EPA ICR Number: 1912.01 EPA Document Number: OMB Control Number:

Information Collection Request: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations For Lead and Copper Prepared By:

The Cadmus Group 135 Beaver Street Waltham, MA 02154 EPA Contract No. 68 C4 0051 Work Assignment 4 29 Ms. Tangela Cooper Project Officer Ms. Judy Lebowich Technical Project Monitor U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Washington D. C.

June 1999 June 1999 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2( a) Need/ Authority For The Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users Of The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . 6 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( d) Effects Of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( b)( i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5( b) Collection Methodology And Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6( a)( i) Burden To Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6( a)( ii) Burden To States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6( b)( i) Costs To Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6( b)( ii) Costs to States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden And Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6( c)( i) Burden and Costs to Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6( c)( ii) Burdens and Costs to Regional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6( c)( iii) Contractor Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 June 1999 ii 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6( f) Reasons For Change In Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6( f)( i) Explanation of Differences between Currently Approved Baseline and the Revised Baseline Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6( f)( ii) Differences between the LCRMR and LCR Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 June 1999 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5 1: Annual Burden Indicators for the LCR Minor Revisions ( for ICR period 1999 2001) . . . . . 26 Figure 6 1: Change in Annual System Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours) . . . . . 29 Figure 6 2: Change in Annual State Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours) . . . . . . . 42 Figure 6 3: Analytical Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 6 4: Change in Annual System Cost for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in $ 1,000' s) . . . . . 53 Figure 6 5: Change in Annual State Costs for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in $ 1,000' s) . . . . . . 55 Figure 6 6: Average Annual Agency Burdens and Costs, 1999 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 6 7: Change in Respondent Average Annual Burdens and Costs for 1999 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 6 8: Annual Burden and Costs by Year for 1999  2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 6 9: Comparison of System Burden and Costs Estimates of the Drinking Water ICR and Revised Baselines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 6 10: Assumptions that Differ between the Currently Approved Baseline and Revised Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 6 11: Detailed State Cost Comparison between the Currently Approved Baseline and the Revised Baseline ( Costs are in $ millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 6 12: Change in Annual Respondent Burden ( in hours) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 6 13: Change in Annual Non Labor Respondent Costs ($) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 June 1999 1 Community water systems ( CWSs) are public water systems ( PWSs) that have at least 15 service connections used by year round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year round residents. Nontransient non community water systems ( NTNCWSs) are PWSs that are not CWSs but regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months a year. Throughout the rest of this document, the reference to water systems, systems, and PWSs include only these two types of PWS.

2 Throughout the rest of this document, the term State refers to a State or federally recognized Indian Tribe that has been granted primacy with respect to the LCR or the appropriate EPA Region ( where the State or Tribe does not have primacy).

1 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection TITLE: Information Collection Request for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper U. S. EPA ICR Number: 1912.01 OMB Control Number:_____

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ( NPDWRs) for Lead and Copper ( The Lead and Copper Rule or LCR), promulgated by EPA in 1991, is a regulatory program mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). The LCR's goal is to reduce the levels of lead and copper at the tap to as close to the maximum contaminant level goals of 0 parts per billion ( ppb) of lead and 1.3 ppb of copper as possible. To accomplish this, the LCR requires community and non transient non community water systems1 to optimize corrosion control and, under specified conditions, install source water treatment, conduct public education, and/ or replace lead service lines in the distribution system.

Water systems include Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental entities as well as private entities. States ( and Tribes) that have been granted primary enforcement authority ( i. e., primacy) for the LCR are responsible for overseeing rule implementation by systems within their jurisdiction. In instances where a State or Tribe does not have primacy, the EPA Region is the Primacy Agent. 2 Systems demonstrate compliance through reporting the analytical results of collected samples and other information to the State. Systems use these data to demonstrate compliance, assess treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment, and communicate water quality information to consumers served by the system. States utilize the data to determine compliance and designate treatment to be installed and enforceable operating parameters. States also are required to report a subset of the data to EPA which utilizes this information to protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCR, measuring progress toward meeting the LCR's goals, and evaluating the appropriateness of State implementation activities. EPA stores the information reported by States in the Safe Drinking Water Information System ( SDWIS). June 1999 3 The LCR defines action levels for lead and copper in tap water samples. These levels are set at the 90th percentile level and establish a limit, which cannot be exceeded by more than ten percent of the tap water samples. The lead action level is 0.015 mg/ L and the copper action level is 1.3 mg/ L.

2 System implementation of the LCR begins with initial monitoring for lead and copper at the tap and, in some cases, for water quality parameters ( WQPs) and/ or source water lead/ copper concentrations. States deem some systems to have optimized corrosion control based on the results of this initial monitoring. Deemed systems must continue to monitor periodically for lead and copper at the tap and, in some cases for lead and copper in source water, but are not required to conduct routine WQP monitoring or to implement the LCR's other treatment technique requirements. All other systems are required to assess alternative corrosion control technologies, and to make corrosion control treatment and source water treatment recommendations to the State who then must specify what treatment the system is to install. Systems exceeding the lead action level also must conduct public education programs. 3 Following installation of required treatment, systems must conduct follow up monitoring, after which the State specifies the optimal water quality parameter levels or ranges and, if appropriate, maximum permissible source water levels, within which the system must then operate. Such systems must continue periodic lead/ copper tap water monitoring and, in some cases, WQP and source water monitoring. Systems with lead service lines in the distribution system must implement a lead service line replacement program if they continue to exceed the lead action level after the installation of corrosion control and/ or source water treatment.

The Final Information Collection Request for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, April 1991, supports the 1991 LCR rule and contains the system, State, and Agency record keeping and reporting burden and costs for the LCR ( hereafter referred to as the 1991 ICR). The LCR burdens and costs were subsequently incorporated into a comprehensive Information Collection Request ( ICR) document for the drinking water program, entitled, the Collection Request for the Public Water System Supply Program, December 1993, EPA tracking number 0270.39 and OMB number 2040 0090 ( hereafter referred to as the Drinking Water ICR).

The purpose of this ICR document is threefold. First, it amends the Drinking Water ICR to remove the LCR burden and costs. Second, it presents, in a stand alone Lead and Copper Rule ICR, the LCR burden and costs for the three year period of 1999 through 2001. These impacts have been recalculated based on updated assumptions reflecting actual experience with rule implementation to date and current pricing factors ( e. g., labor rates). Finally, this ICR presents the impacts of the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions ( LCRMR) on the LCR burden and costs for the same three year period. The intent of the LCRMR is to streamline and reduce burden, address implementation issues, and respond to judicially remanded issues. These modifications still require PWSs and States to collect and report monitoring related and treatment related information; however, some of the specific requirements have changed. Under the LCRMR, information still must be collected and/ or reported every two weeks ( biweekly quarterly, semi annually, triennially, and every nine years.

For the three year period of 1999 2001, the average annual burden associated with the 1991 LCR is 1,990,330 hours for the 75,945 system respondents and 428,116 hours for the 56 State respondents. The average annual costs for systems and States is $ 49,921,200 and $ 10,848,500, respectively. The average June 1999 3 annual system and State burden per response is 42 hours and the average annual cost per response is $ 1,067. These burden and cost estimates represent those EPA expects would occur in this three year period only, assuming systems are in compliance with the implementation schedule in the 1991 LCR.

The burden impacts for the LCRMR have been calculated on the same basis. Thus, start up burden and costs associated with the LCRMR are reflected in the year( s) they are estimated to occur and not pro rated throughout an extended implementation period. The LCRMR represent an average annual burden decrease of 36,773 hours for the 75,945 system respondents and an increase of 50,055 hours for the 56 State respondents. The average annual cost for systems decreases by $ 2,823,900 and the average annual cost for States increases by $ 2,168,400. The average annual system and State burden per response increases by 0.3 hours and the average annual cost per response decreases by $ 14. Most of the system reduction results from revisions to monitoring requirements that allow less frequent monitoring and the elimination of some system reporting requirements. The increase in State costs is concentrated in the first three years following promulgation of the LCRMR and is due to the following five factors: ( 1) start up activities to revise State regulations and to train State and system staff on the revisions; ( 2) State flexibility to specify monitoring sites for systems on reduced lead and copper tap monitoring; ( 3) significant changes in the State reporting requirements that should reduce overall State reporting burden and costs in the outyears while improving the usefulness of the data to EPA; ( 4) State flexibility to calculate 90th percentile levels for systems; and ( 5) increased State flexibility to allow some systems to avoid some burden/ costs that will require the State to make additional system specific determinations ( e. g., approve monitoring waivers for small water systems that are free of lead containing and/ or copper containing materials).

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION The following sections describe the need for this information collection, the legal authority under which this information can be collected, and how collecting this information will support drinking water program objectives.

2( a) Need/ Authority For The Collection EPA needs comprehensive and current information on lead and copper contamination and associated enforcement activities to implement its program oversight and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). EPA will use the information collected as a result of the LCRMR to support these responsibilities.

The modifications outlined in this document are intended to improve the implementation of the LCR, and do not alter the original maximum contaminant level goals or the fundamental approach to controlling lead and copper in drinking water. The modifications address the following topics: requirements for systems deemed to optimize corrosion control under § 141.81( b)( 1) through § 141.86( b)( 3), systems on reduced monitoring that change treatment or add a new source, replacement and notification requirements for systems subject to lead service line replacement, public education reporting and delivery requirements, sampling sites, reduced monitoring, sample invalidation, monitoring waivers, entry point monitoring for WQPs, compliance with State designated optimal water quality parameter ( OWQP) ranges or values, resampling triggers for composited source water samples, laboratory certifications, analytical June 1999 4 methods, and reporting requirements for systems and States. The information associated with these modifications will assist the Agency in meeting its statutory mandates, which are ultimately designed to protect public health.

Section 1401( 1)( D) of the SDWA requires that " there must be criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels, including 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) of the SDWA requires that " every person who is a supplier of water... 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 him in establishing regulations, in determining whether such person has acted or is in compliance with this title..." In addition, Section 1413( a)( 3) of the SDWA requires States to " keep such records and make such reports... as the Administrator may require by regulation."

Section 1412( b) of the 1986 SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires the Agency to publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate NPDWRs for contaminants that may have an adverse effect on healths of persons, are known to or anticipated to occur in PWSs, or, in the opinion of the Administrator, present an opportunity for health risk reduction. The NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants ( 42 USC 300g 1). Promulgation of the LCR complies with statutory requirements.

The sections from the SDWA 1996 Amendments, discussed above, are included as Appendix C to this document.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users Of The Data PWSs must maintain records of the results of analytical monitoring. PWSs use these data to:

Evaluate system specific needs, including examining treatment effectiveness;

Adjust monitoring frequencies and schedules, to address possible public health concerns; and

Assess compliance and to determine when it is necessary to alert the public of possible health risks resulting from non compliance with federal or State regulations.

