estimated between 2.3 and 4.7 percent of CWSs without LSLs will exceed
the current lead action level of 0.015 mg/L (USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 3,
Exhibit 3-25). Thus, the factors that cause lead and copper variation
will continue to exist.
    Third, despite changes to the allowable amount of lead in ``lead
free'' plumbing, many older buildings can still be a source of lead.
SDWA section 1417 prohibits the use of any pipe, any pipe or plumbing
fitting or fixture, solder, or flux in the installation or repair of
any public water systems or in plumbing in a residential or
nonresidential facility that provides water for human consumption that
is not ``lead free'' as defined in section 1417(d). The 2011 Reduction
of Lead in Drinking Water Act revised the definition of ``lead free''
in SDWA section 1417(d) from eight percent to a weighted average of
0.25 percent,\8\ lowering the amount of lead that may be in plumbing
materials used in repairs or new installations starting in 2014. The
Lead Free Rule (85 FR 54236, USEPA, 2020d) requires third-party
certification for new plumbing products as of September 1, 2023.
However, SDWA section 1417 does not require anyone to replace
previously installed plumbing materials that are not ``lead free'' as
currently defined, and many buildings in the U.S. were constructed
prior to 2014. Further, even products that meet the new definition of
``lead free'' may contain trace amounts of lead that can leach into
drinking water (42 U.S.C. 300g-6(d)(1)). Therefore, premise plumbing in
these buildings will continue to be a source of lead in drinking water.
As illustrated both in peer-reviewed studies and through reported
compliance data, lead levels vary at single sites over time, between
sites within a system, and between systems, both for systems with and
without LSLs and CCT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``lead free'' provided here is defined under SDWA
section 1417(d) as follows: ``[T]he term `lead free' means--(A) not
containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used with respect to
solder and flux; and (B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25
percent lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes,
pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA heard from stakeholders that the Agency's reasons for not
setting an MCL for lead are inconsistent, stating that EPA's primary
rationale is based on not holding water systems responsible for sources
of lead not owned by the water system while including provisions in the
LCRR for LSLs that apply regardless of water system ownership. This
argument misconstrues the comprehensive set of reasons for EPA's
decision to not set an MCL for lead. In deciding whether to set an MCL
for a particular contaminant or set a treatment technique rule, the
primary focus of the statutory analysis is not on who is
``responsible'' for lead in drinking water, but whether it is feasible
to ascertain the level of lead in drinking water. As described above,
the variability of lead and copper levels make it ``technologically
infeasible to ascertain whether the lead or copper level at a tap at a
single point in time represents effective application of the

best available treatment technology'' (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). While
premise plumbing is a contributor to lead and copper at the tap, EPA
found, and continues to find, that the quality of water delivered to
customers can be controlled by systems and that ``water systems can
affect, at least to some degree, water tap lead and copper levels
through adjustment of the corrosivity of water delivered by the
system'' (56 FR 26473, USEPA, 1991). For example, studies indicate that
CCT can reduce drinking water lead levels at the tap (Cardew, 2009;
Hayes et al., 2008; Tully et al., 2019).
    In addition to the above points, stakeholders have claimed that EPA
has established MCLs for other drinking water contaminants, such as
disinfection byproducts (71 FR 388, USEPA, 2006), and stated that such
contaminants are similarly prone to sampling variability. However, the
preamble for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
does not suggest that disinfection byproduct sampling is subject to the
same level of sampling variability as lead sampling or that
disinfection byproducts are as affected by sampling variability that it
impacts the ability of water systems to accurately ascertain
disinfection byproduct contamination from water samples (71 FR 388,
394, USEPA, 2006). The variability in lead and copper materials from
site to site is one difference between the lead and copper and the
disinfection byproduct rules. While both rules require systems to
evaluate water quality within the distribution system, due to the
reasons stated above, the LCR also requires sampling at consumer taps,
which is variable across sites. Put simply, there is no indication that
the level of purported sampling ``variability'' associated with
disinfection byproducts can be reasonably compared to that of lead
contamination in drinking water.
    Another critical distinction between the lead and copper rules and
the disinfection byproduct rules is that, unlike for lead, water
systems disinfecting the water supply are the source of disinfection
byproducts. Water systems introduce disinfectants, such as chlorine and
chloramine, into the drinking water supply (71 FR 394, USEPA, 2006).
These disinfectants interact with organic and inorganic material in
source waters to form disinfection byproducts. Water systems have the
ability to control and account for the formation of disinfection
byproducts, such as through source water treatment. On the other hand,
lead is rarely found in source water (86 FR 4231, USEPA, 2021a) and is
instead introduced into the drinking water supply through corrosion in
lead pipes and fixtures, sometimes from lead pipes and fixtures outside
the direct control of the water system. As such, there is no
inconsistency between regulating disinfection byproducts through an MCL
while finding that a treatment technique is necessary for lead.
