD
diagnosis to these monetizable outcomes. The larger body of literature
on attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity symptoms in children
supports this association. EPA chose a high and low dose-response
function for the estimates of avoided cases to partially address the
uncertainty in the most appropriate dose-response function to use in
estimating avoided cases due to the proposed rule.
    The approach used to quantify ADHD here is based on review and
analysis that Abt Associates (Abt Associates, 2023) conducted under
contract to EPA. Specifically, the benefits analysis uses average blood
lead values to determine estimates of avoided diagnosed ADHD cases that
correspond to reductions in water lead concentrations resulting from
changes in LSL/GRR, point-of-use, pitcher filter, and CCT status. E
    PA used the concentration response functions from two studies to
bracket the estimated number of ADHD cases avoided. EPA's high estimate
is based on a study by Froelich et al. (2009), and the low estimate is
based on a study by Ji et al. (2018). EPA utilized the AALM estimated
set of potential geometric mean blood lead levels for the 8- to 15-
year-old age group, presented in Exhibit 18, as inputs in the modeling
of ADHD benefits when using the Froelich et al. (2009) concentration
response function to estimate the high scenario. Because Ji et al.
(2018) measured early childhood BLLs in their study, EPA used the
estimated set of potential geometric mean blood lead levels estimated
by the SHEDS-Pb model, shown in Exhibit 17, as the input values for the
Ji et al. (2018) concentration response associated with the low ADHD
benefits scenario.
    As described above in section VIII.D.6. of this document, the
SafeWater LCR model, with the strengths and limitations characterized
in section VIII.B. and sections 4.2.2 and 5.7 of the Economic Analysis
document for the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2020c), is able to track the
population in water systems that are affected by changes in LSL/GRR
service line, point-of-use, pitcher filter, and CCT status and the
resultant changes in water and blood lead concentration for each
population group per year of the 35-year period of analysis. These
changes in BLLs for each population group are then used to estimate the
number of avoided cases of ADHD using the Froelich et al. (2009)
function for the high benefits scenarios and the Ji et al. (2018)
function for the low benefit scenario.
    EPA uses information on ADHD costs estimated from Doshi et al.
(2012) in the monetization step. The Doshi et al. (2012) costs include
incremental child and adolescent costs for patient and family health
care, family productivity losses, educational expenses, and justice
system expenses. The cost estimate also includes incremental adult
patient and family health care and justice system costs. The adult
costs are adjusted downward to account for the fact that only 65
percent of ADHD cases persist into adulthood. In order to apply these
avoided cost values in the benefits analysis EPA produced two net
present value estimates for all avoided ADHD costs incurred through age
64, the first discounted back to age seven for use with Ji et al. in
the estimation of the low benefit scenario (Ji et al. (2018) used BLLs
measured in young children) and back to age 11 for use with Froelich et
al. (2009) function in estimating the high benefits scenario (Froelich
et al. (2009) used BLLs measured in children 8-15 years of age). The
net present values of avoided costs were computed using both the three
and seven percent discount rates. The costs were also adjusted to 2022
dollars. The estimated per case ADHD avoided costs under the high
benefits scenario and discounted to age 11 range from $228,231 to
$203,823 discounted at three and seven percent, respectively. The per
case values used in the low benefits scenario and discounted to age 7
range from $202,780, at a three percent discount rate, to $155,496, at
a seven percent discount rate.
    The estimated number of ADHD cases avoided under the low and high
benefits scenarios in each year of the 35-year period of analysis in
then multiplied by the corresponding net present value to compute the
avoided cost per year. This annual stream of benefits was annualized at
three and seven percent over the 35-year period of analysis, and
further discounted to year one of the period of analysis. See Exhibit
19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20 (discounted at seven
percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated benefit from avoided
ADHD cases from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation
and re-optimization, point-of-use program operation, and pitcher filter
distribution as a result of the LCRR, the proposed LCRI, and the
incremental difference between the two sets of regulatory requirements
under both the low and high scenarios. For detailed information on the
quantification and monetization of the ADHD benefits associated with
the proposed LCRI see Chapter 5, section 5.5.4 of the proposed LCRI
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
8. Estimated Low Birth Weight Benefits
    This is the first regulation in which EPA has estimated benefits of
avoided cases of low birth weight associated with reductions in lead
exposure; as discussed below the approach for quantifying such benefits
will continue to evolve as our understanding of the potential
relationship improves. Blood leads from the AALM for women of
childbearing age (17-45 years of age) were used in order to estimate
reduced lower birth weight in infants. The concentration response
function characterizing the relationship between changes in female BLL
and reductions in lower birth weight in infants comes from a study by
Zhu et al. (2010). The Agency used the Zhu et al. (2010)

function for both the low and high benefits scenarios because EPA did
not identify a second concentration response function based on a
similarly high quality dataset and analysis, however, several other
smaller studies were identified which support the relationship between
lead exposures and reduced birth weight. The choice of Zhu et al.
(2010) was peer reviewed (Versar, 2015).
    The valuation of changes in birth weight is based on a review and
analysis that Abt Associates (Abt Associates, 2022) conducted under
contract to EPA. Their analysis of U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data found that birth weight
in the very low birth weight/low birth weight and normal ranges
influences inpatient hospital stays. In EPA's LCRI analysis, annual
average inpatient expenditures (avoided costs) by initial birth weight
(2-10 pounds) are the product of: (1) the predicted probability of
having at least one medical event in the period, and (2) the mean
conditional expenditures (i.e., conditional on observing at least one
medical event in the period). The mean conditional expenditures have
been estimated based on projected initial birth weight and projected
increases in weight of 0.04, 0.11, and 0.22 pounds.
    Generally, as initial birth weight increases, the size of avoided
expenditures deceases. Similarly, as expected increase in weight goes
up, the avoided costs increase. For example, at a starting birth weight
of 3.3 pounds, an increase in birth weight of 0.22 pounds results in a
decrease in inpatient hospital expenditures of $1,839 (2010$), but the
cost saving is less than $100 at a starting birth weight of 5.5 pounds.
In applying the average inpatient avoided cost values to the LCRI case,
EPA adjusted the study's 2010 cost estimates to 2022 dollars. The
Agency also assumed that baseline birth weights for the affected
infants are equal to the distribution of birth weights in the United
States. See Exhibit 19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20
(discounted at seven percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated
benefit from avoided low birth weight impacts from lead and GRR service
line replacement, CCT installation and re-optimization, point-of-use
use program operation, and pitcher filter distribution as a result of
the LCRR, the proposed LCRI, and the incremental difference between the
two sets of regulatory requirements under both the low and high
scenarios. For detailed information on the quantification and
monetization of the low birth weight benefits associated with the
proposed LCRI see Chapter 5, section 5.5.6 of the proposed LCRI
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
9. Estimated Cardiovascular Disease Premature Mortality Benefits
    EPA's estimation of benefits from avoided cardiovascular disease
(CVD) associated premature mortality follows a new methodology outlined
in Brown et al. (2020) and Abt Associates (2023). The latter document
benefited from an independent peer review (MDB Incorporated, 2019) that
articulated the strengths and limitations of our understanding of the
relationship between lead exposure and cardiovascular disease premature
mortality, and thus the strengths and limitations of the method
presented. These strengths and limitations are discussed in more detail
in the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis, Chapter 5 (USEPA, 2023b). In
order to bracket the reduction in CVD premature mortality risk avoided,
and the calculated monetized benefits, associated with reductions in
BLLs resulting from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use program operation, and
pitcher filter distribution accruing under the proposed LCRI, EPA
selected two concentration response functions. The high scenario
function is based on the BLL <5 [micro]g/dL analysis in Lanphear et al.
(2018), and the low scenario function is based on Aoki et al. (2016).
While additional concentration response functions for this relationship
are available as detailed in Brown et al. (2020) and Abt Associates
(2023), these two functions represent, respectively, the highest and
lowest changes in cardiovascular disease premature mortality associated
with a given change in adult BLL available in peer-reviewed studies
estimating continuous functions using high quality, nationally
representative datasets.
    In order to value the reduced CVD premature mortality risk, EPA
uses the same approach it uses in estimating the benefits associated in
reductions of particulate matter and ozone in the air pollution
regulations. Specifically, EPA draws on the published academic surveys
about how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their
risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by
environmental pollution. In the scientific literature, these estimates
of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often
referred to as the ``value of a statistical life.'' This is because
these values are typically reported in units that match the aggregate
dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing to pay for
a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, such that we
would expect one fewer death among the group during that year on
average. EPA's value of a statistical life was adjusted to 2022
dollars, and the resulting value of $12.98 million was applied to each
avoided case, or reduction in population risk resulting in one fewer
CVD death.\23\ Avoided cases of cardiovascular disease premature
mortality are estimated for each annual time step, over the 35-year
period of analysis in the SafeWater LCR model, for all adults ages 40
to 79, using the yearly blood lead levels modeled by the AALM, and
shown in Exhibit 18, for both the low and high scenarios (as defined by
the estimated range PWSs that will exceed the action level under the
proposed LCRI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA uses a value of a statistical life (VSL) of $12.98
million, which is estimated using EPA's (2014) recommended VSL of
$4.8 million in 1990 dollars and EPA's (2014) recommended method for
adjusting the VSL for income growth and inflation. The $4.8 value in
1990 dollars is updated to the $12.98 million in 2022 dollars by
adjusting for inflation using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics'
(2019) Consumer Price Index and adjusting it for income growth using
real GDP per capita and an income elasticity of 0.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under both scenarios, the SafeWater LCR model is able to track the
population in water systems that are affected by changes in LSL, point-
of-use, pitcher filter, and CCT status and the resultant changes in
water and blood lead concentration for each population group per year
of the 35-year period of analysis. These changes in BLLs for each
population group are then used to estimate the number of avoided cases
of CVD premature mortality using the Lanphear et al. (2018) function in
the high scenario and the Aoki et al. (2016) function for the low
scenario, assuming baseline cases of cardiovascular disease premature
mortality due to lead follow the same distribution of all
cardiovascular mortality cases in the U.S. population.
    See Exhibit 19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20
(discounted at seven percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated
benefit from avoided cardiovascular disease premature mortality risk
from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation and re-
optimization, point-of-use use program operation, and pitcher filter
distribution as a result of the LCRR, the proposed LCRI, and the
incremental difference between the two sets of regulatory requirements
under both the low and high scenarios. For detailed information on the
quantification and monetization of the CVD premature mortality benefits
associated with the proposed LCRI see