State level record keeping consists of maintaining records on each system's monitoring requirements and analytical results, and associated State decisions regarding the designation of WQP levels in the distribution system and maximum permissible levels ( MPLs) of lead and copper in source water, which systems must conduct corrosion control studies, treatment( s) to be installed, and the need for an accelerated lead service line replacement schedule. Such records assist managers in evaluating system compliance and in identifying system needs and problem areas. The data are also used to construct enforcement targets and identify systems requiring remedial action. June 1999 5 Information provided to EPA by the States is stored in SDWIS. This centralized storage allows the Agency to conduct various program analyses. For example, SDWIS can characterize compliance trends at the system, State, and national program levels. SDWIS supports the critical Agency function of maintaining program oversight, including ensuring consistent implementation of the LCR's requirements and related State and federal enforcement actions.

The States and Agency have a number of mission critical questions to answer regarding their supervision of regulated PWSs. Several of these questions are listed below.

At the system level:

Is each PWS complying with all applicable NPDWR requirements?

For systems not in compliance, what particular rules have been violated and to what extent?

For systems not in compliance, have appropriate steps, including enforcement actions, been taken to return such systems to compliance?

What public health threats, if any, have resulted from noncompliance?

At the national and State level:

What are the national and State compliance trends?

What changes in national policy or regulations may be needed to increase compliance rates?

What factors are contributing to noncompliance?

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) and other EPA offices that implement regulatory programs mandated by several environmental statutes ( e. g., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act) use LCR data to support program implementation. Non EPA organizations also use these data. These organizations include the Rural Development Administration ( formerly Farmers Home Administration), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration, White House Task forces, environmental and industry groups, and many private companies and individuals.

EPA often receives requests for PWS monitoring data under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA). Many FOIA Act requests require extracting information contained in the SDWIS regarding the number of PWSs in violation of drinking water standards in a particular geographic area and those PWSs that have exceeded the lead or copper action level. The LCRMR will improve the implementation of the June 1999 4 This document is entitled, Information Collection Request Proposed Changes to National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, EPA 812 B 96 003, January 1996.

5 In developing the final version of the 1991 LCR, EPA consulted with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and requested comments from its Science Advisory Board. The monitoring requirements reflect comments by the drinking water industry. In addition, during the comment period for the 1991 LCR, approximately 28,000 comments were received from approximately 3,000 individuals and organizations.

6 LCR and assist the Agency in these program management functions. The revised State reporting requirement specified by the LCRMR should also make it easier for the public to understand how levels of lead at the tap, for systems serving more than 3,300 people, have been affected by the LCR.

3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA The following sections verify and affirm that this information collection satisfies the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) collection guidelines, has public support, and does not duplicate another collection. EPA has consulted with other federal agencies, State agencies, industry organizations, water systems, and tribal organizations to ensure non duplication of this information collection.

3( a) Non duplication To the best of the Agency's knowledge, data required by the LCR and the LCRMR are not available from any other source. The revisions are not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the Agency. Instead, the LCRMR eliminate some reporting requirements which the Agency has found to be redundant or no longer necessary.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Agency solicited public comment on the draft ICR4 during a 60 day public comment period coincident with the comment period for the proposed LCRMR. The Agency published notice in the Federal Register ( 60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996) that requested comment on the respondent burden and other aspects of this information collection. Comments received were considered by the Agency and used to adjust the burden and costs estimates presented in this ICR.

3( c) Consultations5 The regulatory modifications in the LCRMR represent the product of numerous work group discussions. The work group established in 1993 was comprised of Headquarters and Regional EPA staff, and State drinking water officials. In addition, prior to proposing the LCRMR, EPA distributed a draft of the proposed modifications to the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA) and June 1999 6 The notices refer to 63 FR 20038, April 22, 1998 and 63 FR 44214, August 18, 1998.

7 major water utility trade associations. These groups, in turn, circulated the draft to their members and requested written comment. Written comments were received from numerous Regional offices and State agencies. PWS input was gathered through State comments, as well as comments submitted by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the American Water Works Association. Further, several of the revisions in the LCRMR, which include the elimination of some of the system reporting requirements, are the result of Stakeholders meetings that the Agency held relative to its burden reduction efforts.

In 1997, in response to the comments received on the April 1996 proposed changes to State reporting requirements, EPA worked with States through the OGWDW ' s Data Sharing Committee to substantially revise these requirements. Several States and the ASDWA participated actively in this effort. The recommendations developed by the Data Sharing Committee have been incorporated into the LCRMR.

In April 1998 and August 1998, prior to publishing additional Notices for comment, EPA provided national, local, and tribal organizations brief articles for inclusion in their newsletters announcing upcoming plans to publish the Notices and encouraging readers to provide EPA comment on the additional regulatory options described in those notices. 6 In addition, EPA coordinated closely with several national organizations and the States to provide copies of the August 18, 1998, Notice directly to those water systems most likely to be affected by the regulatory option discussed in that Notice, including all water systems serving more than 50,000 people and any smaller size water system that is likely to continue to exceed an action level after the installation of corrosion control treatment. Many of the suggestions made by these commenters have been incorporated into the final rule. Finally, during February 1999, EPA consulted with a State Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) panel regarding the Agency's revised ICR burden and costs estimates for the LCR and LCRMR and assumptions used to derive these estimates. EPA adjusted the burden and costs estimated presented in this ICR based on comments from the UMRA panel. A list of the State UMRA panel is provided below:

UMRA Panel Member State Represented Phone Number Dennis Alt Iowa ( 515) 281 8998 Alton Boozer South Carolina ( 803) 898 4300 James Cleland Michigan ( 515) 335 9216 Dave Leland Oregon ( 503) 731 4317 June Swallow Rhode Island ( 401) 222 6867 Steve Walden Texas ( 512) 239 6096 June 1999 7 While some commenters supported a reduced reporting frequency, a number of States noted that as long as they could continue to submit their data to EPA quarterly, less frequent reporting would not be problematic. At least one State requested that the current requirements be retained.

8 3( d) Effects Of Less Frequent Collection The Agency considered numerous alternatives regarding the number and frequency of samples to be collected. It has selected the approach that minimizes the data collection burden to the maximum extent possible without jeopardizing public health protection objectives. The Agency is concerned that further reducing monitoring requirements beyond those in the LCRMR, would fail to capture the variability in lead and copper levels within systems or within homes and, consequently, would increase the possibility of not detecting the presence of high lead and copper concentrations.

The LCRMR contain provisions to lessen some of the monitoring requirements of the 1991 LCR. These provisions allow accelerated reduced lead and copper tap and WQP monitoring, monitoring waivers for some small systems, entry point WQP monitoring at representative sites, and reduced source water monitoring for systems for which source water treatment is not required. The Agency has determined that less frequent monitoring is warranted for these systems because they meet stringent criteria, which the Agency believes are protective of public health. As mentioned in Section 5( d), the Agency also has added, as a contingency, a provision that requires systems to provide timely notification to States when systems on reduced monitoring change treatment or add a source of water so that the State can detect early whether these changes affect water quality and require the system to return to more frequent monitoring.

The Agency also considered reducing the frequency with which States are required to report 90th percentile and milestone data from quarterly to once or twice a year and requested comment on this possible revision in the April 1996 Proposal. EPA received mixed comments on this suggestion. 7 The Agency decided to retain the requirement to report 90th percentile and milestone data quarterly. In the Drinking Water Program, EPA reviews violations quarterly to ensure that timely and appropriate follow up action is occurring. The Agency considers a water system's most recently reported 90th percentile lead value in assessing the severity of many LCR violations. Moreover, the Agency needs to have available in the national data base sufficient up to date information to provide a degree of oversight and to answer some basic questions.

3( e) General Guidelines The LCR and LCRMR comply with the guidelines published under the Paperwork Reduction Act, with the exception that records are required to be retained for a period greater than three years. In particular, the 1991 LCR requires all PWSs to retain on their premises original records of all sampling data and analyses, reports, surveys, letters, evaluations, schedules and any other information required by the State for no fewer than 12 years. States are subject to the same record retention period, except that States are required to retain information relating to the decisions in § 142.14( d)( 8) until a new decision, determination, or designation has been issued, if no change is made to the State decision during the 12 year retention period. The Agency justified these record retention periods and received approval for them under the original 1991 ICR. The LCRMR do not alter the system or State record keeping requirements. June 1999 9 3( f) Confidentiality This ICR does not raise confidentiality issues.

3( g) Sensitive Questions This ICR does not ask sensitive questions.

4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED The following sections contain information on the respondents and the information they are requested to provide.

4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Under the LCR, respondents include owners and operators of PWSs classified as community water systems ( CWSs) and non transient non community water systems ( NTNCWSs). The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for investor owned water systems is 4941. The SIC code for both publiclyowned water systems and State agencies is 9511. Ancillary systems ( a system where providing water is ancillary to its primary business, e. g., a mobile home park) cannot be categorized in a single SIC coded. States are respondents when reporting compliance data to EPA and when retaining federally required records. The LCRMR affect the same respondent classes as the LCR.

4( b) Information Requested The following sections provide detail on the data items requested and associated activities respondents must undertake in providing information to satisfy the LCRMR requirements. These sections include a brief discussion of the 1991 requirements of the rule and a more detailed description of the LCRMR modifications.

4( b)( i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping and Reporting A discussion of data and information that are part of the reporting and record keeping requirements for systems is found below in Section 4( b)( i)( a). The requirements for States are discussed below in Section 4( b)( i)( b).

4( b)( i)( a) Public Water System Record Keeping And Reporting Under the 1991 rule, PWSs have to maintain and report to the State the following information:

Monitoring results for lead and copper and WQPs within 10 days following the end of the monitoring period; June 1999 8 This 12 year retention period was justified and approved under the original 1991 ICR.

9 The LCRMR correct an oversight in the 1991 rule by requiring ( b)( 3) systems to continue routine monitoring for lead and copper at the tap at least once every three calendar years ( triennially).

10

Identification and location of sampling sites and the rationale for choosing the sites;

Certification regarding appropriate sample collection;

State determinations ( e. g., designation of optimal corrosion control treatment); and

Any records, reports, or information the Administrator deems necessary.

If applicable, the 1991 rule also requires PWSs that exceed the lead and/ or copper action level to maintain records on and report to the State the following information:

Monitoring results for lead and copper in source water within 10 days following the end of the monitoring period;

Corrosion control and/ or source water treatment recommendation( s) and certification( s) that treatment( s) is( are) installed;

Progress in completing a public education program ( report due at the end of the calendar year); and

Identification of lead service lines and submission of an annual report of progress in their replacement.

The LCRMR do not alter the record keeping retention requirements under § 141.91 which specifies that systems must retain records for no fewer than 12 years. 8 However, the LCRMR affect the number of records to be maintained. In addition, the LCRMR affect the systems' reporting requirements to the State. In general, systems must report all the information described in this section for all lead and copper tap samples and WQP samples within the first 10 days following the end of each applicable monitoring period.

In some instances, systems are now also required to submit and maintain records of documents that demonstrate to the State that they meet the criteria of a provision and to keep records of the State's response to their submissions. In addition, the LCRMR require some systems to maintain additional records as follows:

Systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under § 141.81( b)( 3) must maintain additional lead and copper monitoring results; 9 June 1999 10 Under the 1991 rule, a system was considered to be a ( b)( 3) system if it could demonstrate that the difference between the 90th percentile lead level as measured at the tap and the highest lead level measured in source water is below the lead Practical Quantitation Level of 0.005 mg/ L for two consecutive six month monitoring periods. Under the LCRMR, effective 18 months after promulgation, the system must also meet the copper action level to be considered a ( b)( 3) system.