    Considering the above information and analysis, EPA is determining
that the same conditions that prompted EPA to promulgate a treatment
technique rule for lead and copper in 1991, still exist today and
justify continued use of a treatment technique rule for regulating lead
and copper. This includes the nature of lead contamination, where much
of the lead in drinking water continues to originate in the
distribution system and from sources outside the control of water
systems, the condition of water systems' plumbing and distribution
system varying from system to system, and the variability of lead and
copper levels at the tap. In addition to finding that it is not
feasible to set an MCL for lead and copper at the tap, EPA also notes
the benefit of a treatment technique. EPA can set requirements that
compel the system to take various actions to reduce lead in drinking
water, while an MCL would not compel action until, and unless, the MCL
is exceeded (USEPA, 2020b). EPA is not authorized to require a specific
treatment when promulgating an MCL (see SDWA sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and
1412(b)(7)(A)).
    EPA has reasoned that the conditions that led the Agency to make
the findings necessary to promulgate a treatment technique rule for
lead and copper in 1991 still apply and are supported by an evaluation
of the best information and data available since the LCR was
promulgated. For these reasons, the Agency is proposing to continue to
regulate lead and copper through four treatment techniques: (1) service
line replacement, (2) CCT, (3) public education, and (4) source water
treatment.

B. Service Line Replacement

1. Mandatory Full Service Line Replacement and SDWA Requirements
    This proposal marks a fundamental improvement in the lead service
line replacement program, which reflects EPA's experience in
implementing the lead rule over 30 years, new evidence and data, and is
supported by the extraordinary commitment of funds for this program
under the BIL. EPA is proposing mandatory full service line replacement
of all LSLs and GRR service lines under a water system's control. In
the LCRR review, EPA recognized the ``urgency of fully removing all
lead service lines'' and the need to consider an LSLR mandate in an
improved regulation (i.e., the LCRI) as well as through non-regulatory
actions (86 FR 71577, USEPA, 2021b). In the LCRR review, EPA noted that
under the LCRR, millions of LSLs would be left in place and would
result in ``generations of Americans being at risk of significant lead
exposure through their drinking water'' (86 FR 71577 USEPA, 2021b).
    The LCRR requires water systems to replace lead and GRR service
lines after exceeding the lead action level or the LCRR-established
lead trigger level. Systems that exceed the lead action level and serve
more than 10,000 people must fully replace three percent of lead, GRR,
and unknown service lines per year on a two-year rolling basis for at
least two years. The State must require systems to replace LSLs on a
shorter schedule if determined to be feasible. A system may cease
mandatory LSLR on the date the system's 90th percentile lead level has
been calculated to be at or below the lead action level during each of
the four consecutive six-month tap sampling monitoring periods. Systems
that exceed the lead trigger level, but stay at or below the lead
action level, and serve more than 10,000 people must consult with the
State on replacement goals and implement a goal-based LSLR program for
two consecutive one-year monitoring periods.
    Any small CWS (serving 10,000 or fewer people) or NTNCWS that
exceeds the lead action level and selects lead service line replacement
as its compliance option under the LCRR small system flexibilities must
implement a full lead service line replacement program on a schedule
approved by the State that does not exceed 15 years. The LCRR also
requires systems, regardless of their 90th percentile lead level, to
replace the system-owned portion of an LSL when customers choose to
replace their portion of the line; full LSLR is required in such cases
because of the risks associated with partial LSLR.
    EPA projected that, under the LCRR, only 854,000 to 1.3 million
LSLs would be replaced over the 35-year period of analysis for the
rulemaking (USEPA, 2023b, Exhibit 4-135). Under this projection,
millions of LSLs that generally account for 50 to 75 percent of lead
contamination at the drinking water tap (Sandvig et al., 2008) would
remain in active use in systems both with and without OCCT. Removing
this significant source of lead exposure for millions of people is
vital to protect

public health. During the proposed LCRI external engagements, many
stakeholders voiced strong support for mandatory replacement of all the
nation's LSLs through the LCRI, regardless of lead levels or CCT status
(USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). Some stakeholders did not
support a service line replacement mandate by a deadline, citing
competing demands for water systems (USEPA, 2023j).
    The proposed LCRI lead service line replacement approach is built
on the experience of systems that are working proactively to replace
LSLs, the significant funding available for service line replacement
(including $15 billion for identifying and replacing LSLs from BIL),
and the four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island)
that currently require systems to replace LSLs by specific deadlines.
These proactive measures alone cannot achieve the goal of replacing 100
percent of lead and GRR service lines. A nationwide service line
replacement mandate would ensure coverage for customers served by lead
and GRR service lines in States that do not require mandatory
replacement or where systems are not proactively replacing lead and GRR
service lines. Mandatory service line replacement provides additional
public health protection beyond the benefits of CCT, source water
treatment, and public education alone.