Chapter 5, section 5.5.9 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA,
2023b).
10. Total Monetized Benefits
    Exhibits 19 and 20 show the estimated, monetized national
annualized total benefits, under the low and high scenarios,\24\
associated with the baseline (LCRR), the proposed LCRI, and the
increment of change between the two, discounted at three and seven
percent, respectively. The benefits from the proposed LCRI result from
the activities performed by water systems which are expected to reduce
risk to the public from exposure to lead in drinking water at the tap.
EPA quantifies and monetizes some of this health risk reduction from
lead exposure by estimating the decrease in lead exposures accruing to
both children and adults from the installation and re-optimization of
CCT, service line replacement, the implementation of point-of-use
filter devices, and the provision of pitcher filters in systems with
multiple ALEs.\25\ The total and incremental benefits reported are
subdivided into estimated health endpoint benefits stemming from
avoided reductions in IQ and cases of ADHD in children, lower birth
weights in children of women of childbearing age, and cases of CVD
premature mortality in adults. The estimated monetized benefits
associated with avoided premature mortality are much larger than those
associated with delays in neurodevelopmental impacts in children. Still
the public health impact of this regulation is important for children
given the life-long impact of the early life health effects, the
potential of health impacts from cumulative exposures, and the fact
that there are several other avoided health impacts (See Appendix D of
the EA for the proposed LCRI (USEPA. 2023b)) that were not quantified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The low and high benefits scenarios are defined by
differences in the estimated number of systems experiencing lead
ALEs based on calculated lead tap sampling 90th percentile values
and the concentration-response functions that characterize how
reductions in blood lead levels (caused be changes in lead exposure)
translate into avoided IQ reductions, cases of ADHD, and
cardiovascular disease premature mortality.
    \25\ Noted that because of the lack of granularity in the
assembled lead concentration profile data, with regard to CCT status
when samples were collected (see section VI.E.1. of this document),
the benefits of small improvements in CCT, like those resulting from
the distribution system and site assessment rule requirements,
cannot be quantified in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exhibit 19 and 20 provide the total estimated incremental
annualized monetized benefits of the proposed LCRI discounted at three
and seven percent, respectively. The total annualized monetized
benefits range from $17.3 to $34.8 billion at a three percent discount
rate, and $9.8 to $20.9 billion at a seven percent discount rate in
2022 dollars. The exhibits also detail the proportion of the annualized
benefits attributable to each health endpoint category of monetizable
benefit. For additional information on estimated health endpoint
benefits subdivided by proposed LCRI regulatory activity see Chapter 5
of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). See section
VIII.E.2. of this document for information on non-quantifiable
benefits. In addition to the uncertainties in the dose response
functions and the quantification of the economic impacts noted above
and in Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis of the proposed rule (USEPA,
2023b), the estimated benefits are contingent on the assumptions in the
baseline--principally, whether or not the provisions of the prior LCRR
to remove lead service lines have been successfully met. Therefore, EPA
provides in Appendix C, of the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule
(USEPA, 2023b) estimated national costs and benefits of the LCRI
utilizing the pre-2021 LCR as a baseline.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.041

E. Cost-Benefit Comparison

    This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the proposed
LCRI regulatory requirements. The section also discusses both the non-
monetized costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 21 and 22
compare the annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the
proposed LCRI for the low and high scenarios. Under a three percent
discount rate, the net annualized incremental monetized benefits, under
the low and high scenarios, range from $15.3 to $31.9 billion. Under
the low and high scenarios and a seven percent discount rate, the net
annualized incremental monetized benefits range from $7.3 to $17.3
billion.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.043

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

1. Non-Monetized Costs
    The proposed LCRI is expected to result in additional phosphate
being added to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching
into water in the distribution system. EPA's cost model estimated that,
nationwide, the proposed LCRI may result in post-WWTP total incremental
phosphorus loads to receiving waterbodies increasing over the period of
analysis, under the low and high scenarios, by a range of 343,000 to
491,000 pounds fifteen years after promulgation, and increasing under
the low and high scenarios by a range of 511,000 to 693,000 pounds at
year 35. At the national level, under the high cost scenario, this
additional phosphorous loading to waterbodies is relatively small, less
than 0.1 percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from
all other anthropogenic sources. However, national average receiving
waterbody load impacts may obscure significant localized ecological
impacts. Impacts, such as eutrophication, may occur in water bodies
without restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with
existing elevated phosphate levels. See Chapter 4, section 4.5.2 of the
proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) for additional
information.
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    In addition to the benefits monetized in the proposed LCRI analysis
for reductions in lead exposure, there are several other benefits that
are not quantified. The risk of adverse health effects due to lead that
are expected to decrease as a result of the proposed LCRI are
summarized in Appendix D of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA,
2023b) and are expected to affect both children and adults. EPA focused
its non-quantified impacts assessment on the endpoints identified using
two comprehensive U.S. Government documents summarizing the literature
on lead exposure health impacts. These documents are EPA's Integrated
Science Assessment for Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the Human Health
Services National Toxicology Program (NTP) Monograph on Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead (NTP, 2012). Both sources present comprehensive
reviews of the literature as of the time of publication on the risk of
adverse health effects associated with lead exposure. EPA summarized
those endpoints to which either the EPA ISA or the NTP Lead Monograph
assigned one of the top two tiers of confidence in the relationship
between lead exposure and the risk of adverse health effects. These
endpoints include cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects,
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD), immunological
effects, neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer.
    There are a number of proposed LCRI requirements that reduce lead
exposure to both children and adults that EPA could not quantify. The
proposed rule will require additional lead public education
requirements that target consumers directly, schools and child care
facilities, health agencies, and people living in homes with LSLs and
GRR service lines. Increased education will lead to additional averting
behavior on the part of the exposed public, resulting in reductions in
the negative impacts of lead. The rule also will require the
development of service line inventories that include additional
information on lead connectors and making the location of the lead
content service lines publicly accessible. This will give potentially
exposed consumers more information and will provide potential home
buyers with this information as well, possibly resulting in additional
service line and service line connector removals initiated by
homeowners before, during, or following home sale transactions. The
benefits of these additional removals are not quantified in the
analysis of the proposed LCRI. Because of the lack of granularity in
the lead tap water concentration data available to EPA for the
regulatory analysis, the benefits of small improvements in CCT to
individuals residing in homes with lead content service lines, like
those modeled under distribution system and site assessment are not
quantified.
    EPA also did not quantify the benefits of reduced lead exposure
from lead-containing plumbing components (not including from LSL/GRRs)
to individuals who reside in both: (1) homes that have LSL/GRRs but
also have other lead-containing plumbing components, and (2) those that
do not have LSL/GRRs but do have lead-containing plumbing components.
EPA has determined that the proposed LCRI requirements may result in
reduced lead exposure to the occupants of both these types of buildings
as a result of improved monitoring and additional actions to optimize
CCT. In the analysis of the LCRI, the number of both LSL/GRR and non-
LSL/GRR homes potentially affected by water systems increasing their
corrosion control during the 35-year period of analysis is 16.2 million
in the low scenario and 23.3 million in the high scenario. Some of
these households may have leaded plumbing materials apart from LSL/
GRRs, including leaded brass fixtures and lead solder. These households
could potentially see reductions in tap water lead concentrations.
    Some researchers have pointed to the potential for CCT cobenefits
associated with reduced corrosion, or material damage, to plumbing
pipes, fittings, and fixture, and appliances that use water owned by
both water systems and homeowners (Levin, 2023). The corrosion
inhibitors used by systems that are required to install or re-optimize
CCT as a result of the proposed LCRI would result in additional
benefits associated with the increased useful life of the plumbing
components and appliances (e.g., water heaters), reduced maintenance
costs, reduced treated water loss from the distribution system due to
leaks, and reduced potential liability and damages from broken pipes in
buildings that receive treated water from the system. The replacement
of GRR service lines may also lead to reduced treated water loss from
the distribution system due to leaks (AwwaRF and DVGW-
Technologiezentrum Wasser, 1996). EPA did not have sufficient
information to estimate these impacts nationally for the proposed rule
analysis.
    Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with
copper that are expected to be reduced by the proposed LCRI are
summarized in Appendix E of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA,
2023b). These risks include acute gastrointestinal symptoms, which are
the most common adverse effect observed among adults and children. In
sensitive groups, there may be reductions in chronic hepatic effects,
particularly for those with rare conditions such as Wilson's disease
and children pre-disposed to genetic cirrhosis syndromes. These
diseases disrupt copper homeostasis, leading to excessive accumulation
that can be worsened by excessive copper ingestion (National Research
Council, 2000).

F. Alternative Regulatory Options Considered

    The Office of Management and Budget recommends careful
consideration ``of all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes
or provisions of a rule'' (OMB, 2003). Pursuant to this guidance, EPA
considered alternative regulatory options when developing the proposed
LCRI related to:
     Alternative lead action levels of 0.015 mg/L and 0.005 mg/
L rather than the proposed LCRI lead action level of 0.010 mg/L.

     An annual service line replacement rate of 7 percent
rather than the 10 percent rate under the LCRI.
     The inclusion of lead connectors and galvanized service
lines previously downstream of lead connectors in the proposed rule's
definition of lead content requiring replacement.
     Setting the criterion for deferred service line
replacement to 8,000 lines per year instead of the 10,000 lines per
year in the proposed LCRI.
     Alternative temporary filter provision requirements for
systems with multiple lead action level exceedances.
     Providing the small system compliance flexibility to CWSs
that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer people rather than just to
CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer people (Note: Under both scenarios
NTNCWSs of all sizes are covered by the compliance flexibility).
    Exhibit 23 provides a summary of the proposed LCRI requirements and
other options considered.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.044

1. Alternative Lead Action Levels
    Exhibit 24 through Exhibit 27 compare the quantified costs and
benefits of the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at
an action level of 0.015 mg/L holding all other proposed LCRI rule
requirements constant. Results in these tables are provided for the
high scenario at both a three percent and seven percent discount rates.
    Note the following for all cost results in this section VIII.F.
Alternative Regulatory Options Considered:
    EPA in the LCRR economic analysis (USEPA, 2020b) assumed that the
cost of customer-side service line replacements made under the goal-
based replacement requirement would be paid for by households. The
Agency also assumed that system-side service line replacements under
the goal-based replacement requirement and full service line
replacements (both customer-side and systems-side) would be paid by the
PWS under the 3 percent mandatory replacement requirement. EPA made
these modeling assumptions based on the different levels of regulatory
responsibility systems faced operating under a goal-based replacement
requirement versus a mandatory replacement requirement. While systems
would not be subject to

a potential violation for not meeting the replacement target under the
goal-based replacement requirement, the possibility of a violation
under the 3 percent mandatory replacement requirement could motivate
more systems to meet the replacement target even if they decided that
it was necessary to adopt customer incentive programs that would shift
the cost of replacing customer-side service lines from customers to the
system. To be consistent with these LCRR modeling assumptions, under
the proposed LCRI, EPA assumed that mandatory replacement costs would
fall only on systems. Therefore, the negative incremental values
reported for the ``Household SLR Costs'' category do not represent a
net cost savings to households. They represent an assumed shift of the
estimated service line replacement costs from households to systems.
EPA has insufficient information to estimate the actual service line
replacement cost sharing relationship between customers and systems at
the national level of analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.047