11 Refers to small systems that can demonstrate that their distribution system, service lines, and drinking water supply plumbing are free of sources of lead and/ or copper contamination. In addition, these systems must demonstrate that their 90th percentile levels for any and all rounds of monitoring do not exceed 0.005 mg/ L for lead or 0.65 mg/ L for copper.

12 Special case CWSs are those facilities, such as a prison or a hospital, whose service population cannot make plumbing improvements install point of use treatment devices, which provide water as part of the covered services, and do not directly bill for water consumption.

13 Partial lead service line replacement occurs when a system does not own the entire lead service line up to the building inlet and the homeowner does not elect to have the system replace its private portion.

11

Systems no longer meeting the ( b)( 3) criteria must maintain records of additional activities required by the State; 10

Systems seeking to invalidate samples must submit documentation to the State which demonstrates that the samples meet one of the criteria outlined in the new § 141.86( f)( 1) along with reporting the results of all such samples to the State;

Systems serving 3,300 or fewer people may submit documentation that demonstrates they are eligible for a lead and/ or copper monitoring waiver, and if a waiver is granted must resubmit a certification every nine years; 11

Ground water systems wishing to limit entry point WQP monitoring to those entry points that are representative of water quality throughout the system, must provide detailed records to the State that document chemicals used in treatment and that demonstrate that those sites are representative;

NTNCWSs and special case CWSs12 that cannot provide enough first draw samples can request State approval to monitor at locations where the water has not stood motionless for at least six hours by submitting a sampling plan that identifies where and when these " nonfirst draw" samples will be collected; or, if the State does not require prior State approval, such systems can send to the State, with their tap results, an identification in writing of each " non first draw" sample and the length of standing time for that particular sample;

Systems collecting lead service line samples following partial lead service line replacement must report the results to the State within the first 10 days of the month following the month in which the system receives the results, or as specified by the State. 13 ( However, a State can eliminate this reporting requirement at its discretion.) Systems must also report June 1999 14 This includes the same subset of CWSs as those that can collect non first draw samples with State approval. Refer to footnote 12 for the definition of these CWSs. Eligible CWSs may be required to obtain prior State approval before using the alternative language.

15 States may require that these systems conduct more frequent lead and copper tap monitoring.

16 This modification affects CWSs serving 3,300 or more persons that remain above the lead action level for more than one monitoring period because these systems must perform some public education tasks on a semi annual basis for as long they exceed the lead action level.

12 additional information as specified by the State to verify that they have completed all partial lead service line replacement requirements;

Systems required to deliver public education may be required to receive prior State approval before implementing the following revisions: CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 to omit providing notices to the local newspapers and/ or limit the distribution of educational materials, special case CWSs14 to use NTNCWSs alternative language and to be subject to NTNCWSs delivery requirements, NTNCWSs to deliver public education information electronically, and systems to omit reference to lead service lines and/ or building permit record availability;

Some systems will be required to maintain records of which sampling sites a system should include in its reduced lead and copper tap sampling pool; and

Systems which are required to replace lead service lines must document, in system files, the portion( s) of the lead service line( s) they own.

Some of the modifications alter the reporting requirements to provide more timely information:

Systems on a reduced monitoring schedule that add a source or change their treatment must report such changes and any appropriate monitoring results to the State no later than 60 days of the change ( unless the State requires earlier notification) 15; and

Systems that are required to deliver public education must report requirements for compliance with public education to the State within 10 days after the end of the period in which public education was required to be performed; as opposed to reporting this information at the end of the calendar year. 16 Other revisions eliminate some of the data to be submitted by a system to the State:

Systems no longer need to provide that State with a list of the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and facilities/ organizations to which delivered public education materials unless there is a change in the information or the State requires that the documentation be included with each submission; June 1999 13

Systems are no longer required to submit certifications that samples meet the first draw criteria contained in § 141.86( b)( 2) and if samples were collected by the customers, that they were done so only after being instructed by the system about proper collection methods;

Systems are no longer required to submit information justifying the use of non Tier 1 sites or to demonstrate why the sampling pool was comprised of fewer than 50 percent of samples collected from lead service lines;

Systems which qualify for monitoring waivers, for accelerated reduced monitoring, or for limited entry point WQP monitoring will submit fewer monitoring results to the State and maintain fewer associated records;

Systems meeting their State designated WQP ranges no longer need to explicitly request State approval to reduce the number of lead and copper samples and the frequency of this monitoring, however, they continue to require written State approval for these reductions; and

Systems no longer need to report the lead and copper 90th percentile calculations in cases where the State has notified the system that it will perform the calculations and provide the results of these calculations to the system in writing before the end of the monitoring period.

4( b)( i)( b) State Record Keeping And Reporting State Record Keeping The 1991 LCR requires States to retain records regarding the currently applicable or most recent determinations for no fewer than 12 years. States are required to retain information relating to the decisions until a new decision, determination, or designation has been issued if no change is made to the State decision during the 12 year retention period. States must maintain the following system level records of currently applicable or most recent State determinations pertaining to the control of lead and copper, including all supporting information and an explanation of the technical basis for each decision:

Current monitoring requirements for each PWS;

Decisions to require conduct of corrosion control treatment studies;

Determinations of optimal corrosion control and source water treatment;

Determinations of maximum permissible lead and copper concentrations in source water and of WQPs that demonstrate that corrosion control treatment has been optimized ( i. e., optimal water quality parameters or OWQPs); June 1999 17 The revisions add language that requires systems to also meet the copper action level for two consecutive six month monitoring periods.

18 The 1991 LCR required systems to conduct reduced monitoring during June through September. This created unintentional problems for systems that are not open during the summer months. The LCRMR allow States to designate an alternative monitoring period when lead levels are likely to be their highest.

14

Results of State activities designed to verify compliance with State determinations; and

Reports and any other information submitted by PWSs.

The LCRMR do not alter the length of time that records must be retained. Instead, they may require the State to maintain additional records for some systems and fewer records for others. The revisions require the State to retain records related to new decisions regarding monitoring requirements for systems in several areas. States are required to:

Maintain additional lead and copper tap monitoring results for ( b)( 3) systems and additional records for those systems no longer meeting the ( b)( 3) criteria, that may be required to conduct a study, install treatment, and/ or monitor for WQPs. 17

Retain correspondence relating to sample site selection for those systems where the State designated reduced sampling locations;

Review and maintain sampling plans for systems requesting approval to collect " non firstdraw samples;

Maintain determinations regarding whether small systems requesting a monitoring waiver for lead and/ or copper meet the requirements and the continued eligibility of these systems;

Maintain decisions on which systems exceeding the action level and are not required to install source water treatment can be placed on reduced source water monitoring;

Document decisions related to sample invalidation and maintain data submitted by systems demonstrating the need for sample invalidation;

Maintain records on decisions regarding which systems should be placed on an alternative reduced monitoring schedule for the collection of lead and copper tap samples; 18

Determine eligibility and maintain records related to the need for systems on reduced monitoring that change their source or add a treatment to return to standard monitoring or take other action; and

Review and maintain documentation from ground water systems wishing to restrict entry point WQP monitoring to representative locations. June 1999 15 Other modifications increase the State's record keeping requirements:

States are required to document several public education decisions regarding whether: 1) CWSs qualify to use the alternative public education language and delivery requirements specified for NTNCWSs, 2) systems can delete reference to lead service lines and/ or building permit record availability, 3) CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people can discontinue publishing notices in local papers and/ or may limit the distribution of public education materials, and 4) NTNCWSs can deliver public education information electronically;

States must maintain additional records for CWSs serving more than 3,300 people due to more frequent reporting of compliance with public education requirements; and

States must maintain records that document a system's compliance with partial lead service line replacement notification and monitoring activities.

Other revisions related to accelerated reduced monitoring, monitoring waivers, and entry point WQP monitoring decrease State record keeping requirements because the States will review and maintain fewer monitoring results. In addition, the LCRMR eliminate some of the records that would have been retained by the State. More specifically, States no longer have to retain records related to a system's certification of first draw or customer collected samples or a systems justification explaining why samples were collected from non Tier 1 sites or an insufficient number of samples were collected from residences served by lead service lines.

State Reporting Under the 1991 LCR, States were required to report quarterly to the Agency information on each system's compliance with monitoring and reporting, and treatment technique requirements. In addition, the State had to report certain milestone events as required under § 142.15. In particular, States had to report the name and identification number of each PWS that:

Exceeded the lead or copper action levels and the date the exceedance occurred;

Was required to complete a corrosion control study;

Received a State determination regarding optimal corrosion control treatment, OWQPs, source water treatment requirement, or maximum permissible source water levels;

Completed installation of corrosion control or source water treatment; and

Was required to replace lead service lines, had a State designated accelerated replacement schedule, or reported compliance with its schedule. June 1999 16 Overall, the LCRMR reduce the number of milestones that States are required to report to the Agency, but do not impact the reporting requirements for violations or enforcement actions. Further, the LCRMR do not alter the reporting frequency or change the information the States are required to keep in State files or data systems, only the information which they must report on a regular basis to EPA. The Agency believes that the reporting revisions will provide better information than the previous reporting requirements. In addition, the modifications also clarify that States must report the information to EPA in a format prescribed by the EPA Administrator. The specific reporting changes are explained in more detail below:

90th Percentile Levels The 1991 LCR required States to report each system that exceeded the lead and copper action level. The LCRMR replace the requirement to report lead and copper action level exceedances. Under the LCRMR, the Agency requires States to report all 90th percentile lead levels for all large and medium water systems and those lead levels in excess of the action level for small systems. EPA believes requiring the reporting of additional 90th percentile lead levels for large and medium systems is essential because such data will support analysis of corrosion control and source water treatment effectiveness. Further, the LCRMR explicitly require the States to report those 90th percentile copper levels in excess of the action level for all systems sizes.

Corrosion Control Study Required and Completed Milestones States were required under the 1991 rule to submit the name and identification number of each system required to conduct a corrosion control study and the date the study was completed. EPA has eliminated these requirements because failure to conduct a corrosion control treatment study is a violation of the LCR that must be reported to SDWIS.

" Deemed" Milestone EPA has added a " Deemed" milestone to indicate when a system has optimized corrosion control. This " Deemed" milestone must be reported for every water system. Under this milestone, the State must report every system for which the State has designated OWQPs, or which the State has deemed to have optimized corrosion control under § 141.81( b)( 1) or § 141.81( b)( 3). The State must also report for these systems, the date and basis of such a determination.

" Done" Milestone EPA has created a new milestone to indicate when a system has completed all applicable corrosion control, source water treatment, and lead service line replacement requirements. The State must report this " Done" milestone for all water systems. For this milestone, the State must report the latest event from among all the following events:

The date the State designates OWQPs under § 141.82( f) or deems the system to have optimized corrosion control under § 141.81( b)( 1) or § 141.81( b)( 3); June 1999 17

For systems triggered into source water treatment, the date the State designates maximum permissible source water levels or that source water treatment is not required; OR

For systems triggered into lead service line replacement, the date the system completes lead service line replacement or becomes eligible to cease lead service line replacement.