Lead Exposures From Drinking Water
    Where LSLs and GRR service lines remain in place, they continue to
present risks of lead exposure, especially from particulate lead
releases. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this document, EPA
determined that mandatory service line replacement is feasible, and a
requirement that systems replace all LSLs and GRR service lines over a
10-year period would ensure that the proposed LCRI ``prevents known or
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent
feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). The LCR and LCRR relied on replacing
LSLs initiated by a series of process steps following periodic tap
sampling results. Over the 30 years of implementing the LCR, EPA has
found that the sampling and process steps of that rule created
implementation uncertainties, difficulties, and errors that, in some
cases, resulted in significant lead exposures. Improper implementation
of the sampling and corrosion control treatment process has been the
cause, or one of the primary causes, of significant lead exposures in
multiple water systems. Moreover, disturbances of LSLs can potentially
cause lead particulates to be released into drinking water, causing
higher lead levels at those sites. Although the proposed LCRI includes
risk mitigation requirements for water systems if they disturb the
service line, other utilities or heavy traffic may also disturb the
line (Del Toral et al., 2013; Roy and Edwards, 2019), events which
would be unknown to the water system and not subject to risk mitigation
steps. In addition, particulate lead can be released sporadically
(i.e., not associated with a disturbance), even in systems that have
OCCT and have measured generally low lead levels (Triantafyllidou et
al., 2007). Research has also shown that lead exposure is not fully
eliminated by CCT due to a variety of factors including individual home
and service line characteristics, water quality, water use (including
water stagnation following extended periods without water use),
treatment, infrastructure, and disturbances to service lines (e.g.,
meter installation, road repair, and freezing of the ground that can
have unintended and unpredictable effects), causing lead releases in
the water when LSLs or GRR service lines are present (Del Toral et al.,
2013; Masters et al., 2021; Proctor et al., 2020; Roy and Edwards,
2019; Schock et al., 2014; Triantafyllidou et al., 2007). Examples of
isolated cases of lead poisoning in children have been documented and
attributed to drinking water in communities whose systemwide lead
levels remained below the action level of 0.015 mg/L (Triantafyllidou
et al., 2007; Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012).
New Evidence and Data To Support the Feasibility of Mandatory Service
Line Replacement for All Systems
    Although the LCR and LCRR required water systems that exceeded the
lead action or trigger levels to conduct LSLR, neither rule required
all systems in the nation with LSLs and GRR service lines to
simultaneously replace these service lines at a rapid rate. By
mandating full service line replacement of all lead and GRR service
lines in the nation separate from tap sampling and monitoring
requirements, the proposed LCRI would better protect public health by
removing a significant source of lead in drinking water (where present)
and further reducing known or anticipated adverse health effects beyond
what is able to be tested due to the sporadic nature of particulate
lead spikes that can make their detection challenging. Furthermore,
there had been a lack of data regarding the number of LSLs and GRR
service lines in systems as well as no direct implementation of a broad
service line replacement mandate in a large geographic region, or State
laws requiring such, to demonstrate the feasibility of this
requirement. New and higher quality evidence and data are available to
assess the feasibility of this proposed requirement more accurately.
EPA has found this evidence and these data indicate that such a
requirement for LSLR is feasible as well as likely technically
possible. For example, four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Rhode Island) have now required LSLR through State law, where New
Jersey and Rhode Island both require all LSLs and all galvanized
service lines (irrespective of whether there is or was an upstream LSL)
to be replaced in ten years unless granted an extension by the State
(State of New Jersey, 2021; State of Rhode Island, 2023). During the
development of the LCRR, EPA was only aware of individual systems that
had or were proactively conducting service line replacement. However,
the four state service line replacement laws suggest that States expect
such a requirement to be technically possible given hundreds of systems
required to conduct service line replacement simultaneously within and
across these States. EPA notes that these States are estimated to have
approximately one-fifth of the LSLs in the country (1.8 out of 9.2
million estimated LSLs) and have among the most LSLs in the country
(USEPA, 2023k). Specifically, Illinois and Rhode Island are estimated
to have 28 percent and 25 percent of all their service lines requiring
replacement, the two highest proportions in the United States.
Additionally, New Jersey and Michigan have an estimated 14 percent and
11 percent of their lines requiring replacement, both above the
national average of 8 percent (USEPA, 2023k). These laws suggest that
these States anticipate that a broad service line replacement mandate
is technically possible. Michigan and New Jersey have implemented their
service line replacement laws since 2021, providing even more support
that the States' expectations that their replacement requirements are
in fact technically possible. In addition, BIL and other funding is now
available to support service line replacement, a primary driver of the
proposed rule costs. Also, as mentioned in section IV.C. of this
document, several water systems have had implementation challenges
associated with the LCR, including the CCT requirements. NDWAC
recommendations noted the opportunity provided by proactive replacement
of LSLs to protect public health before

systems experience higher lead levels'' (USEPA, 2016a).