    Exhibit 28 through Exhibit 31 compare the quantified costs and
benefits of the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at
an action level of 0.005 mg/L holding all other proposed LCRI rule
requirements constant. Results in these tables are provided for the
high scenario at both a three percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.052

2. Alternative Service Line Replacement Rate
    Exhibit 32 through Exhibit 35 compare the quantified costs and
benefits of the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of
the rule with an alternative service line replacement rate of seven
percent, holding all other rule requirements constant. Results are
provided for the high scenario at both the three percent and seven
percent discount rates.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.055

3. Alternative Definition of Lead Content Service Lines To Be Replaced
    Exhibits 36 through 39 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring all
lead connectors and all galvanized lines downstream from lead
connectors be replaced along with lead service lines and galvanized
downstream of lead lines at the 10 percents annual replacement rate.
Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three percent
and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.060

4. Alternative Service Line Replacement Deferral Threshold
    Exhibits 40 through 43 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits under an
alternative service line replacement deferral threshold of 8,000
service lines requiring replacement per year, as compared to the
proposed LCRI threshold of 10,000 service lines requiring replacement
per year, holding all other rule requirements

constant. Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three
percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.064

5. Alternative Temporary Filter Programs for Systems With Multiple Lead
Action Level Exceedances
    The proposed LCRI includes a requirement that systems with three
lead action level exceedances in five years make filters available at a
central location to all consumers that have services lines with known
or potential lead content. EPA assessed three alternative temporary
filter programs, including:
    1. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances must
directly deliver filters to all customers.
    2. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances must
directly deliver filters to all customers that have services

lines with known or potential lead content.
    3. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances confer with
the State but are not required by the rule to make temporary filters
available.
    Exhibits 44 through 47 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring
systems with multiple lead action level exceedances to deliver filters
to all customers. Results are provided for the high scenario at both
the three percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.068

    Exhibits 48 through 51 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring
systems with multiple ALEs to deliver filters to customers with LSL,
GRR service lines, and service lines of unknown material. Results are
provided for the high scenario at both the three percent and seven
percent discount rates.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.072

    Exhibits 52 through 55 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits when systems
with multiple action level exceedances confer with the State but are
not required by the rule to make temporary filters available. Results
are provided for the high scenario at both the three percent and seven
percent discount rates.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.076

6. Alternative Size Threshold for Small System Compliance Flexibility
    Exhibits 56 through 59 compare the quantified costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits for an
alternative option where the small system compliance flexibility size
threshold is equal to systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. The
proposed LCRI sets the small system compliance flexibility threshold at
systems serving 3,300 or fewer

people. Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three
percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.080

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    EPA's analysis of the alternative regulatory options found that the
following options had estimated annual positive net benefits greater
than the proposed LCRI: (1) setting the action level to 0.005 mg/L; (2)
including lead connectors and galvanized service lines previously
downstream of lead connectors in the definition of lead content
requiring replacement; (3) requiring systems with multiple action level
exceedances to deliver temporary filters to all customers; and (4)
requiring systems with multiple action level exceedances to deliver
temporary filters to all customers that have service lines with known
or potential lead content. From a purely economic efficiency

standpoint that would mean these four options are preferable to the
proposed LCRI. However, none of these options were selected in place of
the proposed rule because of questionable technical feasibility. SDWA
section 1412(b)(4)(D) says the term ``feasible'' means feasible with
the use of the best technology, treatment techniques and other means
which the Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under
field conditions and not solely under laboratory conditions, are
available. EPA has discussed the Agency's feasibility concerns with
regard to each of the options in preceding sections of this preamble.
Regarding setting the action level at a level below 0.010 mg/L EPA has
expressed concern associated with feasibility. See section V.E.2. for
information on feasibility. When considering the inclusion of lead
connectors and galvanized service lines previously downstream of lead
connectors in the set of service lines that must be actively replaced.
EPA was concerned about how these activities might pull resources away
from the removal of LSLs and GRR service lines that pose a greater
exposure risk. See section V.B.4. for a detailed discussion. In the
case of both options that required the system to deliver temporary
filters to customers' homes in system with multiple ALEs, EPA was again
concerned about the potential use of system resources that could
otherwise be used to achieve greater reductions in lead exposure system
wide. The concern is founded on information received by the Agency from
systems that have implemented temporary filter programs and found
significant rates on nonuse among customers provided with filters.
Giving EPA reason to believe that estimated benefits for large scale
temporary filter programs should be discounted. For additional
information on temporary filter adoption see section V.I.
    Two alternative options were found to be more cost effective than
the proposed LCRI: (1) setting the action level to 0.015 mg/L; (2)
allowing small system compliance flexibility for CWSs serving up to
10,000 people (although the estimated cost efficiency of this option is
not significantly different from the proposed LCRI). EPA chose to
continue with the proposed option given the fact that the marginal
benefit of the proposed rule was greater than the marginal cost thereby
increasing total societal welfare above the levels provided by the more
cost-efficient options considered.

G. Cost-Benefit Determination

    When proposing an NPDWR, SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(C) requires the
Administrator shall publish a determination as to whether the benefits
of the proposed rule justify, or do not justify, the costs based on the
analysis conducted under SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C). With this proposed
rule, the Administrator has determined that the quantified and
nonquantifiable benefits of the proposed LCRI NPDWR justify the
quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs.
    Under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA, when EPA proposes a NPDWR
that includes a treatment technique, the Administrator shall publish
and seek public comment on an analysis of the health risk reduction
benefits and costs likely to be experienced as the result of compliance
with the treatment technique and alternative treatment techniques that
are being considered. Sections VIII.A. through F. of this document
summarize the results of this proposed rule analysis.
    As indicated in section VIII.C. and D. of this document, EPA
discounted the estimated monetized cost and benefit values using both
three and seven percent discount rates. In Federal regulatory analyses,
EPA follows OMB Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003) guidance which recommends
using both three percent and seven percent to account for the different
streams of monetized benefits and costs affected by regulation. The
seven percent discount rate represents the estimated rate of return on
capital in the U.S. economy, to reflect the opportunity cost of capital
when ``the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use
of capital in the private sector.'' Regulatory effects, however, can
fall on both capital and private consumption.\26\ In 2003, Circular A-4
estimated the rate appropriate for discounting consumption effects at
three percent. There are also a variety of considerations with respect
to the capital displacement in this particular proposal. For example, a
meaningful number of PWSs may not be managed as profit-maximizing
private sector investments, which could impact the degree to which the
rate of return on the use of capital in the private sector applies to
PWS costs. Federal funding is expected to defray a significant portion
of such PWS costs; \27\ where that occurs, such costs are transferred
to the government. Additionally, to the extent that the benefits extend
over a long time period into the future, including to future
generations, Circular A-4 advises agencies to consider conducting
sensitivity analyses using lower discount rates. Regardless, the
impacts of this rulemaking are such that costs are expected to occur in
the nearer term, and in particular that larger one-time capital
investments are expected to occur in the near term associated with the
service line removal and installation and re-optimization of CCT at
water systems; and public health benefits are expected to occur over a
longer term. Discounting across an appropriate range of rates can help
explore how sensitive net benefits are to assumptions about whether
effects fall more to capital or more to consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Private consumption is the consumption of goods and
services by households for the direct satisfaction of individual
needs (rather than for investment).
    \27\ The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, invests $15
billion in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
specifically for lead content service line identification and
removal along with additional sources of Federal and State funds
that can be used to comply with the requirements of the proposed
LCRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has followed Circular A-4's default recommendations to use
three and seven percent rates to represent the range of potential
impacts accounting for diversity in stakeholders' time preferences. The
Agency views the three to seven percent range of costs and benefits as
characterizing a significant portion of the uncertainty in the discount
rate and views the quantified endpoint values as demonstrating a range
of monetized costs and benefits, which encompass a significant portion
of the uncertainty associated with discount rates.
    As indicated in section VIII.E. of this document, the monetized
costs and benefits result in net annualized incremental benefits that
range from $15.3 to $31.9 billion under the low and high scenarios at a
three percent discount rate. Under the low and high scenarios at a
seven percent discount rate, the net annualized incremental benefits
range from $7.3 to $17.3 billion. EPA estimated the monetized net
benefits of the proposed LCRI under low and high bracketing scenarios
in order to capture the variability in system characteristics and the
significant uncertainty associated with a set of lead specific data
inputs which drive both the estimated costs and benefits in the
SafeWater LCR model. With regard to costs, the uncertain variables
which define the measurable difference between the low and high
scenarios, are the number of PWSs that will exceed the lead action
level under the revised tap sampling requirements, the cost of LSL and
GRR service line replacement, and the cost of CCT. The difference

between low and high benefits scenarios are driven by the number of
PWSs that will exceed the action level under the revised tap sampling
requirements and the concentration response functions that estimate the
impact lead concentrations have on avoided reductions in IQ, cases of
ADHD in children, and cases of cardiovascular disease premature
mortality in adults.
    There are also a number of potentially significant nonquantifiable
and non-monetized benefits that further strengthen the determination of
benefits justifying costs. The nonquantifiable harmful impacts of lead
exposure include: cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects,
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD), immunological
effects, neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer.
The EPA analysis has not quantified the positive impacts from increases
in consumer averting behavior, such as flushing lines before drinking
water is drawn, filter use, or customer-initiated service line
replacement due to the proposed LCRI's additional lead public education
requirements that target all potential affected consumers directly,
schools and child care facilities, health agencies, and people living
in homes with LSLs and GRR service lines; and the development of
service line inventories that include lead connector information with
the requirement for public access to the information. The analysis was
also unable to quantify the potentially significant benefits of
reducing lead concentrations in drinking water from: households without
lead content service lines but with leaded plumbing inside the home in
water systems where the proposed LCRI requires installation or re-
optimization of CCT; and all households in systems implementing small
improvements in CCT because of the distribution system and site
assessment proposed rule requirements. Corrosion inhibitors used by
systems that are required to install or re-optimize CCT as a result of
the proposed LCRI would experience an additional benefit in terms of
the increased useful life of the plumbing components and appliances
(e.g., water heaters), reduced maintenance costs, reduced treated water
loss from the distribution system due to leaks, and reduced potential
liability and damages from broken pipes in buildings that receive
treated water from the system.