The " Done" milestone replaces the requirement to report separate milestones for each system: that is required to install source water treatment, that has installed the State designated source water treatment, that is required to install corrosion control treatment, that has installed State designated corrosion control treatment, and for which the State has specified maximum permissible source water levels, and/ or OWQPs.

Lead Service Line Replacement States were required under the 1991 rule to submit the name and identification number of each system: ( 1) that must replace lead service lines; ( 2) for which the State has established an accelerated replacement schedule; and ( 3) reporting compliance with its replacement schedule. EPA has revised this lead service line reporting milestone to require States to report only the name and identification number of each water system that must replace lead service lines and the date replacement must begin.

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to collect information about accelerated lead service line replacement schedules because EPA can request this information from States, if needed. EPA has eliminated the portion of this milestone associated with reporting a system's compliance with its lead service line replacement schedule because EPA will be able to determine system compliance using information already reported to the SDWIS. In particular, because failure to comply with an accelerated or other replacement schedule constitutes a LCR violation, it must be reported to SDWIS.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities Respondents include both PWSs and State primacy agencies. CWS and NTNCWS owners and operators are required to comply with the LCR. In general, the LCR requires each of these water systems to undertake the following activities:

Read the regulations;

Plan monitoring and other activities;

Provide training to appropriate staff and to residents collecting samples;

Identify appropriate sampling sites and collect samples;

Review sample data, including the calculation of lead and copper 90th percentile levels;

Submit to the State, monitoring data or any other documents/ reports; and June 1999 18

Record and maintain information.

In addition, some systems must submit corrosion control studies, recommend and submit information regarding the completion of corrosion control treatment and/ or source water treatment installation, conduct public education, and/ or conduct lead service lines monitoring and notification.

The rule revisions are consistent and compatible with the existing reporting and record keeping practices of these respondents. They do not alter the retention periods for maintaining records. The revisions result in less frequent reporting and fewer records to be maintained for some systems and a corresponding decrease in the number of records to be reviewed or retained by the State. The expected impact that each revision has on respondent activity is described below. The record keeping and reporting impacts were discussed in more detail in Section 3( b)( i) of this document.

4( b)( ii)( a) Systems Deemed to Have Optimized Corrosion Control under § 141.81( b)( 3)

Several of the provisions in § 141.81( b)( 3) have been revised under the LCRMR as follows:

Systems with source water levels below the Method Detection Limit may be deemed to have optimized corrosion control. With this revision, more systems can potentially qualify as ( b)( 3) systems.

The LCRMR correct an oversight and explicitly require ( b)( 3) systems to continue lead and copper tap water monitoring on a triennial basis.

The LCRMR clarify EPA's intention that ( b)( 3) systems also meet the copper action level). A ( b)( 3) system that exceeds the copper action level no longer qualifies for this designation, and may be required to provide the State with a treatment recommendation, conduct a corrosion control study, and install corrosion control treatment.

A ( b)( 3) system must report a change in treatment or addition of a source to the State within 60 days of the change/ treatment. The State can require the system to conduct additional monitoring or take other appropriate action to ensure the system is maintaining minimal levels of corrosion in the distribution system.

4( b)( ii)( b) Compliance with Optimal Water Quality Parameters The LCRMR change the requirements for compliance determination regarding optimal corrosion control and WQPs. Under the LCR, a single sample outside the OWQP range could result in a violation. Under the LCRMR, a water system is in violation when a sample fails to meet the State designated OWQP ranges or values for more than nine days during a six month period. The change in compliance criteria June 1999 19 Systems meeting OWQPs can qualify for reduced lead and copper tap monitoring and WQP tap monitoring. Systems no longer meeting OWQPs are in violation and no longer qualify for reduced monitoring until they can again meet OWQPs for two consecutive 6 month monitoring periods.

20 This provision does not impact the frequency of WQP monitoring at entry points. This monitoring remains at a frequency of at least once every two weeks ( biweekly).

19 should result in fewer systems incurring violations, and allow more systems to remain on reduced monitoring. 19 4( b)( ii)( c) Accelerated Reduced Monitoring The LCRMR allow systems with very low lead and copper levels for two consecutive six month monitoring periods to monitor triennially without first monitoring on an annual schedule ( as required under the 1991 rule). Systems that qualify for accelerated reduced lead and copper tap monitoring and meet their OWQPs also qualify for accelerated reduced WQP tap monitoring. 20 This allows systems to also collect WQPs at reduced number of taps every three years, instead of first monitoring at a reduced number of sites semi annually and then annually.

4( b)( ii)( d) Sample Invalidation Systems wishing to have a sample invalidated must demonstrate to the State that they meet at least one of the criteria listed in § 141.86( f)( 1). The system must submit the results of all samples to the State and all supporting documentation for samples they believe should be invalidated. The State must document its decision in writing.

4( b)( ii)( e) Monitoring Waivers for Small Systems Small systems serving 3,300 or fewer people with low levels of lead and/ or copper at the tap and that can demonstrate that their water system is free of lead and/ or copper containing materials can qualify for a monitoring waiver for lead and/ or copper. Systems qualifying for a monitoring waiver would be required to monitor at a frequency of once every nine years for the contaminant( s) for which they received a monitoring waiver. They must also continue to certify once every nine years that they still qualify for a monitoring waiver. Also, as a condition of the waiver, the State may require a system to perform certain activities, such as outreach to remind people to only use " lead free" faucets. If a system continues to satisfy the requirements of the monitoring waiver, the waiver will be automatically renewed unless the State notifies the system otherwise. Systems are also required to notify the State when they change treatment or add a new source or become aware that they no longer met the criteria for a monitoring waiver.

4( b)( ii)( f) Sample Site Location Systems with Insufficient Tiered Sites June 1999 21 Refer to footnote 12 for a definition of special case CWSs.

20 The LCRMR clarify that systems without sufficient Tier 1, 2, or 3 sites must sample from nontiered sites that are representative of sites throughout the distribution system. The system is not required to request or receive approval from the State to sample from non tiered sites.

NTNCWSs and Special Case CWSs with Insufficient Number of First Draw Samples NTNCWSs and special case CWSs without a sufficient number of sampling sites that can provide first draw samples can request written approval from the State to collect non first draw samples. 21 States can waive the requirement that prior State approval be granted before the system is allowed to conduct such sampling.

Sample Site Justifications The LCRMR eliminate the requirement for systems to notify the State if they were unable to complete their sampling pool with Tier 1 sites or to collect 50 percent of the samples from sites served by lead service lines. EPA has eliminated these reporting requirements because States can use other mechanisms such as on site inspections or file reviews to determine if systems are sampling at appropriate locations.

4( b)( ii)( g) Systems that Change Treatment or Add a New Source Water Systems monitoring less frequently than every six months that change their treatment or add a new source must report the change to the State, no later than 60 days of the change, unless a shorter notification period is required by the State. Because these systems would be monitoring at a reduced frequency, any increase in lead or copper levels may occur within a relatively short period of time and may go undetected for up to nine years by some systems.

4( b)( ii)( h) Entry Point Monitoring for Water Quality Parameters at Ground Water Systems The Agency is allowing ground water systems required to monitor for WQPs to limit entry point monitoring to those locations that are representative of water quality and corrosion control treatment conditions throughout the distribution system. To take advantage of this provision, systems must provide to the State identification of the selected entry points and documentation showing that these locations are representative of water quality and treatment conditions throughout the distribution system.

4( b)( ii)( i) Other Changes Pertaining to Lead and Copper Tap Water Monitoring Sample Certification Under the 1991 regulations, systems were required to submit a certification with their lead and copper monitoring results that each sample met the first draw specifications outlined in § 141.86( b) and that June 1999 22 NTNCWSs are required to post informational materials and to distribute public education materials to each person served by the system.

21 any sample collected by residents was taken only after they received proper instructions from the water system. EPA has eliminated these reporting requirements, but systems must still maintain these records.

State Approval for Reduced Monitoring Under the 1991 regulations, systems meeting their OWQP ranges must first request approval from the State before assuming a reduced lead and copper tap monitoring schedule. The Agency has eliminated this requirement because States routinely review system eligibility for reduced monitoring and notify systems in writing of changes in their monitoring requirements as part of their compliance oversight function. Systems must still receive written State approval before collecting lead and copper samples at a reduced number and frequency, and must also maintain the State decisions in their records.

Timing of Reduced Monitoring The State may approve a different period of monitoring than June through September for systems on annual or less frequent ( reduced) monitoring. For a seasonal system, this revision may eliminate the unintended burden for a system to sample during periods that are not representative of normal operations and allow States to make treatment decisions based on more relevant information.

4( b)( ii)( j) Public Education Content of Public Education Language Under the 1991 regulations, the mandatory public education language was the same for CWSs and NTNCWSs. The LCRMR provide alternative public education language that can be used by NTNCWSs and certain CWSs. CWSs must apply to the State, in writing, to use this alternative language, unless the State has waived the requirement for prior approval. Further, both CWSs and NTNCWSs can delete information pertaining to lead service lines, if approved by the State and if no lead service lines exist in a system's service area. In addition, CWSs may modify public education language pertaining to permit record availability and accessibility, if approved by the State. The revisions to the public education mandatory language are intended to provide more pertinent information and to minimize confusion by the individuals receiving the public education materials.

Distribution of Materials The LCRMR permit systems using billing formats that do not allow for enclosures of additional materials to mail public education materials separately from water bills, so long as the mailing is completed within the required time frame and achieves equal coverage. In addition, with State permission, NTNCWSs can distribute public education materials electronically. Further, CWSs using the NTNCWS alternative language, may also follow the NTNCWS requirements for public education delivery. 22 June 1999 23 The 1991 rule required all CWSs to deliver public service announcements semiannually for as long as these systems exceed the lead action level. As mentioned above, the revisions allow CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer persons to forego delivering public service announcements and to deliver public education on an annual basis. NTNCWSs under the LCR and LCRMR are required to conduct public education annually.

24 Systems exceeding the lead action level after installing optimal corrosion control treatment and/ or source water must begin lead service line replacement. A system may avoid replacing a lead service line by demonstrating that the lead concentration in any sample collected from that line is 0.015 mg/ L or less. The system may count lines with such levels toward the annual seven percent replacement requirements. The LCRMR do not alter these lead service line monitoring provisions.

25 AWWA v. EPA, 40 F. 3d 1266 ( D. C. Cir. 1994)

22 Community Water Systems Serving 3,300 or Fewer People The LCRMR limit or omit some of the required public education tasks for CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people. In particular, these systems are no longer required to deliver public service announcements, which had to be performed semi annually. Systems serving 500 or fewer people may omit submitting information to newspapers and limit the distribution of informational pamphlets to appropriate facilities and organizations served by the water system. In addition to mailing lead public education materials to billing units, systems electing to limit/ omit these activities must also mail or hand deliver the required public education materials to all other regular customers of the system. Systems serving 501 to 3,300 may do so with State permission.

Reporting Completion of Public Education Tasks The LCRMR change the deadline for reporting compliance with public education tasks from the end of the calendar year to within 10 days after the end of the period in which the system is required to perform public education. EPA changed this requirement to provide the Agency and States with more timely information on which to assess compliance. CWSs serving more than 3,300 persons will now be required to submit two public education compliance letters per year instead of one. 23 The LCRMR eliminate the need for systems to submit supporting documentation that has been submitted previously unless there is a change in the information or the State requires that the documentation be included with each submission.