    Additionally, new data from the 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment (referred to as ``Needs Survey''), which
was conducted in 2021 and whose results were published in 2023 (USEPA,
2023k), allowed for more precise estimates of the number of lead, GRR,
and unknown service lines in individual systems and nationwide than
were previously available during the development of the LCRR. These
data allowed EPA to better estimate the impacts of a broad and rapid
mandatory service line replacement requirement to ensure such a
requirement meets SDWA standards for a treatment technique. It also
allowed EPA to estimate with more precision the systems eligible for
deferred service line replacement, which EPA is proposing to be
available to systems for which a 10-year replacement deadline is
infeasible. Finally, BIL and other funding is now available to support
service line replacement, which is a primary driver of the rule costs.
    For the reasons discussed in this section, mandatory service line
replacement programs initiated by 90th percentile lead levels are now
known not to be sufficient to prevent known or anticipated adverse
health effects from lead exposure in drinking water to the extent
feasible. As discussed above, improper implementation of corrosion
control treatment can result in significant lead exposures and there is
new data and evidence that support EPA's finding in this proposal that
a mandatory service line replacement requirement applicable to all
community water systems is feasible. For more information about EPA's
feasibility assessment of mandatory service line replacement, see
section V.B.2. of this document. For more information about available
funding, see section IV.G. of this document.
2. Feasibility of Proposed Service Line Replacement Requirement and
Deferred Deadlines
    The proposed LCRI service line replacement requirements are
consistent with the SDWA requirements for the rule to ``prevent known
or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent
feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). EPA determined that neither of the
statutory exceptions in SDWA section 1412(b)(5)(A) for establishing a
treatment technique at a level other than the feasible level apply
since the proposed mandatory service line replacement requirement does
not (1) increase concentrations of other (non-LCR) contaminants or (2)
interfere with the efficacy of drinking water treatment techniques or
processes used to comply with other NPDWRs. EPA also determined that
the statutory authorization in SDWA section 1412(b)(6) to establish a
treatment technique that maximizes benefits at a level justified by the
cost does not apply here because the benefits of the proposed LCRI
service line replacement requirements justify the costs (refer to
section VIII. of this document).
    EPA finds that a minimum average annual replacement rate of 10
percent, calculated across a rolling three-year period and
corresponding to a 10-year replacement deadline, is feasible as defined
in SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D) because it is technically possible for
systems of all sizes and affordable relative to large water systems.
EPA estimates that a 10-year replacement deadline is feasible for 96 to
99 percent of CWSs nationwide (USEPA, 2023g). In addition, because EPA
is proposing to retain the requirement that States set a faster rate
where feasible for systems, the proposed mandatory full service line
replacement provision would prevent known or anticipated adverse health
effects of lead ``to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)).
Examples of Systems Replacing All LSLs in 10 Years or Less
    EPA is aware of several systems of various sizes and LSL prevalence
that have proactively replaced all LSLs in 10 years or less. Some large
systems completed their service line inventory and replacement programs
in less than 10 years. For example, both Tucson, Arizona (City of
Tucson, 2022), and Spokane, Washington (City of Spokane, 2018),
replaced all their LSLs in approximately two years. Although these
systems had a relatively low number of LSLs (<1,000), EPA notes that,
according to projections from Needs Survey responses, this number is
representative of the majority of systems--only approximately 1,700 out
of nearly 50,000 CWSs nationwide (3.5 percent) are expected to have
more than 1,000 LSLs and GRR service lines (USEPA, 2023g). Some smaller
systems were also able to complete their service line inventory and
replacement programs on relatively short timelines. Both Stoughton and
Mayville, Wisconsin, completed their programs in a single year (City of
Stoughton Utilities Committee, 2022).
    In the cases of the large systems in Flint, Michigan, and Newark,
New Jersey, these systems were able to complete or nearly complete
their service line replacement programs well ahead of the proposed
LCRI's 10-year deadline. Newark took four years to complete replacement
(City of Newark, n.d.a). As of July 2023 (the date EPA evaluated this
information), Flint had identified and replaced over 97 percent of
LSLs, and the city estimates completing all replacements by 2023, seven
years after the start of the program (City of Flint, n.d.). Notably,
both Newark and Flint received substantial funding and technical
expertise. Newark also passed an ordinance in 2019 that allowed entry
to private property to evaluate service line materials and replace LSLs
(City of Newark, 2019), which likely contributed to faster replacement
rates. Flint, however, was known to have service line material records
in a logistically challenging paper format with unreliable accuracy
(BlueConduit, 2020), which EPA expects slowed their replacement
progress relative to other systems that did not have these
recordkeeping challenges. Nevertheless, Flint is expected to complete
their service line replacement program in less than the proposed ten
years.
    Regarding NTNCWSs, Needs Survey responses from 147 NTNCWSs showed
LSLs are rarely used in these systems since 132 of them did not report
any lead, GRR, or unknown service lines (USEPA, 2023g). Of the NTNCWSs
listed in SDWIS, only 12 out of more than 17,000 NTNCWSs have more than
1,000 service connections (USEPA, 2023g); therefore, the overwhelming
majority of NTNCWSs that do have LSLs and GRR service lines are
expected to have relatively few of these service lines requiring
replacement over the proposed 10-year deadline.