IX. Request for Comment

    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this notice of this
proposed rulemaking. EPA solicits comments on the proposed revisions of
40 CFR part 141, subparts A, D, I, O, Q and Part 142, including EPA's
rationale as described in this preamble. EPA seeks comments on issues
specifically identified elsewhere in this document as well as any other
issues that are not specifically addressed in this document. In
particular, EPA solicits comments, information, and data on the
following topics. Comments are most helpful when accompanied by
specific examples and supporting data.

General Matters

    EPA requests comment on the following items pertaining to the rule
as a whole.
    1. Whether the proposed revisions to the LCRR treatment technique
are effective to prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects to
the extent feasible in accordance with the SDWA.
    2. Whether there are additional ways EPA could reduce the
complexity of the regulatory approach used to address lead in drinking
water consistent with the statutory standard for a treatment technique
rule in section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA. Specifically, EPA requests
comment on ways that the proposed LCRI could be simplified and ways
that burden, including paperwork burden, could be reduced without
affecting the ability of the rule to prevent known or anticipated
adverse health effects.
    3. Whether the proposed requirements of the rule are enforceable
and promote compliance without the need for State or Federal
enforcement action. EPA also solicits comment on ways the rule could be
modified to better promote compliance.
    4. The revised definition of ``connector,'' including that
connectors are defined as ``not exceeding two feet.''
Service Line Replacement
    EPA is seeking comment on several aspects of the proposed service
line replacement requirements.
    1. All aspects of the proposed scope of the replacement
requirements, including the criteria used to define a full service line
replacement (e.g., cutting the pipe at abandoned properties, replacing
the entire service line) and which lead sources are subject to
replacement under the mandatory program. EPA is seeking comment on
whether to prohibit reconnection of any disconnected LSL or GRR service
line. EPA is requesting comment on whether the Agency should include
lead connectors or galvanized service lines that are or were downstream
of a lead connector as part of mandatory replacement.
    2. Whether a reasonable effort to obtain property owner consent
should be more than four times (e.g., five, six, or seven times).
    3. Whether the proposed LCRI appropriately interprets ``control''
for the purposes of the mandatory replacement provision (i.e., require
systems to conduct full service line replacement in situations where
the system has access to conduct the full replacement).
    4. The proposed minimum replacement rate and replacement deadlines.
EPA is seeking comment on whether it is feasible for systems across the
nation to complete service line replacement in a shorter timeframe than
ten years, such as in six, seven, or eight years. EPA is seeking
comment on the rate construct approach, including how to calculate
compliance with a given service line replacement deadline and average
annual rate calculated across a rolling three-year period. EPA also
seeks comment on whether systems should be required to meet a minimum
replacement rate in the first three years after the compliance date to
give States an opportunity to enforce replacement rate progress sooner
than three years after the compliance date. EPA also seeks comment on
the complexity of the rate construct.
    5. EPA is taking comment on whether States, as a condition of
primacy, or EPA when it is directly implementing the program, should be
required to set initial shortened deadlines by a certain timeframe,
such as no later than 60 days after the compliance date.
    6. The overall approach and basis to offer deferred service line
replacement to systems with a high proportion of LSLs and GRR service
lines in their distribution system relative to their total number of
households served. EPA is requesting comment on its proposed threshold
of 0.039 average annual number of replacements per household served,
which is used to calculate the number of years that systems can defer.
    7. Whether to require the State, as a condition of primacy, to
approve the use of the deferred deadline provision where the water
system qualifies for it and/or whether to require the State, as a
condition of primacy, to assess whether it would be feasible for a
system to meet the 10-year deadline or a shorter deadline even if the
system meets the regulatory criteria for the deferred deadline.
    8. Whether there are additional data on service line replacement
rates achieved by systems in proactive programs (i.e., excluding
programs that only replace service lines in

coordination with main replacement or emergency repair).
    9. The proposed use of a maximum threshold of 10,000 annual service
line replacements for systems with atypically high numbers of LSLs and
GRR service lines as well as seeking comment on the alternate threshold
of 8,000 annual service line replacements. EPA is also seeking feedback
on other thresholds and supporting data. EPA is also seeking feedback
on if there's data available that would inform if the maximum threshold
for annual service line replacement could increase after ten years,
such as if replacement rates could double.
    10. Whether systems conducting deferred service line replacement
should be subject to any additional requirements beyond those for
systems that are not replacing service lines in accordance with a
deferred deadline.
    11. The requirement for systems to install a dielectric coupling
when conducting a partial replacement of an LSL or GRR to separate the
remaining LSL or GRR service line and the replaced service line unless
the replaced service line is made of plastic and other recommended risk
mitigation activities.
    12. The proposed requirement to ban partial lead and GRR service
line replacement unless it is conducted in accordance with emergency or
planned infrastructure work (excluding planned infrastructure work
solely for the purposes of replacing lead and GRR service lines as part
of a service line replacement program). Additionally, EPA is seeking
comment on whether partial service line replacement should be
prohibited during ``planned infrastructure work'' or with certain types
of planned infrastructure work.
    13. The ability of the market to correct for potential shortages in
workers and materials to conduct service line replacement, as well to
provide sufficient quantities of filters to comply with the service
line replacement and other relevant provisions in the proposal.
    14. The extent to which property owner consent, if required by
State or local law or water tariff agreement, might complicate full
service line replacement and whether there are additional measures EPA
can take to facilitate access through the LCRI.
Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper
    EPA is seeking comment on several proposed revisions to compliance
tap sampling for lead and copper.
    1. Comment on the sites included in Tier 3 and whether all of the
proposed sites should be included in Tier 3, if additional sites should
be included, or if some should be included in a different, lower
priority tier, such as Tier 4. Specifically, comment on whether sites
served by galvanized service lines or containing galvanized premise
plumbing that are identified as ever being downstream of an LSL or lead
connector should be included in the same tier as other sites with a
current lead connector (e.g., copper service line downstream of a lead
connector).
    2. Comment and available data, such as modeling or sampling data,
that inform lead corrosion rates over time.
    3. Comment on the applicability of alternate sampling protocols to
assess CCT performance, increase customer participation, and other
relevant factors.
    4. Comment on the proposed updated definition of wide-mouth bottles
that is ``bottles that are one liter in volume with a mouth, whose
outer diameter measures at least 55 mm wide,'' and specifically on the
availability of qualifying bottles.
    5. Comment and any relevant data on the number and tiering of
samples used to calculate the 90th percentile lead and/or copper levels
for systems with LSLs for purposes of assessing CCT efficacy.
Specifically, whether samples from non-LSL sites that have higher lead
concentrations than samples from LSL sites should be included and
whether these higher values should replace lower values from LSL sites
in the 90th percentile calculation.
    6. Comment on whether State authority to specify sampling locations
when a system is conducting reduced monitoring should apply regardless
of the number of taps meeting sample site criteria.
Service Line Inventory and Service Line Replacement Plan
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed service line
inventory approach, and specifically the following:
    1. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing a threshold of systems serving
greater than 50,000 persons to host the inventory and plan online,
which is the required threshold under the LCRR. EPA is seeking comment
on the size threshold at which systems must host their publicly
accessible inventory, inventory summary data, replacement summary data,
and service line replacement plan online, and whether it should be
lowered relative to the LCRR requirements.
    2. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing a requirement for systems to
validate the accuracy of non-lead service lines in their inventory that
were categorized using methods other than records review or visual
inspection of at least two points along the line. EPA is requesting
comment on the number of validations required, the proposed 95 percent
confidence level approach used to develop the number of validations
required, the criteria for which methods used to categorize non-lead
service lines should be included in the validation pool (including
whether non-lead lines categorized based on records should be subject
to validation), and the seven-year timeline for systems on a 10-year
replacement deadline to complete the validation requirements.
    3. Comment on establishing a deadline for systems to identify all
unknown service lines prior to their service line replacement
deadlines.
    4. Comment on a requirement for systems to update their service
line replacement plans if there are any changes, such as changes to
laws and policies applicable to full service line replacement.
Lead Action and Trigger Levels
    1. EPA is seeking comment on the proposed lead action level of
0.010 mg/L, as well as comment and supporting data on alternative
action levels, such as 0.005 mg/L, with regards to generally effective
corrosion control treatment and identifying systems most at risk of
elevated levels of lead in drinking water.
    2. EPA is also seeking comment on the use of the action level to
determine when additional public education is required, and the use of
the same action level for public education as for the CCT provisions.
    3. EPA is seeking public comment, data, and information on the
anticipated benefits and tradeoffs, including for public health and
administrative burden on systems and States, if more small and medium
systems are required to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration and take
other actions if they exceed the proposed action level of 0.010 mg/L or
other lower values, while water systems are simultaneously required to
mandatory conduct full service line replacement.
Corrosion Control Treatment
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed CCT approach,
and specifically the following:
    1. The proposed determination that the CTT treatment technique is
feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects to
the extent feasible.
    2. Comment on whether it would be more appropriate to require water
systems to re-optimize again following an action level exceedance
regardless of