4( b)( ii)( k) Lead Service Line Replacement The 1991 LCR required a water system to replace the entire lead service line, up to the building inlet, unless the system demonstrated to the satisfaction of the State that it controlled less than the entire service line. 24 This broad definition of " control" was subsequently remanded and vacated by the Court as it applies to portions of the line beyond a water system's ownership. 25 Because lead service lines are not required to be replaced until treatment has been installed and is unsuccessful at bringing the lead 90th percentile level below the action level, few if any systems would have replaced lead service lines under the broader definition. June 1999 23 The LCRMR eliminate the " control" terminology and require the water system to replace only the portion of the lead service line that it owns. Because the proposed revised definition of " control" is much narrower than the original definition, the LCRMR also remove the rebuttable presumption that the water system controls the entire length of the lead service line. The LCRMR also revise the requirements a water system must satisfy when replacing only a portion of the lead service line ( i. e., partial lead service line replacement). Under the LCR, systems were required to offer to collect a post replacement sample within 14 days of the partial replacement. The LCRMR require systems to: 1) notify resident( s) served by the line of the potential of a temporary increase in lead levels in their drinking water and to provide the resident( s) guidance on minimizing exposure to lead; 2) inform the resident( s) that it will, at its expense, collect a tap sample representative of the water in the service line for lead analysis within three days following the replacement, and report the results to the owner and the resident( s) within three business days of receiving the results; and 3) report the results of the post partial replacement sampling to the State within the first ten days of the month following the month in which the system receives the laboratory results, unless the State has eliminated this reporting requirement.

4( b)( ii)( l) Source Water Monitoring Composite Samples The LCRMR increase the copper resampling trigger for compositing source water samples. Therefore, some systems may avoid additional costs associated with resampling and analyzing each site comprising the composite sample.

Reduced Source Water Monitoring Under the LCRMR, systems exceeding the action level for which the State has determined source water treatment is not needed are allowed to sample source water once every nine years, if they maintain very low source water lead and copper levels for three consecutive monitoring periods. Under the 1991 rule these systems were required to monitor annually or triennially.

5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following sections describe the Agency activities related to analyzing, maintaining, and distributing the information collected.

5( a) Agency Activities The Agency is responsible for promulgating and overseeing the implementation of the minor revisions to the LCR. The Agency is involved in the following activities that assist States in implementing the modifications: June 1999 26 SBREFA impacts were not estimated for the LCR because SBREFA became effective after the original LCR provisions became effective.

24

Develop the regulations and necessary guidance materials;

Respond to questions on the regulations or guidance materials;

Review and analyze data submissions from States to ensure consistent and appropriate implementation of the requirements; and

Process and maintain the SDWIS data associated with State submissions.

5( b) Collection Methodology And Management The LCRMR provide EPA with the authority to specify the format in which the States must report information to EPA. The Agency will specify in guidance, that this information be provided in an electronic format. OGWDW has established procedures and allocated resources for States to submit information in electronic format to SDWIS. This data system already has the capability to accept some of the additional State data that would be required by the revisions. For example, SDWIS can currently accept the reporting of all 90th percentile lead data for any system and dates associated with various milestones. However, modifications to SDWIS are needed to accept the new " Done" and " Deemed" milestones.

The data generated as a result of the modifications will be integrated in the existing quarterly SDWIS reporting cycle. This integration will result in efficiencies because fixed reporting costs will be distributed among all data requirements. In addition, having these data in a national automated data base allows the Agency to readily access needed information and provides sorting capabilities to more readily compile and analyze data for Agency use and response to the public and outside agencies.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility As indicated in earlier sections of this ICR, EPA has made revisions to the 1991 LCR which reduce to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on PWSs, especially smaller systems. These revisions establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or schedules that take into account the resources available to smaller water systems; clarify, consolidate or simplify compliance and reporting requirements; and eliminate unnecessary or redundant requirements. Such objectives are consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) which requires all executive agencies to consider small entities in their regulatory design and implementation processes. EPA has previously described considerations pertaining to small systems in the 1991 ICR, ( refer to pages 14 18).

The RFA, as amended in March 1996 by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA), requires that EPA specifically consider the effect of this revised regulation on small entities. 26 The Agency must assess the impact of the revised rule on small entities and consider regulatory alternatives if a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the RFA, 5 June 1999 27 The RFA analysis of the 1991 LCR was based on an older definition for small entities that included water systems serving 50,000 or fewer people.

28 Assumes exceedance occurs in first round of monitoring and that the small system is adhering to the schedule outlined in the regulation.

29 As indicated in this paragraph, small entities are defined as water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people for RFA analyses. The LCR and LCRMR define small water systems as serving 3,300 or fewer people. For all sections of this ICR other than 5( c), small systems refer to those systems serving 3,300 or fewer people.

25 U. S. C. 601 et seq., the Agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the economic impact of a rule on small entities as part of a rulemaking. However, under section 605( b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

For purposes of RFA analyses for SDWA rulemakings, the Agency defines small entities as systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers. 27 EPA has selected systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons as the criterion for small water systems for the definition of small entity because this is the system size category specified in SDWA for small system flexibility. This definition was established in the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking ( 63 FR 444511, Aug. 19, 1998). For further information regarding this definition of small entities, see the referenced Federal Register notice. Given this service population size, more than 95 percent of PWSs would be considered small entities. Examples of small entity flexibility provided by the revisions are discussed in sections 5( c)( i) and 5( c)( ii) below.

EPA has determined that the LCRMR will affect 25,966 publicly owned and 46,450 privatelyowned small water utilities. These systems will be required to conduct monitoring, submit reports to the State, maintain records, and in some instances to provide information to their users. Most of the quantifiable cost impacts described in Section 6.0 affect systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. Annual system costs are expected to decrease and small systems ( those serving 3,300 or fewer persons) will derive all the cost savings associated with the monitoring waivers. Systems qualifying for a monitoring waiver will be able to reduce lead and/ or copper tap water monitoring to once every nine years. Small systems will also receive most of the cost savings associated with accelerated reduced lead and copper monitoring. In particular, small systems installing treatment that demonstrate very low lead and copper levels ( i. e., those systems having 90th percentile lead levels of 0.005 mg/ L or less and 90th percentile copper levels of 0.65 mg/ L or less) for two consecutive 6 month monitoring periods will avoid three rounds of monitoring. 28 Further, CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people that exceed the lead action level will be able to narrow the scope of their public education efforts. 29 EPA has estimated the impact of the LCRMR and concludes that the impact of the rule on small water systems will not be significant. Therefore, the Administrator is certifying, pursuant to section 605( b) of the RFA, that the LCRMR do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; thereby no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. The basis for the LCRMR certification is as follows: the annual compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1 percent of revenues for 25,966 publicly owned small systems and less than 1 percent of sales for the 46,450 privately owned small June 1999 26 systems. As seen in Figure 5 1, all but those in the smallest system size category ( serving 500 or fewer people) realize an average annual savings for the first three years of the LCRMR ( 1999 2001). The cost increase for these smallest systems is less than 1 percent of median annual income for both publicly and privately owned systems. Looking beyond the first three years of the revised program, all small systems will realize a cost and burden savings as a result of the LCR revisions. Therefore, as stated above, the Administrator has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. For more detail regarding the assumptions and procedures used to develop system cost estimates, refer to section 6( b)( i).

Figure 5 1: Annual Burden Indicators for the LCR Minor Revisions ( for ICR period 1999 2001)

SBREFA Summary for Publicly and Privately Owned Systems Serving 25 10,000 People System Size Number of Systems Impacted ( a) Average Annual Hours per System ( 1999 2001) Average Annual Cost per System ( 1999 2001, in $ 1,000' s) Savings ( Costs) as a percentage of Revenue/ Sales ( b)

PUBLICLY OWNED WATER SYSTEMS ( Revenue Test)

500 and under 10,978 1.2 $ 0.01 0.07%

501 to 3,300 11,612  0.3 $ 0.02  0.01%

3,301 to 10,000 3,376  0.9 $ 0.07  0.01%

10,000 and under 25,966 0.7 $ 0.0005 0.0004%

PRIVATELY OWNED WATER SYSTEMS ( Sales Test)

500 and under 40,213 1.2 $ 0.01 0.08%

501 to 3,300 5,290  0.3 $ 0.02  0.01%

3,301 to 10,000 947  0.9 $ 0.07  0.01%

10,000 and under 46,450 0.7 $ 0.0005 0.0014%

( a) Numbers of publicly and privately owned systems originate from January 1997 SDWIS inventory. The median annual sales and revenue figures were based on information from the 1995 Community Water System Survey. The median sales figures used in the above calculation are: 25 500: $ 15,973; 501 3,300: $ 117,048; and 3,301 10,000: $ 608,194. The median revenue figures used in the above calculation are: 25 500: $ 16,915; 501 3,300: $ 116,588; and 3,301  10,000: $ 547,409.

( b) The Revenue and Sales Tests used to measure small business impacts are recommended in the EPA Interim Guidance for Implementing the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Related Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, February 1997. All systems are estimated to incur cost and burden savings attributed to the LCRMR. To present a relative measure, these savings are shown as a percentage of median annual revenue/ sales for each size category. Savings are shown as a negative percentage.

( c) A slight burden and cost increase is projected for systems serving 500 and fewer for the three year ICR period. The burden and cost for reading the regulation and training outweigh the savings resulting from other provisions of the LCRMR. The other size categories are proportionally less impacted by the burden and cost to read the June 1999 30 Prior to the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, third party notification activities, such as public notification and public education were not subject to OMB review. Public notification burdens and costs are not included in this ICR, but are included in the ICR for the revised Public Notification regulation.

31 The ICR prepared to support the original 1991 LCR, entitled Final Information Collection Request for National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, April 1991, estimated burdens and costs over 18 years from 1992 through 2009 ( i. e., two nine year source water monitoring cycles). The estimates presented in the Drinking Water ICR are based on the assumptions used to develop the 1991 27 regulations and training. Looking beyond the ICR period, all small systems will realize a burden and cost savings as a result of the LCRMR.

5( d) Collection Schedule For both the LCR and LCRMR, the Agency considered a wide range of alternatives for frequency of data collection, and has chosen the option that requires the least frequent collection possible while still remaining consistent with its overall objective of protecting public health. Where possible, State discretion in adjusting these frequencies has been allowed. Monitoring frequencies for PWSs have been carefully devised based on the following factors: system size, source type, system construction, and contaminant history.