    While EPA is aware that some systems completed their service line
replacement programs in more than 10 years, EPA does not interpret
these examples as conclusive or dispositive evidence that a 10-year
deadline is infeasible. For example, Madison, Wisconsin, completed its
LSLR program in just over 11 years (Madison Water Utility, 2014), while
Lansing, Michigan completed removal of over 12,000 LSLs in 12 years
(EDF, n.d.a). Additionally, these systems developed their inventories
and replaced LSLs simultaneously in a shorter period of time than
provided under the LCRR and proposed LCRI combined. The LCRR initial
inventory deadline of October 16, 2024, combined with the three-year
period between promulgation of the LCRI and the start of the 10-year
deadline for full service line replacement gives systems more time to
complete the service line inventory and replacement requirements than
either

the Madison or Lansing program. In addition, substantial funding from
the BIL and other sources have already advanced many systems' efforts
to identify and replace LSLs.
Feasibility of Service Line Replacement Conducted by All Systems
Simultaneously
    Stakeholders cited concerns about limited workforce and shortages
of materials and supplies as factors that could impede service line
replacement progress, especially when all systems in a geographic
region are conducting replacement simultaneously (USEPA, 2023m). As
mentioned previously, four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Rhode Island) are already or soon to be requiring systems to conduct
mandatory service line replacement, which suggests that States expect
that it is feasible for an individual system to replace LSLs, even when
a broad service line replacement mandate is in effect across a large
geographic region. The prevalence of LSLs in these States strengthens
the evidence for the feasibility of widespread service line
replacement, with Illinois, New Jersey, and Michigan all having greater
than 300,000 estimated lead and GRR service lines statewide and Rhode
Island with an estimated 75,700 LSLs (USEPA, 2023k). According to the
estimates from the Needs Survey, Illinois is among the States with the
most lead and GRR service lines in the nation (2nd), while New Jersey
and Michigan are ranked 9th and 11th respectively, and Rhode Island is
ranked 24th (USEPA, 2023k). Based on available inventory information,
an estimated 187 to 331 out of 567 New Jersey systems have at least one
lead or GRR service line and are thus subject to the 10-year deadline
(see ``New Jersey LSLR Analysis.xls'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
Similarly, 415 to 1,028 out of over 1,700 Illinois systems and 222 to
647 out of 1,300 Michigan systems have at least one LSL or GRR service
line, further demonstrating the magnitude of systems that are
simultaneously replacing LSLs and GRR service lines across large
geographic regions (USEPA, 2023g, ``Illinois LSLR Analysis.xls'' and
``Michigan LSLR Analysis.xls'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
Deferred Deadlines for Mandatory Service Line Replacement
    One of the goals of EPA's proposed rule is to replace all the
nation's LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as is feasible. EPA
estimates that a 10-year replacement deadline is feasible for 96 to 99
percent of CWSs nationwide (USEPA, 2023g). For the limited number of
systems for which EPA estimates this deadline is infeasible, EPA is
proposing two eligibility criteria for systems to defer their service
line replacement deadline past 10 years in accordance with a schedule
that is feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health
effects of lead to the extent feasible. To be eligible for a deferred
replacement deadline, systems must meet either criterion or both
criteria as described below. EPA notes that systems eligible for
deferred replacement under the proposed rule may not need the
additional time to replace all LSLs and GRR service lines; therefore,
as discussed below, EPA is proposing to retain the provision in the LCR
and LCRR that States must set a faster rate where feasible for a
system. This proposed requirement would apply irrespective of whether a
system is eligible for a deferred replacement deadline under the
proposed rule.
    The first eligibility criterion for deferred service line
replacement is proposed for systems with a high proportion of LSLs and
GRR service lines in their distribution system relative to their total
number of households served. EPA does not have evidence to support
that, for systems meeting this criterion, replacement of all LSLs and
GRR service lines in 10 years would be affordable relative to a large
system; therefore, EPA cannot conclude that the 10-year timeframe would
be ``feasible'' as defined by section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA. EPA is
using the number of LSLs and GRR service lines per household because
the household metric can be considered as a proxy for the number of
individual ratepaying customers or households that can contribute to
the overall replacement program costs through rate revenue.
    EPA is proposing that systems would be eligible to defer their
replacement deadline if they exceed a threshold identified in the rule.
The proposed thresholds were calculated to identify the fastest
feasible rate for the estimated one to four percent of systems for
which the 10-year replacement deadline is not expected to be feasible.
Systems would only be able to defer their service line replacement
programs for as many years as necessary to ensure systems are replacing
all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible.