meeting their optimal water quality parameters and to provide the State
with the authority to waive this requirement.
    3. The proposed option for a water system to delay OCCT until after
the system has replaced all of its LSLs and GRR service lines, while
the system achieves at least 20 percent removal per year and must have
no LSLs, GRR service lines, or lead status unknown service lines
remaining at the end of the five-year period.
    4. The treatment recommendation and CCT study process can take
multiple years to complete. For systems with existing corrosion
control, the system may be able to alter the existing treatment (e.g.,
increase pH and/or orthophosphate dose) without a new CCT study on a
much faster timeframe rather than waiting for study results that may
recommend that same change. EPA is requesting comment on whether there
are situations and/or conditions where existing treatment modifications
may achieve similar lead reductions rather than delaying new treatment
for two-and-a-half years while a study is underway.
Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small
Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
    1. EPA is proposing that small system flexibilities be limited to
CWSs serving 3,300 persons and fewer and all NTNCWSs for the remaining
compliance alternatives of point-of-use devices and plumbing
replacement. EPA is seeking comment on whether the Agency should allow
systems serving up to 10,000 persons (or another threshold) to be
eligible to use the small system compliance flexibility provision. EPA
is also seeking information, data, and analysis on whether point-of-use
devices and plumbing replacement are as effective as OCCT at systems
serving up to 10,000 persons (or another threshold).
    2. EPA is requesting comment on the ability and practicality of
point-of-use devices to address multiple contaminants.
Public Education
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed public
education, and specifically the following:
    1. The proposed determination that the public education treatment
technique is feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health
effects to the extent feasible.
    2. Comment and supporting data on the capacity of water systems to
conduct some or all of the required public education activities in 30
days, or another period of time that is less than 30 or 60 days, after
the end of the tap sampling period in which a systemwide lead action
level exceedance occurs.
    3. Data, analyses, and comments on the proposed determination that
water systems are capable of providing consumer notices of individual
tap sampling results within three calendar days of obtaining those
results, regardless of whether the results exceed the lead or copper
action level, or if a longer time frame is needed (e.g., three business
days, seven calendar days, 14 calendar days).
    4. Whether the proposed requirement for water systems to offer lead
sampling to consumers with LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service
lines in the notice of service line material is effective at reducing
adverse health effects. EPA is also requesting comment on the
requirement for water systems to deliver consumer-initiated test
results within three days of obtaining those results.
    5. Whether the types and timing of outreach activities proposed for
systems failing to meet the mandatory service line replacement rate are
appropriate and whether other activities should be considered.
    6. Whether EPA should require systems to annually notify consumers
if they are served by a lead connector, in addition to notifications
for sites with lead, GRR, or lead status unknown service lines.
    7. Whether EPA should require water systems to provide filters to
consumers when there is a disturbance resulting from replacement of a
water main.
    8. Whether EPA should require additional public education
requirements to further encourage swift service line replacement faster
than the 10-year replacement deadline. For example, should water
systems that have LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service lines
five years after the compliance date for the LCRI be required to
increase the frequency of the notification of service line materials
from annual to once every six months?
    9. EPA is seeking information and data on when a system provides
translated materials to consumers with limited English proficiency,
what resources are used to translate materials (e.g., State resources,
community organizations), and what barriers water systems may face in
providing accurate translated materials.
    10. Whether the Agency should require States, as a condition of
primacy, to provide translation support to water systems that are
unable to do so for public education materials to consumers with
limited English proficiency.
    11. EPA is also requesting comment on additional ways to streamline
public education and associated certification requirements (e.g.,
combine deadlines for systems to conduct public education or submit
information to the State).
Additional Requirements for Systems With Multiple Lead Action Level
Exceedances
    EPA is proposing new actions to be required of systems that exceed
the lead action level multiple times, based on the proposed criteria of
three action level exceedances in a five-year period. EPA is requesting
comments on all aspects of this proposed requirement, and specifically
the following:
    1. Whether water systems should be required to take additional
actions when the system exceeds the lead action level multiple times
and if so, what actions are appropriate and feasible, and when these
additional actions should be required under the LCRI.
    2. Whether EPA should use three action level exceedances in a five-
year period for identifying systems with multiple action level
exceedances where additional action is warranted and, whether
additional actions should be required sooner, or later, than the five-
year period, or whether EPA should use a modified metric (number of
consecutive action level exceedances in a set time period) or a
different metric entirely (i.e., based on one or more factors other
than the number of action level exceedances in a set time period).
    3. The proposed public education activities after a system exceeds
the lead action level multiple times. EPA is specifically seeking any
information, data, or analysis on whether the proposed public education
activities support preventing adverse health effects in this situation.
EPA is also requesting comment on whether systems should be required to
conduct more than one (e.g., two or three) of the public education
activities proposed.
    4. Whether EPA should require water systems to make filters
certified to reduce lead and replacement cartridges, along with
instructions for use, available to all consumers within 60 days of a
system having multiple action level exceedances and whether there are
any supporting or contrary data on whether the proposed filter
requirement would be protective of public health.
    5. The proposed requirements for systems to develop a filter plan
and submit to the State after the system has

multiple action level exceedances for the first time, and whether EPA
should require systems to take additional actions to facilitate filter
distribution.
    6. Alternative requirements for systems with multiple action level
exceedances to provide filters to their consumers, such as requiring
water systems to provide filters and replacement cartridges to
consumers served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line
or to all consumers, or to require systems to consult with the State
upon meeting the criteria for multiple action level exceedances, after
which the State determines the appropriate action to reduce lead
exposure.
    7. An additional provision providing discretion to States to allow
systems with multiple action level exceedances to discontinue the
proposed required actions sooner if the system takes actions (e.g.,
installs optimized or re-optimized CCT, completes mandatory service
line replacement) and is at or below the lead action level for two
consecutive monitoring periods.
    8. Whether, in addition to the proposed requirements, EPA should
provide States discretion to determine appropriate action following a
multiple action level exceedance that is tailored to meet specific
system needs.
Lead Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed lead sampling
in schools and child care facilities requirements, and specifically:
    1. Whether CWSs should be required to collect more samples and/or
to sample more frequently in schools and child care facilities.
    2. The proposed provision to allow States to issue waivers to
community water systems from the requirement for lead sampling in
schools and child care facilities during the five-year period after the
LCRI compliance date if the facility was sampled for lead after January
1, 2021 but prior to the LCRI compliance date and the sampling
otherwise meets the waiver requirements of Sec.  141.92(h).
    3. Whether or not to allow States to waive the requirements of
Sec.  141.92 for CWSs in schools and child care facilities that use and
maintain filters certified to reduce lead, and if so, whether the
waiver should only be allowed where schools and child care facilities
are required by State or local law to install POU devices and maintain
them.
    4. The minimum requirements for States to provide a waiver (e.g.,
should the waiver be limited to locations where the filter use is
required by State or local law; should the waiver be limited to
locations where State or local law requires periodic sampling or
testing to ensure proper filter use).
    5. Whether EPA should require CWSs to make school and child care
facility sampling results publicly available, and if so, how frequently
and in what manner.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed reporting and
recordkeeping, and specifically the following:
    1. EPA is requesting comment on the expansion of the inventory
reporting to include lead connectors and non-lead service lines.
    2. EPA has heard concern over the ability of States to review all
required site sample plans and provide approvals in time for the first
tap monitoring period, and is requesting comment on whether EPA should
consider a phased approach or alternate approach to reduce the burden
on States following the rule compliance date.
    3. EPA is requesting comment on whether States should be required
to maintain records related to distribution system and site assessments
conducted by water systems.
    4. EPA is requesting comment on whether States should be required
to maintain documentation of determinations of more stringent
implementation, including but not limited to conditions or approvals
related to reduced compliance monitoring and additional information
required to conduct a review or designate OCCT.
Compliance Dates
    The proposed LCRI includes a three year implementation period
following the publication of the final rule until the compliance date
to allow States time to obtain primacy and work with systems to prepare
to comply. It also allows systems time to plan and obtain funding for
LSLR as appropriate. EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the
proposed LCRI compliance dates and whether it would be practicable for
water systems to implement any of the proposed LCRI requirements
earlier than three years from the date of final action on the proposed
LCRI. Specifically:
    1. Whether it is practicable for water systems to implement
notification and risk mitigation provisions after full and partial
service line replacement (Sec.  141.84(h)), notification of a service
line disturbance (Sec.  141.85(g)), and associated reporting
requirements (Sec.  141.90(e)(6) and (f)(6)) upon the effective date of
the LCRI.
    2. Whether earlier alternative compliance dates for LCRI are
practicable such that water systems transition directly from LCR to
LCRI in less than three years (i.e., one or two years) based on the
assumption that water systems would comply with the LCR until the LCRI
compliance date.
    3. Whether there are other LCRR provisions besides the initial
inventory and notifications of service line material for which the
October 16, 2024 compliance date should be retained.
Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
1. Consumer Confidence Report
    a. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirement for
systems to provide an informational statement in the CCR about the
school sampling requirements with the information that consumers can
contact the school or child care facility about any potential sampling
results.
2. Definitions
    a. EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed
definitions, and specifically the following:
    b. EPA is proposing to define a two-foot maximum length of
connectors. EPA proposes that ``connectors'' that exceed two feet in
length be treated as a service line. EPA is requesting comment on the
defined length of a connector.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'', as defined
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094. Accordingly, EPA, submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order
12866 review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of
the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule
Improvements (USEPA, 2023b), is also available in the docket and is
summarized in section VIII. of this document.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2788.01 and OMB
control number 2040-NEW. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket
for this rule and it is briefly summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The burden includes the time needed to conduct State and water system
activities during the first three years after promulgation, as
described in Chapter 7, section 7.3 of the proposed LCRI Economic
Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    Burden (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)) means the total time,
effort, and financial resources required to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    The paperwork burden associated with this proposal consists of the
burden imposed on systems to read and understand the LCRI as well as
the burden associated with certain new or revised collections of
information. Specifically, public water systems will have to assign
personnel and devote resources in order to implement the rule. In
addition, public water systems will need to attend training sessions
and receive technical assistance from their State during implementation
of the LCRI. Furthermore, public water systems will have to develop a
baseline inventory with lead connector information to the State. For
the public water systems that have lead, GRR, or unknown service lines,
a service replacement plan will need to be developed.
    Likewise, the paperwork burden for States include reading and
understanding the LCRI. The State will have to adopt the rule and
develop programs to implement the LCRI. This may result in the State
modifying their data system while implementing the LCRI. Also, the
State will have to provide staff with training and technical assistance
as well as provide water systems with training and technical assistance
for implementation of the LCRI. The State is also responsible for
reviewing demonstrations and written statements of only non-lead
service lines from systems in lieu of a publicly accessible inventory
as well as reviewing service line replacement plans.
    The information collected under the ICR is critical to States and
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary
enforcement authority) for the LCRI. These authorized entities are
responsible for overseeing the LCRI implementation by certain public
water systems within their jurisdiction. States would utilize these
data to determine compliance, designate additional treatment controls
to be installed, and establish enforceable operating parameters. The
collected information is also necessary for public water systems.
Public water systems would use these data to demonstrate compliance,
assess treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment
equipment, and communicate water quality information to consumers
served by the water system. States would also be required to report a
subset of these data to EPA. EPA would utilize the information to
protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCRI, measuring
progress toward meeting the LCRI's goals, and evaluating the
appropriateness of State implementation activities. No confidential
information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this proposed
ICR would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and
by State and Federal governments. Respondents would include owners and
operators of public water systems, who must report to their State(s).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: If the proposed LCRI is
finalized, then the respondent's obligation to respond would be
mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires that ``criteria and
procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum contaminant levels [or treatment techniques
promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the
system . . .'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA requires that
``[e]very person who is subject to any requirement of this subchapter
or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain such records, make
such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as
the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the
Administrator in establishing regulations under this subchapter, in
determining whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance
with this subchapter . . .'' In addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA
requires States to ``keep such records and make such reports . . . as
the Administrator may require by regulation.''
    Estimated number of respondents: If the proposed rule is finalized,
the total number of respondents for the ICR would be 67,003. The total
includes 56 Primacy Agencies and 66,947 public water systems.
    Frequency of response: For the first three years after the final
rule is published, public water systems are expected to implement
several proposed rule requirements that have associated ICR burden. The
public water system activities include reading and understanding the
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying
regulatory requirements with the State during rule implementation,
updating and submitting initial service line inventories, develop
educational materials for customers with lead, GRR, and unknown
material service lines, and developing a service line replacement plan
are all one time tasks during the period covered by the ICR. Systems
also conduct field investigations to annually update and submit changes
to their service line inventory. PWS will distribute public education
materials to customers with lead, GRR and unknown material service
lines annually. Like the water systems, States are expected to engage
in the following one time proposed LCRI required activities during the
period covered by this ICR: reading and understanding the rule;
adopting the rule and developing an implementation program; modifying
data recording systems; training staff; providing water system staff
with initial technical assistance and training; reviewing public water
system initial inventory data; provide education templates and review
education materials for LSL, GRR, and unknown material service line
customers; and conferring with water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown
service lines on initial planning for service line replacement program
activities. States will annually review