The consequences of less frequent data collection include the possibility of failing to identify in a timely fashion significant contaminant concentrations which might threaten public health and safety. Although the modifications allow accelerated reduced monitoring frequencies and monitoring waivers, they require that a system first meet stringent criteria that the Agency believes are protective of public health. The LCRMR add a provision that requires systems monitoring annually or less frequently to notify the State within 60 days of changes in their treatment( s) or an addition of a new source of water. This allows the State to detect in a timely fashion whether the corrosivity of the water has increased due to these changes. Otherwise, a State would be unaware of changes in lead and copper levels until the next monitoring results were submitted, which could be as long as nine years under the revised rule. The provision also would allow a State to require a system to monitor more frequently or take other appropriate actions if deemed necessary.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION In its efforts to quantify the impact of the LCRMR, EPA revised its burden and cost estimates of the LCR from those presented in the Drinking Water ICR. Revisions to these burden and cost estimates were needed to more accurately reflect the outcome of the implementation of the regulation, to incorporate public education activities, and to allow the impacts of the LCRMR to be assessed by better delineating the various requirements of the current regulation. 30 To quantify the requirements of the LCR and LCRMR, EPA developed six system burden/ cost models ( lead and copper tap monitoring, source water monitoring, water quality parameter monitoring, lead service line monitoring, reporting, and public education) and three State models ( oversight, reporting, and record keeping). For each of these nine models, two versions were developed to estimate costs and burdens for 1999 through 2009.31 One serves as the baseline and June 1999 LCR estimates. The revised baseline used in this May 1999 ICR contains burdens and costs for the remaining 11 years of the 18 year time period ( i. e., 1999 through 2009). Only those burdens and costs for 1999 through 2001 apply to this ICR.

32 The Agency recognizes that some systems may exceed in later monitoring periods or may have intermittent exceedances. An exceedance of the action level based on the first round of monitoring is a conservative assumption. The Agency believes this assumption provides a reasonable approach for estimating burden and costs.

28 depicts the 1991 LCR requirements. The second set is adjusted to reflect the requirements of the LCRMR. Appendix D contains a brief narrative and summary tables of the number of events, burdens, and costs for each system model. Appendix E provides this information for the State models.

EPA assumes that any exceedance of an action level would occur during the first round of monitoring ( on June 1992 for systems serving more than 50,000 people, on December 1992 for systems serving 3,301 to 50,000 people, and on December 1993 for systems serving 3,300 or fewer people). 32 The percentage of systems exceeding the lead or copper action level was based on initial monitoring data reported to SDWIS. Systems and States are assumed to follow the schedule outlined in the 1991 LCR and to require the maximum time to complete an activity that was allowed under the LCR or LCRMR ( e. g., 18 months to conduct a study, 6 months for systems to designate OWQPs). After treatment installation, 25 percent of systems were assumed to continue to exceed. As a simplifying assumption, all systems that were required to install corrosion control treatment were assumed to meet their WQPs and qualify for reduced monitoring. Based on these assumptions, systems were divided into compliance pathways that dictated their monitoring, lead service line notification, public education, or reporting schedules. This in turn determined the timing and extent of State oversight, reporting, and record keeping activities.

Appendix A to this document provides a more detailed discussion of the assumptions used to develop the revised LCR burden and cost estimates presented in this ICR. Appendix B provides a more long term picture of the burden impact on systems and States. It contains year by year system and State burden estimates for 1999 through 2003 and an average annual burden for 2004 through 2009.

Sections 6( a)( e) describe the change in respondent burden and cost for information collection activities under the LCRMR. All burden and costs are expressed as the net change between the LCRMR requirements and the 1991 LCR requirements, averaged over 1999 through 2001. Section 6( f) provides an explanation of the changes to the baseline ICR from those presented in the Drinking Water ICR.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The information collection burden is estimated separately for PWSs and States below. Respondent costs are presented in section 6( b).

6( a)( i) Burden To Public Water Systems EPA estimates that the modifications to the LCR will affect 75,945 PWSs, although individual requirements will apply to subsets of drinking water systems. PWSs include both CWSs and NTNCWSs. June 1999 29 Record keeping and reporting activities under the LCRMR will decrease annual burden to PWSs by an average of 36,773 hours over the three year period of this ICR. Figure 6 1 summarizes the change in burden to PWSs. The assumptions and methodologies for deriving each estimate are also presented in this section. June 1999 30 Figure 6 1: Change in Annual System Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours)

Activity Average Burden Initial Activities Read regulations and train staff 202,520 Tap and WQP Monitoring Requirements ( b)( 3) system monitoring 7,968 Alternate monitoring schedule for systems on reduced monitoring  1,430 Accelerated lead and copper monitoring  54,670 Monitoring waivers  47,308 Accelerated WQP monitoring  4,949 Entry point monitoring at representative sites  40,535 Source Water Monitoring Requirements Reduced source water monitoring for PWSs w/ o MPLs  1,408 Public Education Delivery of public education materials  5,966 Lead Service Line Monitoring and Notification Requirements Partial lead service line monitoring  78,733 Partial lead service line notification 8,411 Revisions to System Reporting Requirements Eliminate first draw/ customer collected certifications  5,567 Eliminate sample site justification  2,027 Remove request for reduced monitoring  2,227 State flexibility to calculate 90th percentile values  9,394 Report changes in treatment or addition of new source 264 Evaluate/ report WQPs compliance using new compliance criteria 3,463 Change public education reporting deadline 388 Report compliance with partial lead service line replacement requirements 2,405 June 1999 Figure 6 1: Change in Annual System Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours)

Activity Average Burden 31 Impacts resulting from changes in other provisions Reporting of lead and copper results  6,072 Reporting of source water monitoring results  463 Specify lead and copper monitoring location changes  1,443 TOTAL  36,773 6( a)( i)( a) Read the Regulations and Training Activities States will be mainly responsible for understanding and adopting these regulations and for notifying PWSs of changes in specific rule requirements. Therefore, PWSs are assumed to bear a relatively minor burden for activities such as reading the regulations and training. EPA assumes that each system will require 4 hours to read the revised regulations and an additional 4 hours to attend training on the revisions. This equals a total burden of 607,560 hours or an average annual burden of 202,520 hours for reading these two activities over the three year ICR period.

6( a)( i)( b) Monitoring The estimates of PWS monitoring burden include the following activities:

Gather information ( i. e., identify sample sites and take samples);

Create information ( i. e., conduct tests on samples collected);

Process, compile, and review information created.

The burden to record and mantain the monitoring results and to submit these data to the State are estimated separately and are discussed later in this section.

EPA estimated burdens separately for lead and copper monitoring at the tap, WQP monitoring, lead and copper monitoring at the source, and lead service line monitoring and notification requirements. The PWS burden for all monitoring related activities will decrease by an average of 212,654 hours per year. The procedure for estimating burden for these four monitoring categories is discussed in more detail below.

Lead and Copper Tap Water Monitoring. June 1999 33 The 1991 ICR and the Drinking Water ICR assumed that all analyses were conducted in house. Per the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) guidance, EPA has retained this assumption to estimate the revised baseline and LCRMR burdens/ costs. This will allow OMB to better identify changes in burdens/ costs due to the impacts of the revisions as opposed to changes in the procedure for estimating burdens/ costs.

32 EPA estimates that overall the annual lead and copper tap water monitoring burden will decrease by average of 95,440 hours over the three years. This reduction is due to accelerated reduced monitoring, monitoring waivers, and the flexibility to allow alternative monitoring schedules for systems on reduced monitoring. The general assumptions used to estimate the burden are presented below. In addition, the procedure used to estimate the impact of specific revisions affecting lead and copper monitoring are also discussed.

By 1999, all systems will have completed initial monitoring and if applicable, have completed a corrosion control study, the installation of corrosion control treatment, and/ or the installation of source water treatment.

Any exceedance will have occurred in the first round of initial monitoring ( i. e., 1992 for large and medium systems and 1993 for small systems);

Monitoring will be an ongoing burden, and is averaged over an 1999 through 2001 to obtain average annual burdens;

Sample collection ( the labor required for travel, gaining access to the sampling station, and sample collection) takes 2.5 hours per sample ( except where noted for seasonal systems);

Systems will collect the minimum number of samples required under the regulation;

Lead and copper analyses will be conducted by the system and will require a total of 1 hour per sample for the analysis of both parameters; 33

The time for designing the targeted sampling strategy and interpreting results has not been estimated separately and is assumed to be included in the sample collection burden; and

The time for interpreting the results is included as part of the reporting burden.

Continued monitoring for ( b)( 3) systems The LCRMR clarify EPA's intent that ( b)( 3) systems continue lead and copper tap monitoring after initial monitoring, by adding language that explicitly requires these systems to conduct monitoring on a triennial basis. The Agency assumes that all ( b)( 3) systems are large systems and that these systems would have discontinued lead and copper tap monitoring after initial monitoring under the LCR. The lead and copper monitoring model for the LCRMR project that these systems will conduct one round of monitoring during the three year ICR period. Over the three years this equals an average of 2,227 samples June 1999 34 EPA assumes that if these systems had not qualified for a waiver, they would be on reduced monitoring ( due to the low levels needed to qualify for a waiver) and would have been required to conduct a round of monitoring during 1999.

33 at a burden of 3.5 hours per lead and copper sample. This translates to an average annual burden increase of 7,968 hours over the three years.

Alternative monitoring schedule for systems on reduced monitoring According to SDWIS ( April 23, 1999), 112 NTNCWSs do not operate during the summer months. During the ICR period, 110 of these systems would be on reduced monitoring and would have been required to make special arrangements to collect samples. EPA assumes that these systems would have required 8 hours to collect the sample ( includes travel time, flushing the system, and allowing a 6 hour standing time) and 1 hour to analyze it. During the 1999 through 2001 time frame, these systems would have collected an average of 260 samples at a burden of 9 hours per sample. Under the LCRMR, these systems can monitor during times of normal operation and will no longer be required to make special arrangement to collect samples. Therefore, the monitoring and analysis of a sample are assumed to be completed in 3.5 hours ( saves 5.5 hours per sample). This translates to an average annual savings of 1,430 hours over the three years. No burden impact is assumed for CWSs because they are in operation yearround and States will only require these systems to change monitoring schedules if the States believe an alternative time frame would be more likely to yield samples with higher lead levels ( e. g., higher levels in winter due to heating tapes on pipes).

Accelerated reduced lead and copper monitoring Because of the timing of this revision, small and medium systems that did not exceed the lead or copper action level during initial monitoring would not benefit from this revision. However, EPA believes there are still systems that will benefit. EPA estimates that 20 percent of the large non( b)( 3) systems and 20 percent of those medium and small systems required to install treatment will qualify for accelerated reduced monitoring. These systems will save an average of about 15,620 samples over the three years at a burden savings of 3.5 hours per sample. This translates to an average annual reduction in burden of 54,670 hours over three years.

Monitoring waivers EPA assumes that approximately 10 percent of small systems ( or 6,809 systems) will be eligible for a monitoring waiver. Systems will spend 1.0 hour preparing each monitoring waiver request. During the 1999 through 2001 period, each of the 6,809 systems will prepare one monitoring waiver application. Thus, systems will spend a total of 6,809 hours over the three years or an average of 2,270 hours applying for the waivers. In addition, EPA estimates that these systems will collect an average of 14,165 fewer samples over the three year ICR period and would have required 3.5 hours per lead and copper sample. 34 The corresponding annual reduction in burden for less frequent monitoring is estimated to be 49,578 hours. The net reduction in burden associated with the monitoring waiver provision is a three year average of 47,308 hours. June 1999 35 Under the LCR, States were not required to report 90th percentile copper or lead levels that were below the action level to EPA. Hence, the Agency cannot estimate how many systems have low levels of only one of the two contaminants and may qualify for a partial waiver.