    For this analysis, EPA investigated replacement rates achieved by
30 large systems (serving more than 50,000 people) with service line
replacement programs (USEPA, 2023g). EPA assumed that the achieved
service line replacement rates were affordable and feasible. EPA
normalized the achieved replacement rate data by the estimated number
of households served to estimate a per-household replacement rate. EPA
considers the 95th percentile normalized rate (0.039 replacements per
household per year) as the affordability threshold because it avoids
setting the rate at the maximum recorded replacements per year rates,
which were achieved by systems known to have received technical and
financial assistance to support their replacement program that is
unlikely to be broadly available when there is a national requirement
to replace LSLs and GRR service lines. A stakeholder during the
proposed LCRI external engagements recommended evaluating a typical
system and avoiding the outlier cases when setting the pace and scope
of a replacement program (USEPA, 2023j). Based on estimates developed
from the number and type of service lines reported in the Needs Survey,
EPA projects that a total of 663 to 2,134 systems (1.3 to 4.3 percent
of all systems) would exceed this threshold (USEPA, 2023g) and be
eligible for the proposed deferred replacement deadline. EPA is
proposing that systems would be permitted to count only known LSLs and
GRR service lines reported in their baseline LCRI inventory (the
service line inventory submitted at the LCRI compliance date). The
purpose of this limitation is to prevent systems from overestimating
LSLs and GRR service lines with the number of unknown service lines and
to avoid incentivizing systems to delay identifying unknown service
lines to be eligible for the proposed deferred deadline provision. The
proposed approach would incentivize systems to prioritize identifying
unknown lines before the rule compliance date and prior to the start of
their replacement programs (i.e., in the three years before compliance
begins), creating public health and transparency benefits. EPA is
seeking additional data on service line replacement rates achieved by
systems in proactive programs (i.e., while any service line replacement
rates achieved by systems is helpful, data provided on replacement
programs that go beyond service line replacement in coordination with
main replacement or emergency repair are especially useful for
evaluating a system's capability to replace service lines at a rate
that protects public health ``to the extent feasible'').
    The second eligibility criterion for deferred service line
replacement is proposed for systems that would be required to replace
greater than 10,000 service lines per year under the proposed 10-year
replacement

requirement. Similar to the per-household deadline deferral option
described above, systems would be permitted to count only known LSLs
and GRR service lines reported in their baseline inventory to be
eligible for this deferral. EPA selected 10,000 as the proposed upper
threshold for what is technically possible because of potential system
capacity to replace up to 10,000 LSLs per year. For example, Detroit's
water system that announced they intend to replace 10,000 LSLs per year
(City of Detroit, 2023), which suggests that Detroit's water system
expects that this many annual replacements is technically possible.
Another example includes the rates achieved by Newark, New Jersey,
between January and March 2020 (CDM Smith, 2022). During this period,
Newark replaced as many as 100 LSLs per day and maintained this rate 4
to 5 days per week. Due to the COVID pandemic, replacement rates
dropped substantially in after March 2020. If this rate of 100 LSLs per
day had been maintained for 20 weeks of the year, it would have
resulted in between 8,000 and 12,000 replacements (CDM Smith, 2022).
This indicates that 10,000 annual replacements could be technically
possible for systems.
    Based on the Needs Survey, EPA projects that only three to four
systems nationally may be eligible for this deferral option (USEPA,
2023g). EPA expects that these atypical systems may not be able to
feasibly replace all LSLs and GRR service lines in 10 years because an
average annual 10 percent rate across a rolling three-year period would
correspond to an atypically high number of required annual
replacements, which EPA does not have evidence to support is
``feasible'' as defined in SDWA because it is not ``technically
possible.''
    There are many possible factors that influence the number of annual
replacements that are technically possible, some of which EPA heard
during the LCRI external engagements, including seasonal weather
changes that shorten the construction season in cold weather climates
and contractor shortages in regions with many LSLs and GRR service
lines (USEPA, 2023l; USEPA, 2023m). EPA also expects there to be other
practical limitations in communities with atypically high numbers of
required annual replacements, such as widespread service line
replacements and significant street closures interfering with other
water system operations. Service line replacement deferrals for a high
number of required annual replacements could also reduce labor
shortages by preventing larger urban centers from using all the
contractors in the region.
    EPA is seeking comment on an alternate annual service line
replacement threshold of 8,000 replacements. One example of a system
achieving this rate is Newark, New Jersey in phase II of their
replacement program. This replacement threshold indicates the number of
annual service line replacements nationwide that a system has
successfully implemented of which EPA is aware. Additional evidence
that indicates 8,000 replacements may be technically possible is that
under Illinois's Lead Service Line Replacement and Notification Act,
Chicago would be required to replace just under 8,000 LSLs per year
(see ``Illinois LSLR Analysis'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801), considering
only LSLs and excluding unknown lines. Based on the Needs Survey, EPA
projects that only six to seven systems nationally may be eligible for
this alternative deferral option (USEPA, 2023g). EPA is seeking comment
on its overall deferred deadlines approach and the two eligibility
criteria for offering service line replacement deferrals to systems
with a high rate of replacement per households and systems with
atypically high numbers of LSLs and GRR service lines. EPA is
requesting comment on whether to require the State, as a condition of
primacy, to approve the use of the deferred deadline provision where
the water system qualifies for it and/or whether to require the primacy
agency, as a condition of primacy, to assess whether it would be
feasible for a system to meet the 10-year deadline or a shorter
deadline even if they system meets the regulatory criteria for the
deferred deadline. EPA is requesting additional data that indicate
which threshold represents the maximum that is technically possible.