systems' updated service line inventories.
    Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement
several proposed rule requirements. The public water systems burden
will include the following activities: Reading and understanding the
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying
regulatory requirements with the State during rule implementation.
Public water systems would also be required to update service line
inventories and develop a service line replacement plan. The total
burden hours for public water systems is estimated at 7,579,376 hours.
The total estimated cost for public water systems is $1,064,246,704 in
2022 dollars. For additional information on the public water systems
activity burden see section VIII. of this document.
    The State burden for the first three years of proposed rule
implementation would include the following: Reading and understanding
the rule; adopting the rule and developing an implementation program;
modifying data recording systems; training staff; providing water
system staff with initial and on-going technical assistance and
training; coordinating annual administration tasks with EPA; reporting
data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing public water system inventory data; and
conferring with water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown service lines
on initial planning for service line replacement program activities.
The total burden hours for States is 850,097 hours. The total cost for
primacy agencies is $50,994,078 in 2022 dollars. See section VIII. of
this document for additional discussion on burden and cost to the
State.
    The net change in burden associated with moving from the
information requirements of the LCRR to those in the proposed LCRI over
the three years covered by the ICR is -4.5 million hours, for an
average of -1.5 million hours per year. The numbers reflect the
estimates of the number of systems that need to develop service line
inventories. The total net change in costs from the most recent ICR
approved for the LCRR over the three-year compliance period covered by
this ICR are $201.4 million for an average of $67.1 million per year
(simple average over three years). Note that the proposed LCRI ICR
analysis assumes that systems will not implement the new requirements
of the LCRR during the implementation period for the LCRI. Therefore,
the burden for the proposed LCRI are substantially lower than the
anticipated burden of the LCRR over the same period, resulting in a
negative net burden for the proposed LCRI. The costs for the activities
occurring under the LCRI, however, are greater than those that would
occur for the same three year period under the LCRR.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
    Submit your comments on EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the Docket ID (EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0801). EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collected by selected ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments
no later than January 5, 2024.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that
examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with
regulatory alternatives that could minimize the impact. The complete
IRFA is available in Chapter 7, section 7.4 of the proposed LCRI
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be water systems
serving 10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by
Congress in the 1996 Amendments to SDWA for small water system
flexibility provisions. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register (FR) (63 FR 7620, USEPA,
1998b), sought public comment, consulted with the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and finalized the small water system threshold in
the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (63 FR 44524, USEPA,
1998c). As stated in the final Consumer Confidence Report rule (USEPA,
1998c), the alternative definition would apply to this proposed
regulation.
    EPA used Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)/Federal
data from the fourth quarter 2020 to identify about 63,000 small public
water systems that may be impacted by the proposed LCRI. A small public
water system serves between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems
include over 45,000 CWSs that serve year-round residents and more than
17,000 NTNCWSs that serve the same persons at least six months per year
(e.g., a water system that is an office park or church). Of the total
number of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people, 22,529 CWSs and
435 NTNCWSs are estimated to have service lines with lead content or
unknown/potential lead content service lines. The percent of small
systems that are estimated to exceed the proposed lead action level
(0.010 mg/L) ranges from 4.3 to 39.1 percent depending on the variation
between projected low and high scenario lead tap sample 90th percentile
values and the presence of LSL in systems.
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing regulatory revisions to strengthen
public health protection and improve implementation in the following
areas: service line replacement, tap sampling, service line
inventories, corrosion control treatment, water quality parameter
monitoring, public education, and consumer awareness.
    The proposed LCRI includes requirements that can be categorized as
follows: conducting a service line inventory that is updated annually;
mandatory full service line replacement; enhanced lead tap and water
quality parameter monitoring; installing or re-optimizing corrosion
control treatment and redefining and updating the ``find-and-fix''
provision as ``distribution system and site assessment'' to evaluate
and remediate elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the
lead action level; utilizing pitcher filters and POU devices; improved
customer outreach; and revisions to reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. The regulatory requirement categories can also be thought
of as the main cost categories affecting small systems. States are
required to implement operator certification (and recertification)
programs per SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs,
including small water system operators, have the appropriate level of
certification.

    Under the proposed rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 3,300 or
fewer people, and all NTNCWSs with a 90th percentile lead value above
the lead action level of 0.010 mg/L may choose alternative compliance
options to CCT including point-of-use device installation and
maintenance or removal of all lead bearing plumbing material from the
system, but lead-bearing plumbing was not analyzed in EPA's cost-
benefit model. EPA is estimating low and high cost scenarios to
characterize uncertainty in the cost model results. These scenarios are
functions of assigning different input values (low and high) to a
number of variables that affect the relative cost of the small system
compliance options. The number of systems serving 3,300 or fewer people
that choose to install and maintain point-of-use devices under the
proposed LCRI range from 3,757 to 6,639, serving between 420,715 and
845,023 people. The total monetized annualized cost for small systems
under the low scenario ranges from $490 to $554 million discounted at
three and seven percent, respectively. The low scenario also produces
between $3.1 and $1.8 billion in small system total monetized benefits
discounted at three and seven percent, respectively. Under the high
scenario small system total monetized annualized costs are $666 million
using a three percent discount rate and $757 million with a seven
percent discount rate. High scenario small system total monetized
annualized benefits discounted at three and seven percent range from
$6.2 to $3.7 billion. See Chapter 7, section 7.4.5 for a breakdown of
cost and benefit estimates by small system size sub-categories. Under
the proposed LCRI, the number of small CWSs that will experience
incremental annual costs of more than one percent of revenues ranges
from 36,720 to 37,350 (81.4 percent to 82.8 percent of all small CWSs)
and the number of small CWSs that will have annual incremental costs
exceeding 3 percent of revenues ranges from 28,416 to 28,598 (63.0
percent to 63.4 percent of small CWSs). See Chapter 7, section 7.4 of
the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis for more information on the
characterization of the impacts under the proposed rule.
    EPA has considered an alternative approach to provide regulatory
flexibility to small water systems. The alternative would make small
system flexibility available to all NTNCWSs and CWSs serving up to
10,000 people when a system has an action level exceedance. Systems
that meet the criteria may choose from among the following compliance
options: (1) optimizing existing CCT or installing new CCT; (2)
installing and maintaining POU devices at all locations being served;
or (3) removal of all lead bearing plumbing material from the system.
Note that EPA's cost-benefit model does not include an analysis of the
removal of lead-bearing plumbing. The total monetized annualized cost
savings under the alternative small system compliance option when
compared to the proposed LCRI ranges from $500,000 at a three percent
discount rate to $400,000 using a seven percent discount rate. The
alternative small system compliance option also results in a decrease
in monetized annualized benefits ranging from $2.4 million at a three
percent discount rate to $2 million at a seven percent discount rate.
Note that SafeWater LCR model cost minimization calculations producing
these results likely do not capture the impact of the feasibility
concerns associated with implementing POU at systems serving over 3,300
people. See Exhibits 56 through 59 in section VIII.F.6. of this Federal
Register document for a more detailed comparison of the costs and
benefits of the proposed LCRI and this alternative small system
flexibility compliance requirement. Also see Chapter 7, section 7.4 and
Chapter 8, section 8.7 of the proposed LCRI economic analysis for
additional information on the analysis of the alternative option.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA also convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. On November
15, 2022, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this
Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the Director of the
Standards and Risk Management Division within EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Prior to convening the Panel, EPA conducted outreach
with SERs that will potentially be affected by this regulation and
solicited comments from them. Additionally, after the Panel was
convened, the Panel provided information to the SERs and requested
their input.
    In light of the SERs' comments, the Panel considered the regulatory
flexibility issues and elements of the IRFA specified by RFA/Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and developed the
findings and discussion summarized in the SBAR report. For example,
SERs provided comment on barriers to the goal of achieving 100 percent
replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines in the nation. Many comments
centered around the need for Federal funding and national-level
technical assistance for small systems. SERs noted the cost of LSLR as
well as the challenges small systems may face with limited staff, small
budgets with competing priorities, and limited resources and capacity.
The Panel recognized the steps EPA has taken, and will continue to
take, to ensure Federal funds are available to drinking water systems.
However, the Panel also recognized that funding streams are not
guaranteed to be available to all small systems, that some small
systems may not pursue available funding opportunities, and that, in
the absence of funding, these systems may have difficultly financing
LSLR. The Panel recommended that, when developing the service line
replacement requirements, EPA consider the barriers to achieving 100
percent LSL and GRR service line replacement that SERs identified that
make this goal challenging. In addition, the Panel recommended that EPA
clarify provisions around customer engagement and refusal for mandatory
service line replacement, consider removing the lead trigger level, and
evaluate available recent data and LSLR cost information to inform the
economic analysis. The report includes a number of other observations
and recommendations to meet the statutory obligations for achieving
small-system compliance through flexible regulatory compliance options.
The report was finalized on May 31, 2023, and transmitted to the EPA
Administrator for consideration. A copy of the full SBAR Panel report
is available in the rulemaking docket (USEPA, 2023m).