36 The 5 samples apply to a system serving 500 or fewer people that is on triennial monitoring. The lead and copper tap model estimates that 80 samples would have been collected between 1999 2001 for systems serving 501 3,300 people that exceeded after installing treatment ( i. e., 4 rounds of monitoring of 20 samples per round.)

37 Systems are deemed to have optimized corrosion control under § 141.81( b)( 2) if in advance of the LCR, they had conducted corrosion control activities that were equivalent to the requirements under the LCR ( i. e., conducted a corrosion control study, installed corrosion control treatment).

34 The Agency expects that some small systems will qualify for a monitoring waiver for lead or copper only ( i. e., a partial waiver), but could not estimate the number of systems that will be impacted. 35 During the three year ICR period, systems would have collected a total of 5 samples to 80 samples. 36 The analytical burden per lead or copper sample is 0.5 hour and the corresponding reduction in system burden would range between 2.5 hours to 40 hours per system or an average of 0.8 hours to 13.3 hours per year. No collection burden savings is expected because systems must continue to monitor more frequently than every nine years for the non waivered contaminant. Systems requesting a partial monitoring waiver are also assumed to require 1 hour to prepare and submit this request.

Monitoring provisions that will not have a quantifiable impact The following LCRMR provisions are not expected to have a quantifiable effect on lead and copper tap water monitoring burdens:

( b)( 2) systems. The Agency did not quantify the impact of the LCRMR revisions that require systems deemed to have optimize treatment under § 141.81( b)( 2) to continue to conduct tap and WQP monitoring. 37 EPA assumes that fewer than 1 percent of large systems ( about 7 systems) meet the criteria under § 141.81( b)( 2).

( b)( 3) systems. The Agency did not quantify the impact of two of the revisions that pertain to ( b)( 3) systems. First, EPA assumed that the new requirement to meet the copper action level to maintain or attain ( b)( 3) status would not have an appreciable burden on systems. The Agency believes that few of the estimated 171 large ( b)( 3) systems will exceed the copper action level and be required to conduct increased monitoring or to undertake other significant actions.

Non first draw samples. EPA assumes that 1,000 water systems in total will request State permission to use taps that cannot provide first draw samples. EPA also assumes that the transaction cost to request this flexibility will be more than offset by the cost to shut down operations to provide first draw samples. Therefore, the net change to system burden is zero. June 1999 38 The analytical burden for entry point WQPs is lower because pH and inhibitor concentration are assumed to be measured using in line meters.

35

State specifies reduced tap water monitoring sites. The LCRMR clarify that systems must collect samples from representative sites. In addition, the LCRMR allow States the flexibility to identify from which sites a system on reduced monitoring must sample. No burden impact is assumed because the system is not required to collect additional samples or submit any documentation in response to this revision.

Sample invalidation. EPA estimates that less than 0.5 percent of systems each monitoring period will seek to have samples invalidated. Systems are assumed to require 1.0 hour to prepare the documentation to request sample invalidation. In addition, some systems may potentially avoid the burden associated with having to install corrosion control treatment, conducting public education, or resuming a standard monitoring schedule ( once on reduced monitoring). EPA estimates that they will more than offset the transaction costs associated with requesting sample invalidation.

Decrease holding time for acidified samples. No burden impact is estimated because this change will not affect the amount of labor associated with analyzing the sample, but may allow more flexibility in scheduling when an analysis must be completed.

Water Quality Parameter Monitoring The WQP monitoring model assumes that a collection burden of 0.5 hours per entry point will be applicable to those systems that chlorinate only or apply no treatment ( i. e., 80 percent of ground water systems, based on treatment information in SDWIS). For the other 20 percent of ground water systems and all surface water systems, no collection burden is assumed because these systems are already presumably collecting WQP samples to monitor treatment effectiveness. All distribution tap WQP samples are assumed to be collected with lead and copper tap samples or coliform samples and to incur no additional collection burden. The analytical burden per WQP tap sample is 2 hours and 0.5 hours per entry point WQP sample. 38 Entry point monitoring at representative sites All 157 large and 240 medium size ground water systems are expected to collect entry point samples from fewer sites. The Agency assumes that small water systems have too few entry points to benefit from the provision that allows entry point monitoring to be limited to representative locations instead of monitoring at all entry points. EPA estimates that large ground water systems will reduce the number of samples by two thirds and medium ground water systems by one half. EPA assumes that these ground water systems will require 1 hour to request this monitoring for a total of 397 hours or an average annual burden of 132 hours. These systems in turn are expected to realize a reduction in burden associated with sample collection, for an annual average reduction in collection/ analytical burden of 40,667 hours. June 1999 36 The net average annual reduction in burden associated with this provision is an average of 40,535 hours over the three years.

Accelerated reduced WQP tap monitoring Only large systems will benefit from accelerated reduced WQP monitoring, because small and medium systems with very low lead and copper levels do not exceed the action levels and therefore, are not required to perform WQP monitoring. The same 112 large systems that qualify for accelerated reduced lead and copper monitoring will qualify for accelerated reduced monitoring for WQPs at the tap. These systems would have collected an average of 2,474 samples during 1999 through 2001 and would have incurred an analytical burden of 2 hours per sample. These systems will realize an average annual reduction in analytical burden of 4,949 hours. No sample collection burden reduction is estimated because tap WQP samples are assumed to be collected with lead and copper tap samples or coliform samples.

Source Water Lead and Copper Monitoring The source water monitoring model assumes that by 1999 all systems will be monitoring no more frequently than annually. No source water collection burden is assumed because lead and copper source water samples are assumed to be collected with other inorganic samples, such as nitrate. The analytical burden is assumed to be 1 hour per sample and to include the analysis of both lead and copper.

Reduced source water monitoring Systems that exceed the lead or copper action level and which have low levels of lead and copper in their source water can now conduct source water monitoring at a reduced frequency. Based on the source water monitoring model, 5,384 systems will be impacted by this revision and collect an average of 1,408 fewer lead and copper samples. These systems will realize an average annual reduction in burden of 1,408 hours. The burden reduction is due to labor associated with analyzing fewer samples of 1 hour per sample. No reduction in collection burden is expected because by 1999, systems will be monitoring no less frequently than annually. Source water lead and copper samples are assumed to be collected with nitrate samples or other source water samples.

Resampling triggers for composited samples The LCRMR increase the copper source water resampling trigger. EPA anticipates that this revision may reduce burden because it may decrease the number of instances when source water samples must be reanalyzed. EPA could not quantify the magnitude of this reduction.

Lead Service Line Replacement Monitoring and Notification Requirements June 1999 39 The 1991 RIA is entitled, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, April 1991.

40 EPA estimates that 25% of small systems and 20% of medium and large systems will exceed the lead action level only. The estimate for medium and large systems are based on initial monitoring results reported to EPA Headquarters during 1992 and 1993. This information was used in press releases issued by the Agency in October 1992 and May 1993. Comparable data does not exist for small systems and EPA conservatively estimated the exceedance rate to be slightly higher for this group of systems.

41 For systems serving 100 or more people, EPA assumes that lead service line monitoring results for 40 percent of the lines would indicate that these line did not need to be replaced ( i. e., results are < 15 ppb). Systems serving 100 or fewer people only have 26 lines to replace over 15 years and these systems were conservatively assumed to replace all these lines.

42 As previously discussed, the court vacated EPA's 1991 definition of control beyond " control" equals " ownership". Because lead service line replacement does not begin until after treatment has been installed, EPA assumes that the 1994 court decision would have been in effect when systems began replacement under the LCR.

43 Under the LCR, systems must offer to collect a post replacement sample at each residence served by the line. EPA assumed that all residence would want to know the impact of partial replacement on their lead levels and would accept the offer to have their water tested.

37 EPA assumes that 762 systems will be required to replace lead service lines ( LSLs). This number was adjusted from the 8,281 systems estimated to replace LSLs in the 1991 RIA39, because fewer systems exceeded the lead action level than originally projected. 40 Based on assumptions used in the 1991 RIA, EPA assumed that systems serving more than 100 people would replace 60 percent of their lead service lines; those serving 100 or fewer people would replace all of their lines. 41 EPA also assumed that systems would require 15 years to replace the lines. The baseline and LCRMR models assume that there are two types of monitoring and that both will occur over a 15 year period ( no system is assumed to be on an accelerated replacement schedule or to cease replacement once being triggered into lead service line replacement): 1) Monitoring to determine whether a line needs to be replaced, and 2) Monitoring required because only a portion of a line will be replaced.

The LCRMR do not impact the provisions that allow a system to collect a lead service line sample to determine whether a line needs to be replaced. However, the LCRMR revise the monitoring and notification requirements following partial replacement of a lead service line. EPA assumes that under both the LCR and LCRMR, the system will only replace the portion of the line it owns. 42 The Agency also conservatively assumes that no homeowner will request that his/ her portion of the line be replaced. Therefore, partial lead service line replacement will occur in all instances. Under the LCRMR, following the partial replacement of a line, systems must collect a post replacement sample that is representative of each line replaced. EPA estimates a burden reduction associated with the collection and analysis of postreplacement samples under the LCR because systems are assumed to collect one sample per line compared to one sample per residence served by the line as specified under the LCR. 43 The Agency estimates that each line serves an average of 2.3 residences. Each sample will require a collection burden of 2 hours and June 1999 44 Refer back to section 4( b)( ii)( k) for a discussion of the revisions to the partial lead service replacement notification requirements under the LCRMR.

45 Under the LCRMR, systems serving 500 and fewer people are not required to deliver public service announcements or provide notice to newspapers. Systems serving 501 to 3,300 people can also forego public service announcement, but must receive State approval to omit newspaper notification.

38 an analytical burden of 0.5 hours. This translates to an average annual burden reduction of 78,733 hours per year over the three year ICR period.

The lead service line monitoring model also calculates as part of the monitoring burden, the burden needed to conduct partial lead service line notification requirements. Due to the more extensive notification requirements associated with partial lead service line replacement under the LCRMR, large systems are assumed to require an additional 15 minutes to complete these revised requirements. 44 The estimated average annual increase in burden is 8,411 hours per year. Taking into account both the monitoring and notification requirements, systems are expected to experience an average annual reduction in burden of 70,322 hours over the three years.

6( a)( i)( c) Public Education By 1999, EPA assumes that only those systems that continue to exceed the lead action level will deliver public education ( 4,649 systems). Under the LCRMR, CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people are expected to experience a burden reduction. The 2,983 small CWSs are no longer required to deliver public service announcements. In addition, EPA assumes that States will no longer require newspaper notification and will allow these systems to limit the distribution of pamphlets. 45 EPA also assumes that these systems would have spent 1 hour every 6 months to complete these activities. The average annual burden reduction associated with this provision is 5,966 hours.

The public education models do not quantify changes associated with alternative language for NTNCWSs and special CWSs, allowing flexibility in delivery for NTNCWSs, and State flexibility to approve minor changes in language. EPA believes that these changes should reduce burden for some systems, but is unable to quantify these reductions.