EPA also anticipates that after ten years, when most systems have
completed their service line replacement programs, there will be less
competition for workers as well as supplies to conduct replacements.
Additionally, EPA anticipates that following ten years, supply chains
will have expanded significantly to meet increased demand and that
service line replacement efficiency will increase following a decade of
system experience and the potential availability of new technologies or
procedures to expedite service line replacement. EPA is also seeking
comment on whether data are available that would inform if the
identified maximum replacement rate threshold could increase after ten
years, such as if the threshold could double from 10,000 annual
replacements to 20,000. See section IX. of this document for more
information.
    EPA is not proposing that systems should be able to defer service
line replacement for other reasons. Allowing opportunities for systems
to delay service line replacement based on other reasons could create
loopholes that would impede the achievement of 100 percent replacement
of LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. Although
stakeholders raised concerns during the proposed LCRI external
engagements that unforeseen factors, such as supply chain delays and
labor shortages, might create temporary delays in a system's
replacement program (USEPA, 2023l), EPA's proposed three-year rolling
average would provide flexibility when temporary shortages impede a
system's ability to replace service lines in a given year (see section
V.B.3.).
    EPA also assumes that market forces will largely correct for
shortages in labor or supplies, especially because the proposed
compliance date for the final rule would allow three years for market
corrections to occur before the 10-year service line replacement
requirements even begin. In making this assumption for the proposed
LCRI, EPA considered other examples of markets that are correcting in
the context of drinking water requirements because they could be
informative here. For example, with respect to the market availability
of filters, EPA notes that some systems are already implementing
widespread filter programs (Denver Water, 2023a). EPA is requesting
comment on the ability of the market to correct for potential shortages
in workers and materials to conduct service line replacement, as well
to provide sufficient quantities of filters to comply with the service
line replacement and other relevant provisions in the proposal. See
section IX. for more information.
    EPA also expects that system planning efforts can overcome these
shortages. For example, to increase contractor capacity to accelerate
their replacement rate, the City of Detroit actively engaged with
potential contractors in 15 meetings that represented more than 50
organizations (City of Detroit, 2023). The meetings provided an
overview of the procurement process and allowed contractors to ask
questions. These contractors are being solicited to augment Detroit
Water and Sewer Department's 17 new field service technicians who will
also be conducting service line replacement. This City is also hiring
and training local Detroit

citizens as field service technicians to replace service lines, which
will increase worker capacity for service line replacement (City of
Detroit, 2023).
    In another instance, Newark created a lead service line replacement
apprenticeship program to increase worker capacity in the construction
trade. As a result of the apprenticeship program, Newark hired 35
people from the community, most of whom were unemployed prior to the
program. The apprenticeship program is cited as producing economic and
employment benefits, with many of the participants still working with
their company even after certain LSLR contracts have ended. While
Newark has completed its LSLR program, these workers can contribute to
LSLR in other parts of the State under New Jersey's law to replace LSLs
in 10 years (Jersey Water Works, 2020; State of New Jersey, 2021).
Furthermore, a local collaborative, Jersey Water Works, thinks this
apprenticeship program can be replicated in other cities in New Jersey
and other States nationally. With the promulgation of the 2023 Lead
Poisoning Prevention Act in Rhode Island, any water suppliers and their
associated contractors that receive an award of $1 million dollars or
greater for an LSLR program from the State infrastructure bank is
required to participate in an approved apprenticeship program for all
apprenticeable crafts or trades that will be employed on the project at
the time of bid (State of Rhode Island, 2023).
3. Service Line Replacement Rate
Rate Construct
    In the 1991 LCR, EPA first noted the difficulty in determining a
uniform, national LSLR rate to apply to all PWSs following a lead
action level exceedance, considering that the number of LSLs and the
population size served can vary substantially between systems (56 FR
26508, USEPA, 1991). The Agency had considered alternate rate
constructs, such as a binning system, to assign different replacement
rates based on different system characteristics but identified
difficulties in designing a practical system (56 FR 26508, USEPA,
1991). EPA promulgated a uniform, national minimum LSLR rate of seven
percent, corresponding to a 15-year deadline to replace all LSLs, where
States must set a faster rate where feasible for systems that exceed
the lead action level. The rule allowed for partial replacement and
test-outs to count towards the replacement rate. In the LCRR, EPA also
promulgated a uniform, national minimum LSLR rate, set at three percent
following a lead action level exceedance and at a goal rate determined
by the State following a trigger level exceedance, where systems
calculate compliance using a two-year rolling average. The LCRR does
not allow partial service line replacements or test-outs to count
towards the replacement rate.
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing a national minimum average annual
service line replacement rate of at least 10 percent, with compliance
assessed in accordance with a three-year rolling average, equating to a
10-year replacement deadline. A single, default replacement deadline
that would apply to all systems, except for systems required by the
State to replace lines by a shortened deadline or estimated to be
eligible for a deferred deadline, helps ensure a less complex rule for
both systems and States, which was identified as a key priority for the
LCRI in the LCRR review.