D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA
prepared a written statement required under section 202 of UMRA that is
included in the docket for this action (see Chapter 7. section 7.5 of
the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b))

and is briefly summarized here. EPA notes that the Federal Government
is providing potential sources of funds to offset some of those direct
compliance costs of the LCRI, including $15 billion as part of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. However, the proposed rule's costs still
exceed $174 million for a given year even when considering currently
available Federal funds.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
UMRA section 204, EPA consulted with governmental entities affected by
this rule. EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue and
comments from State, local, and Tribal governments in section X.E.
Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section X.F. Executive Order
13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments of
this document.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, EPA identified and analyzed a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment
technique requirements in the proposed LCRI. Sections III. and V. of
this document describe the proposed options. See section VIII.F. of
this document and Chapter 8 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis
(USEPA, 2023b)) for alternative options that were considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
EPA consulted with small governments concerning regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect them. EPA describes this
consultation in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), section X.C. of
this document.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    EPA concluded that this action has Federalism implications because
it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments, and the Federal Government will not provide the funds
necessary to pay those costs. However, EPA notes that the Federal
Government is providing a potential source of funds to offset some of
those direct compliance costs through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law. EPA estimates that the net change in Primacy Agency related costs
for State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate is between
$16.1 and $15.3 million (three percent discount rate) or $12.6 and
$11.3 million (seven percent discount rate) (USEPA, 2023b).
    EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement. The
EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. In the process of developing the
proposed LCRI, EPA consulted with State and local governments early to
provide opportunities for meaningful and timely input. On October 13,
2022, EPA held a federalism consultation through a virtual meeting. EPA
invited the following national organizations representing State and
local officials to that meeting: the National Governor's Association,
the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State
Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International City/
County Management Association, the National Association of Towns and
Townships, the Council of State Governments, County Executives of
America, and the Environmental Council of the States. EPA also invited
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Rural Water Association,
the American Water Works Association, the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and
City Health Officials, the American Public Works Association, the
Association of Clean Water Administrators, the Western States Water
Council, the African American Mayors Association, the National
Association of State Attorneys General, the Western Governors'
Association, the National School Board Association, the American
Association of School Administrators, and the Council of the Great City
Schools to participate in the meeting. Representatives from 15
organizations participated in the meeting.
    EPA also provided the members of the various associations an
opportunity to provide input during follow-up meetings. EPA did not
receive any requests for additional meetings.
    In addition to input received during the meeting on October 13,
2022, EPA provided an opportunity to receive written input within 60
days after the date of that meeting. A summary report of the views
expressed during the Federalism consultation meeting and written
submissions is available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0813).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This action has Tribal implications, it imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on Tribal governments, and the Federal Government will
not provide funds necessary to pay all of those direct compliance
costs. There are 996 PWSs serving Tribal communities, where 87 of them
are federally-owned (USEPA, 2023b). The Economic Analysis for the
proposed LCRI estimated that the total annualized incremental costs
placed on all systems serving Tribal communities ranges from $9.4 to
$18.8 million (USEPA, 2023b). EPA notes that these estimated impacts
will not fall evenly across all Tribal systems. The proposed LCRI small
system flexibility provisions does offer regulatory relief by providing
flexibilities for CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs
that choose CCT, installation and maintenance of point-of-use devices,
and replacement of lead-bearing materials to address lead in drinking
water. This flexibility may result in LCRI implementation cost savings
for many Tribal systems since 98 percent of Tribal CWSs serve 10,000 or
fewer people and 17 percent of all Tribal systems are NTNCWSs (USEPA,
2023b). Lastly, EPA notes that the Federal Government is providing a
potential source of funds to offset some of those direct compliance
costs through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    The EPA consulted with federally recognized Tribal officials early
in the process of developing this action to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. Between October 6,
2022 and December 9, 2022, EPA consulted with federally recognized
Indian Tribes. The consultation included two national webinars with
interested Tribes on October 27, 2022 and November 9, 2022, during
which EPA provided an overview of proposed rulemaking information and
requested input. A total of 11 Tribal representatives participated in
the two webinars. A summary report of the views expressed during Tribal
consultations is available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045
(because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate
effect on children. Accordingly, EPA evaluated the environmental health
or safety effects of

lead found in drinking water on children and estimated the risk
reduction and health endpoint impacts to children associated with
treatment to reduce lead in drinking water including the adoption and
optimization of CCT technologies and the replacement of LSLs and GRR
service lines. The results of these evaluations are included in Chapter
7, section 7.8 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b)
and described in section VIII. of this document. Copies of the Economic
Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements and
supporting information are available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801).

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    This action is not a ``significant energy action,'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The water systems affected by this
action do not generally generate power. In addition, this action does
not propose to regulate any aspect of energy distribution because the
water systems that would be regulated by the proposed LCRI already use
electrical service providers. Finally, EPA determined that the
incremental energy used to implement CCT at drinking water systems and
replace LSLs and GRR service lines in response to the proposed
regulatory requirements is minimal. As such, EPA does not anticipate
that this proposed rule would have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This action involves technical standards. The proposed revisions
under the LCRI may involve existing voluntary consensus standards
because the proposed LCRI would require additional monitoring for lead
and copper. EPA's monitoring and sampling methodologies generally
include voluntary consensus standards developed by agencies, such as
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other similar
types of entities wherever EPA deems these methodologies appropriate
for compliance monitoring. The proposal includes requirements to use
filters that are certified by an ANSI-accredited certifier. Additional
information is available in section V.B.6 and V.I. of this preamble.
The proposed LCRI does not, however, change any methodological
requirements for monitoring or sample analysis. Additional information
is available in section VI. of this preamble. EPA notes that in some
cases, the proposed LCRI would revise the required frequency and number
of lead tap samples.

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All)

    EPA anticipates the proposed LCRI will not create disproportionate
and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns under Executive Order 14096 (88 FR
25251, April 21, 2023); see also Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). The documentation for this finding, including
additional details on the methodology, results, and conclusions, are
included in EPA's Environmental Justice Analysis for the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Improvements Report and is available in the public
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
    Executive Order 12898 first established Federal executive policy on
environmental justice. The main provision of Executive Order 12898
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of their
mission. Executive Order 12898 states ``each Federal agency shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States and its territories and possessions''.
    Executive Order 14096 directs the Federal Government to build upon
and strengthen its commitment to deliver environmental justice to all
communities across America through an approach that is informed by
scientific research, high-quality data, and meaningful Federal
engagement with communities with environmental justice concerns.
    Consistent with the Agency's Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (USEPA, 2016d), EPA
conducted an environmental justice analysis for the proposed LCRI to
assess impacts anticipated to result from the proposed LCRI (USEPA,
2023f). The analysis builds on and advances the analysis conducted
under the LCRR, which evaluated baseline exposure to lead in drinking
water. The proposed LCRI's environmental justice analysis evaluated
potential environmental justice concerns associated with lead in
drinking water in the baseline and the proposed LCRI, including
consideration of whether potential environmental justice concerns are
created or mitigated by the proposed LCRI relative to the baseline. EPA
compiled recent peer-reviewed research on the relationship between lead
exposure and socioeconomic status and found that Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC) and/or low-income populations are at higher
risk of lead exposure and associated health risks. EPA also conducted
an analysis of seven case study cities and found a range of outcomes
with respect to the sociodemographic and housing unit variables in
areas served by LSLs in the cities investigated. Because updated
service line inventories were not available for the environmental
justice analysis for LCRR, EPA used housing age as a proxy indicator
for LSL presence in the environmental justice analysis for the proposed
LCRI. In the environmental justice analysis, EPA identified some trends
indicating disproportionate and adverse human health risk for exposure
to lead in drinking water based on LSL presence in minority populations
and low-income populations, and also that populations of children in
minority households and/or low-income households are disproportionately
at risk of exposure to lead in drinking water because they are more
likely to live in housing built when LSLs were more commonly used.
    For the proposed LCRI, updated inventories are similarly not widely
available yet; however, some systems have published updated inventories
online. In the environmental justice analysis for the proposed LCRI,
EPA evaluated service line inventories from seven water systems to
estimate baseline exposure to lead in drinking water using LSL presence
as a proxy for lead exposure (USEPA, 2023k). EPA found a range of
outcomes with respect to the sociodemographic and housing unit
variables in areas served by LSLs in the cities investigated. While EPA
found that block groups with LSLs often had higher percentages of low-
income residents, renters, and People of Color (specifically, Black,
Hispanic, or linguistically isolated individuals) compared to block
groups without LSLs, there was little evidence that the number of LSLs
per capita was positively correlated with block group demographic
characteristics for these seven case studies. However, block

groups with the highest number of LSLs per capita (top quartile) had a
notably larger percentage of Black residents than the service area as a
whole for five case studies. Measures included to capture the
possibility of other sources of lead--traffic density and pre-1960
housing--were also notably higher in block groups with LSLs compared to
those without. The percent of housing built prior to 1960 was also
positively correlated with the number of LSLs per capita for every case
study and was also elevated in the top quartile compared to the service
area as a whole. One of the analyses revealed that LSL prevalence was a
stronger predictor of the prevalence of elevated blood lead levels
compared with EPA's EJScreen 2017 Lead Paint EJ Index or the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Deteriorated Paint Index
(Tornero-Velez et al., 2023).
    Taken together, these findings support the concern that adverse
health effects associated with lead exposure from LSLs may be
inequitably distributed with respect to LSL presence. While the limited
number of water systems included in the analysis do not permit
conclusions to be made about environmental justice and LSL presence
outside of the context of these individual systems, the analysis does
point to several findings. The analysis demonstrated significant
differences in socioeconomic and housing characteristics and the
prevalence of LSLs across these systems. It also demonstrated the
importance of considering the specific characteristics within the
individual system context. Taken together, these findings support the
concern that adverse health effects associated with lead exposure from
LSLs may be inequitably distributed with respect to LSL presence.
    Statistical analysis did not identify strong associations between
LSLR and the characteristics of the Census block group in which they
occurred (e.g., socioeconomic and housing characteristics) in any of
the case studies. This is because, in general, either no LSLs or
relatively few LSLs have been removed in these cities, which affects
EPA's ability to quantify a relationship. Conversely, in the case study
of the water system in Newark, New Jersey, almost all LSLs were removed
in a short period of time, similarly obscuring the relationship between
removals and the socioeconomic and housing unit variables.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes the potential that even in a water system
where there are no environmental justice concerns with respect to LSL
presence, the sequence and timing in which LSLs and GRR service lines
are replaced by a system's service line replacement program can
potentially create a concern. Section V. of the preamble highlights the
proposed LCRI provisions intended to facilitate water system planning
to prevent or minimize environmental justice concerns from being
created within the replacement program, as well as other requirements
that can make full replacements and information more accessible to all
customers. EPA expects that the equity provisions included in the
proposal, such as service line replacement prioritization, would reduce
baseline differential impacts associated with lead exposure from
drinking water. In sections IV.G. and IV.H. of this document, EPA also
highlights external funding available to support full service line
replacement, as well as water systems' obligations under Federal Civil
Rights law.
    Additionally, on October 25, 2022, and November 1, 2022, EPA held
public meetings related to environmental justice and the development of
the proposed LCRI. The meetings provided an opportunity for EPA to
share information and for individuals to offer input on environmental
justice considerations related to the development of the proposed LCRI
and how to more equitably address lead in drinking water issues in
their communities.
    During the meetings and in subsequent written comments, EPA
received public comment on topics including disproportionate exposure
to lead and its health effects among BIPOC and low-income communities;
LSLR funding; methods to prioritize LSLR; access to LSLR for renters;
filter distribution and use during LSLR; lowering the lead action
level; establishing an MCL for lead; updating the lead health effects
language required for public education, public notification, and the
Consumer Confidence Report; ensuring that public education and public
notification reaches communities that are most at risk; first and fifth
liter lead tap sampling; remediating lead identified through sampling
in schools and child care facilities; environmental justice concerns
with corrosion control studies; community engagement; and regulatory
enforcement and oversight. For more information on the public meetings,
please refer to the Public Meeting on Environmental Justice
Considerations for the Development of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule
Improvements (LCRI) Meeting Summary for each of the meeting dates in
the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801. Written public comments can also be found in the docket.

K. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)

    In accordance With SDWA sections 1412(d) and 1412(e), EPA consulted
with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) (or the
Council) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The following
summarizes these requirements and consultations.
1. SAB
    SDWA section 1412(e) requires EPA request comments from the SAB
prior to the proposal of any NPDWR. As required by SDWA section
1412(e), in 2022, EPA initiated consultation with the SAB to seek
comments in advance of the publication of this document for the
proposed LCRI. During this consultation, EPA sought from the SAB, an
evaluation of service line inventory data at select case study
locations to inform the most appropriate tools, indicators and
measures, EPA could consider to best evaluate environmental justice
with respect to the presence and replacement of LSLs. EPA also asked
the SAB to evaluate the potential environmental justice impacts of the
proposed LCRI in accordance with Executive Order 12898, which directs
agencies to ``identify and address the disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on
minority and low-income populations'' (Exec. Order No. 12898, 1994).
    On November 3, 2022, EPA held a consultation with the SAB regarding
the Agency's draft case studies for the proposed LCRI environmental
justice analysis. SAB members were asked to address the following
questions:
    (1.a.) Please comment on the tools/indicators/metrics, such as the
recently released Environmental Justice Index (EJI) and Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), that EPA should consider using
when developing lead service line replacement case studies to support
the development of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements environmental
justice analysis.
    (1.b.) Given the identified tools and indices (i.e., EJScreen, SVI,
ADI) please comment on whether there is a sub-set of variables within
the indices which should be given higher weights in the Lead and Copper
Rule Improvements environmental justice assessment.
    (2) Please comment on the indicator/measure that is most suitable
for

studying the environmental justice impacts associated with lead service
lines and their replacement.
    (3) Please comment on whether any of the tools or indicators under
consideration for use in the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements
assessment of the drinking water environmental justice impacts can help
to better assess lead impacts from other co-located exposure pathways
(e.g., lead paint, soil, and dust) to inform EPA's understanding of
lead exposures from non-drinking water sources. Materials shared with
the SAB are available in the docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801.
    In response, EPA received a range of recommendations from SAB
members. The recommendations primarily focused on the tools and
indicators EPA should use in its EJ study to support LCRI. SAB members
recommended using indicators from multiple tools (e.g., EJScreen, CDC's
Environmental Justice Index (EJI), CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability
Index, Area Deprivation Index (ADI) to more effectively identify
communities that are disproportionately burdened by lead exposure and
evaluate environmental justice impacts of LSLs and LSLR. One member
suggested not using tools that use an index that is based on different
indicators or composite tools (evaluating multiple indicators together)
(e.g., EJScreen, CDC's Environmental Justice Index, CDC/ATSDR Social
Vulnerability Index, ADI). Instead, some members advised extracting and
evaluating demographic and socioeconomic factors from these tools
individually. SAB members recommended using individual socioeconomic
variables from the 2020 U.S. Census in conjunction with the American
Community Survey (ACS), CDC's Minority Health-Social Vulnerability
Index (SVI), and the University of South Carolina's Social
Vulnerability Index (SoVI). One member recommended relying more heavily
on tools that have finer resolution and use geographic units at the
Census block group level, such as EJScreen and ADI. In addition, SAB
members recommended indicators for studying LSL and LSLR environmental
justice impacts including minority populations, low-income population,
population under age five, pre-1960 housing, pre-1980 housing, people
with disabilities, single-parent households, occupied housing units
without complete plumbing, proximity to lead mines, hazardous waste
proximity, superfund proximity, and particulate matter (PM) 2.5. A few
members recommended including indicators that address drinking water or
infrastructure vulnerabilities.
    Some members suggested that EPA focus on indicators most relevant
to children, such as children under age five, maternal education, birth
weight, and quality of home environment, because children are most
sensitive to the effects of lead. One member suggested including a
subset of indicators that are children-specific and comprise relevant
subgroups of persons under five years and/or 18 years, such as children
belonging to non-white racial/ethnic groups, children not born in the
U.S., children with disabilities, and children at or below the poverty
level. Some members pointed out that race/ethnicity indicators should
be disaggregated to focus on only one race/ethnicity instead of an
aggregate ``people of color'' indicator.
    Some members suggested giving higher weights to indicators that
address populations disproportionately vulnerable to lead exposure and
its adverse health effects, such as population under 5 years old and
low-income communities, because they are more likely to consume tap
water. Additional indicators suggested for weighting were location
based, including residential areas near legacy pollution sites.
    Some SAB members suggested individual indicators from the following
tools be used to consider lead from other pathways: EJScreen, SVI, ADI,
and EJI. Some SAB members recommended using proximity to traffic and
pre-1960s housing, as these could indicate compound lead exposure from
pathways other than drinking water. For example, proximity to traffic
could correspond to elevated lead in soil due to past emissions of
leaded gasoline, while pre-1960s housing is more likely to have lead
paint, contributing to lead in dust and soil).
    As a result of the consultation, EPA incorporated the suggestions
from the SAB in a study of the Environmental Justice implications of
the LCRI (USEPA, 2023f). EPA evaluated correlations between per capita
LSLs (in a Census block group) and different ethnic groups including
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, other or
two races, Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, and Non-Hispanic white. EPA
also evaluated the relationship between the presence of LSL and
indicators representing the populations most at risk of lead exposure
such as low income and children under age five. Indicators addressing
characteristics that are associated with exposure to other lead sources
were also incorporated in the study including structures built prior to
1960 and proximity to traffic. Additional information on SAB
recommendations is included in the SAB report available in the docket
EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801.
2. NDWAC
    SDWA section 1412(d) requires EPA to consult with NDWAC in
proposing and promulgating any NPDWR. EPA met this requirement for the
proposed LCRI. On November 30, 2022, EPA consulted with the NDWAC. At
the November 30 consultation meeting, EPA provided background on lead
in drinking water and the LCR, an overview of the LCRR published in
January 2021, and a summary of the outcome of EPA's review of the LCRR
published in the December 2021 Federal Register. EPA also discussed
topics for the potential revisions in the proposed LCRI, including
service line replacement, tap sampling and compliance, ways to reduce
rule complexity, and small system flexibilities, to collect input and
generate discussion among NDWAC members. A summary of the NDWAC
consultation is available in the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council, Fall 2022 Meeting Summary Report (NDWAC, 2022) and the docket
for this proposed rule. EPA carefully considered NDWAC recommendations
during the development of the proposed LCRI.

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

    On August 18, 2023, EPA consulted with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). EPA provided information to HHS officials on the
draft proposed LCRI and considered HHS input as part of the interagency
review process. (See section X.A. of this document for a discussion of
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review).

XI. References

Abt Associates. (2023). Selection of Concentration-Response
Functions between Lead Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes for Use
in Benefits Analysis: Cardiovascular-Disease Related Mortality.
Prepared for National Center for Environmental Economics. Office of
Policy. USEPA.
Abt Associates. (2022). Development of Medical Cost Estimates for
Adverse Birth Outcomes. Prepared for: National Center for
Environmental Economics. Office of Policy. USEPA.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2020).
Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August 2020.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.

Ala, A., Walker, A.P, Ashkan, K., Dooley, J.S., Schilsky, M.L.,
(2007). Wilson's disease. The Lancet. 369 (9559), 397-408. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60196-2.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2016, May 18). Lead
Service Line Replacement: Vital Tips from Leading Utility Managers
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwq4_yPjHMs.
Aoki, Y., Brody, D.J., Flegal, K.M., Fakhouri, T.H., Axelrad, D.A.,
& Parker, J.D. (2016). Blood Lead and Other Metal Biomarkers as Risk
Factors for Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Medicine (Baltimore),
95(1), e2223. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000002223.
AWWA. (2020, November 18). Green Bay celebrates last lead service
line removal. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/green-bay-celebrates-last-lead-service-line-removal.
AWWA. (2022). Lead Communications Guide and Toolkit. https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/Communications/2022LeadPageAssets/2022AWWA-LeadCommunicationsGuideAndToolkit.pdf.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion
of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 90508.
Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.
Andrew, A., Zhou, J., Gui, J., Harrison, A., Shi, X., Li, M.,
Guetti, B., Nathan, R., Tischbein, M., Pioro, E., Stommel, E., and
Bradley, W. (2022). Airborne lead and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) are associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) risk
in the U.S. Sci Total Environ, 819: 153096. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153096.
Barn, P., Nicol, A., Struck, S., Dosanjh, S., Li, R., and Kosatsky,
T. (2014). Investigating elevated copper and lead levels in school
drinking water. Environmental Health Review, 56(04): 96-102. https://doi.org/10.5864/d2014-006.
Berrien County Health Department (2023). Water Lead Response in
Benton Harbor. Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://www.berriencounty.org/1599/City-of-Benton-Harbor.
Betanzo, E., Rhyan, C., and Hanna-Attisha, M. (2021). Lessons from
the first year of compliance sampling under Michigan's revised Lead
and Copper Rule and national Lead and Copper Rule Implications. AWWA
Water Science, 3(6): e1261. htps://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1261t.
BlueConduit. (2020). Principles of Data Science for Lead Service
Line Inventories and Replacement Programs. https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ASDWA-BlueConduit-White-Paper-on-Data-and-LSL.pdf.
Bosscher, V., Lytle, D.A., Schock, M., Porter, A., and Del Toral, M.
(2019). POU water filters effectively reduce lead in drinking water:
a demonstration field study in Flint, Michigan. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 54(5): 484-493. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31074704/.
Bradford, L.E.A., Idowu, B., Zagozewski, R., and Bharadwaj, L.A.