6( a)( i)( d) Reporting and Record Keeping Many of the revisions impact system reporting and record keeping burden. Several of the provisions eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. Some of the provisions have been added to provide States with more timely information or with data necessary to make new determinations under the LCRMR. In addition, some of the reporting requirements are impacted from changes in other provisions. June 1999 46 This average estimate does not include the application for a monitoring waiver ( 2,270 hours) or for requests to collect WQPs and representative sites ( 132 hours). Estimates for these activities were included under the monitoring burden. If these estimates were included under reporting, the total average annual burden reduction would be 18,273 hours.

47 EPA determined the number of certifications by multiplying the number of systems conducting lead and copper monitoring identified in the monitoring model during 1999 through 2001 times the burden of 10 minutes.

48 Two consecutive six months of semi annual monitoring in which the system no longer exceed an action level was counted as one year toward the three years of consecutive monitoring needed to qualify for triennial monitoring.

39 The Agency estimates that overall, the reporting burden will decrease by 20,673 hours. 46 Each of the revisions is discussed in more detail below.

Eliminate certifications for first draw samples. EPA estimates that systems will no longer complete an average of 33,401 certifications per year and that each certification would have required 10 minutes to prepare. The average reduction in burden over the three years is estimated to be 5,567 hours. 47

Eliminate justifications. EPA estimates that 50 percent of CWSs on reduced monitoring would have sent in an average of 12,163 justifications over the three year ICR period that explain why samples were collected from non Tier 1 sites or why the sampling pool was comprised of fewer than 50 percent of sites served by lead service lines. EPA assumes that these justifications would have required 10 minutes. This translates to an average annual burden of 2,027 hours.

Remove need to request approval for reduced monitoring. Over 1999 through 2001 the lead and copper tap monitoring model predicts that 6,116 systems will meet their OWQPs and qualify for annual monitoring. A total of 564 systems will also qualify for triennial monitoring. 48 The LCRMR eliminate the requirement for systems to specifically request State permission to assume a reduced monitoring schedule. These systems include all large systems, except ( b)( 3) systems, and small and medium systems that continue to exceed either action level after installing treatment. The monitoring model also assumes that all systems that install treatment will meet their WQP levels. Systems would have submitted a total of 6,680 requests and would have required 1 hour to prepare and submit these requests to the State. This translates into an annual burden reduction over the three years of 2,227 hours.

State flexibility to calculate 90th percentile level. Based on information collected during data verifications conducted in State program offices, EPA estimates that 50 percent of States will elect to calculate the 90th percentile level for all water systems under their jurisdiction and as a simplifying assumption that these water systems are distributed evenly among these States. Systems are estimated to have required between 0.5 hours and June 1999 40 2 hours to perform this calculation depending on the number of samples collected. This results in an average burden reduction of 9,394 hours over the three year ICR period.

Changes in Treatment or Addition of a New Source. EPA assumes that annually 2 percent of systems subject to reduced monitoring ( 527 systems on average during 1999  2001) will report a change in treatment or an addition of a new source. Further, EPA estimates that systems will require 0.5 hours to prepare and report the information to the State, resulting in an average annual increase in burden of 264 hours. Although, in some instances the State may determine that the change warrants a system's returning to standard monitoring, EPA expects this will occur in rare instances especially if the system notifies the State prior to making the change ( as EPA recommends), so that adverse impacts on tap water lead and copper levels can be minimized or prevented. Therefore, any associated increase in burden is expected to be negligible.

Evaluate/ Report WQPs Using New Compliance Procedures. Under the LCRMR, systems are assumed to continue to report WQP results every 6 months and to require an extra 10 minutes each 6 month monitoring period to assess compliance using the new compliance criteria. This translates to an increase in annual burden of 0.33 hours per system. During 1999 through 2001, systems are estimated to submit an average of 10,493 reports per year. The burden increase to systems over the three year ICR period is estimated to average 3,463 hours. EPA anticipates that the revised compliance criteria should result in fewer violations for failure to meet OWQP values or ranges and therefore, should offset some of the burden to assess compliance. However, the Agency could not quantify this burden reduction impact for systems.

Changes in Deadline for Reporting Compliance with Public Education Requirements. Under the LCRMR, systems are required to submit information demonstrating compliance within 10 days after the end of the period in which public education was required to be performed. Under the 1991 LCR, systems do not have to submit this information until December 31 of each year. This modification will impact CWSs serving more than 3,300 people that remain above the action level for more than one monitoring period because these systems must perform some public education tasks on a semi annual basis for as long they exceed the lead action level.

EPA assumes water systems will require 1 hour to prepare the letter/ report demonstrating compliance with public education requirements. To calculate the change in burden, EPA estimated the number of additional reports that would be required by determining the number of CWSs serving more than 3,300 persons that would remain above the lead action level. The model predicts that 388 of these systems meet these criteria. This translates to 351 and 37 additional reports per year for large and medium system, respectively. The average annual increase in burden over the 3 years is estimated to be 388 hours.

Reporting Compliance with Partial Lead Service Line Notification and Monitoring Requirements. Based on State comments received on the April 1998 Notice of Data June 1999 49 EPA estimated the number of letters by dividing the number of lead service lines from the 1991 RIA for each system size and dividing it by 15 to get the annual number of lines replaced each year. Lead service line replacement was assumed to occur evenly throughout the year and that systems would require between 2 months to 12 months each year to replace the lines. The number of months was multiplied by the number of systems in each size category to obtain the average number of months of replacement ( 9 months). One letter was assumed to be submitted for each month of replacement.

41 Availability, EPA assumes that 75 percent of States will require systems to submit a letter that demonstrates compliance with partial lead service line replacement monitoring and notification requirements. During the ICR period, an average of 534 systems will submit an average of 9 letters each year ( i. e., 4,809 letters). 49 Systems are assumed to require 0.5 hours per letter. This translates to an average annual burden of 2,405 hours.

Some of the requirements of the regulation are not directly modified by the LCRMR, but are impacted by other LCRMR provisions. In particular, systems will conduct less lead and copper tap and source monitoring under the LCRMR. This will potentially reduce the number of reports to the State as follows:

Reporting Lead and Copper Monitoring Results. Systems will submit fewer reports due to the accelerated reduced monitoring and monitoring waiver provisions. During 1999 through 2001, systems are estimated to submit an average of 6,072 fewer reports and would have required 1 hour of burden per report. This equals an average annual reduction in reporting burden of 6,072 hours.

Reporting Source Water Monitoring Results. Systems will submit fewer reports due to the provision that allows systems with low source water lead and copper levels to monitor for source water less frequently. Systems would have required 0.5 hours per monitoring event to report the results. During 1999 through 2001, the average annual burden reduction is estimated to be 463 hours.

Reporting Changes in Monitoring Location. Due to the reduction in the number of monitoring events, systems are also expected to submit fewer reports that explain the reasons for changes in lead and copper tap monitoring locations. EPA estimates that 50 percent of CWSs, collecting lead and copper tap samples, will report a change in monitoring location each year. During the ICR period, an average of 1,443 CWSs would have reported a change. These systems would have required 1 hour per report. This equals an average annual reduction in burden of 1,443 hours over the three years. Note that systems are also expected to submit fewer reports explaining reasons for changes in source water monitoring location, but EPA estimates that only 1 percent of systems ( or an annual average of 9 fewer systems) required to conduct source water would report this change. Therefore, this burden reduction was not quantified.

Some of the changes in system reporting requirements are not assumed to have a quantifiable impact on burden as follows: June 1999 42

Removal of rebuttable presumptions. No burden impact is assumed regarding the elimination of the provision that allowed a system to submit documentation that demonstrated limited control of a line. In 1994, the court vacated the Agency's definition of " control" except for that portion owned by the water system. EPA believes that few systems would have replaced lead service lines in response to the LCR prior to 1994 and the lead service line replacement model predicts that replacement would not begin until 1997 at the earliest. Therefore, all systems are assumed to have commenced lead service line replacement under the narrower definition of control, eliminating the need to submit documentation that rebutted control of the entire line.

Deletion of reference to information on homeowner plumbing from mandatory language. The Agency assumes that 10 percent of CWSs required to deliver public education ( 337 systems) will request States to allow them to remove reference to building permit records from their mandatory public education language because of unavailability of these records. The burden to make this request is assumed to be offset by the burden that would have been incurred to respond to inquiries regarding records that the system does not have.

6( a)( ii) Burden To States The procedure for developing State burdens was based on the Resource Analysis Computer Program for State Drinking Water Agencies ( i. e., the State Resource Model), which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer Program for State Drinking Water Agencies, January 1993. The model was designed by OGWDW and enables States to estimate the resources needed to fund their drinking water agencies for fiscal years 1993 through 1998 and to allow EPA to prepare national costs estimates. Assumptions needed to be developed for activities that occurred outside the model's time frame and to include new requirements under the LCRMR.

The model includes a comprehensive list of activities that are required by a State to operate a drinking water program, estimates of the number of systems impacted, and the estimated resources associated with each activity. The assumptions represent a national average based on input from a workgroup of 39 States, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA), and EPA.

The State Resource Model calculates burden in terms of full time equivalents ( FTEs) and is based on 2,080 hours per year. The State Resource Model applies overhead after the total number of technical FTEs have been derived, including State reporting and record keeping which are added into the FTE calculation. The overhead calculation is discussed in more detail in section 6( a)( ii)( a).

Figure 6 2 presents the average State burden over the three year ICR period. Some of the revisions to the LCR are expected to decrease State burden; others are projected to increase it. The net result of the modifications will be an average increase in State burden over the three year ICR period of 50,055 hours per year. The main reason for this increase is due to " start up activities" such as regulatory adoption, training, and the reporting of the new " Done" and " Deemed" milestones. As shown in Appendix B of this document, the increase to State burden over the out years of 2002 through 2009 for all activities is estimated to be an average of 2,333 hours. The estimated burden impact for each of the LCRMR provisions is discussed in more detail following the table. June 1999 43 Figure 6 2: Change in Annual State Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours)

Activity Average Burden Overhead 8,029 Notify systems of requirements 3,771 Initial Activities Regulation adoption 9,707 Train staff 7,000 Modify the data system 14,976 Review of Lead and Copper Tap and WQP Monitoring Data and Related Information Review of monitoring results for ( b)( 3) systems 57 Request use of non first draw samples 250 Specify reduced monitoring sites 1,642 Accelerated lead and copper monitoring  1,807 Monitoring waivers ( review of applications & less monitoring data)  1,135 Accelerated reduced WQP tap monitoring 0 WQP monitoring at representative entry points 66 State flexibility to calculate 90th percentile level 2,077 Changes in treatment or addition of new source 264 Review of compliance with optimal WQP levels 1,740 Review of reasons for changes in lead and copper tap monitoring location  241 Source Water Monitoring Requirements Reduced source water monitoring for PWSs w/ o MPLs  463 Public Education Review of public education compliance letters 129 Request to remove reference to building permit record availability from mandatory language 56 Lead Service Line Replacement ( LSLR)

Review of compliance letter for partial LSLR requirements 2,405 June 1999 Figure 6 2: Change in Annual State Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours)

Activity Average Burden 44 Enforcement  3,539 June 1999 Figure 6 2: Change in Annual State Burden for 1999 through 2001 due to LCRMR ( in hours)