    EPA recognizes that some systems can replace their service lines on
a faster schedule than the default 10-year deadline, so, as noted
earlier in this section, the Agency proposes to maintain the LCR and
LCRR requirement that States set a shortened deadline for an individual
system to complete service line replacement where feasible. EPA
maintains the reasoning from the 1991 LCR record that ``States will be
in the best position to assess the factual circumstances of each
individual system to determine the schedule which the system can
feasibly meet'' and should be the authority to decide whether
individual systems can replace lead and GRR service lines on faster
schedules (56 FR 26508, USEPA, 1991). EPA also maintained this finding
in the LCRR (USEPA, 2020b). EPA expects this finding is even more true
today, given that the implementation of many proactive and mandatory
service line replacement programs nationwide has in recent years
provided States with additional experience with systems' replacement
programs. The proposed requirement that States must set a faster rate
where feasible for individual systems helps ensure that the rule will
require the replacement of all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as
feasible, consistent with the SDWA requirement that a treatment
technique rule ``prevent[s] known or anticipated adverse health effects
on the health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)).
    EPA is proposing that States must set a shortened replacement
deadline where feasible at any time throughout a system's replacement
program and notify the system of the determination in writing, such as
when the State determines a shorter deadline is feasible at the
beginning of the replacement program or at some point further along the
replacement program. For example, new information obtained during the
replacement period through inventory investigations may inform the
State's decision to require a shorter deadline. This proposed
requirement would ensure systems are replacing service lines as quickly
as feasible, such as where the conditions relevant to the feasibility
of a system's replacement program change. EPA is taking comment on
whether States should be required as a condition of primacy to set
initial shortened deadlines by a certain timeframe, such as no later
than 60 days after the compliance date (for more information, see
section IX. of this document).
    EPA is proposing a minimum average annual replacement rate that is
calculated across a rolling three-year period (i.e., a three-year
rolling average). Systems would first assess their average annual
replacement rate at the end of the third year of mandatory service line
replacement program by taking the average of the annual replacement
rate percentages from years one, two, and three. The average annual
replacement rate would be assessed on an annual basis thereafter
starting at the end of the fourth year of mandatory service line
replacement to calculate the average across a three-year period. The
replacement rate construct would ensure that systems are making regular
progress to replace these service lines while also allowing for
flexibility for temporary disruptions to the system's service line
replacement program. Establishing a minimum replacement rate allows
States to enforce necessary actions sooner rather than later to ensure
systems are making regular progress towards service line replacement,
versus requiring only a single deadline that would not allow for such
enforcement to take place before the deadline.
    EPA is proposing to use a rolling average because the Agency
recognizes the potential for annual variability in a system's annual
replacement program that can affect the percent of service lines
replaced each year. During the proposed LCRI external engagements, EPA
heard many stakeholders highlight the potential for temporary
disruptions to affect the number of service lines a system can replace
annually, such as supply chain disruptions, workforce limitations,
natural disaster incidents, and factors related to a system's access to
conduct full service line replacements like customer consent (USEPA,
2023l; USEPA, 2023m).

    EPA is also proposing to extend the two-year rolling average used
in the LCRR to a three-year rolling average. Starting the rolling
average at the end of the third year of mandatory service line
replacement program would allow systems flexibility during the initial
years of their replacement programs to identify unknown service lines,
create and manage a replacement program, adjust for market corrections
in labor and supplies, and obtain funding for service line replacement.
It would also provide the system and community served with more time to
advocate for or propose changes to water service agreements, State and
local laws, ordinances, or regulations, to facilitate full service line
replacement, as well as more time for those changes to take effect. For
more information about potential changes to water service agreements,
laws, ordinances, and regulations, please see section V.B.8. of this
document.
    A three-year rolling average also addresses stakeholder
recommendations for the end of a replacement program, where
stakeholders said additional flexibility is needed if there is
declining interest in the replacement program, which may require
systems to conduct more outreach for customers to consent to
replacement (USEPA, 2023j). For example, the rolling average could
provide flexibility, so the system remains in compliance if declining
customer interest (such as towards the end of a replacement program) or
temporary disruptions prevent the system from meeting the minimum
annual rate in a single year, so long as the system had achieved higher
replacement rates in the previous two years of its replacement program,
such that the average of the rate across three years is at least ten
percent. The system could then identify and implement strategies to
increase their replacement rate in the future. The rolling average
could also better allow systems to conduct replacements at prioritized
sites, as this approach may take additional time relative to replacing
service lines considering only replacement efficiency (e.g., focusing
on areas with high LSL density).
Minimum Replacement Rate
    In the LCRR, systems serving more than 10,000 people are required
to conduct full service line replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines
after exceeding the trigger level under a goal-based program at a rate
approved by the State as well as to replace service lines under a
mandatory replacement program after exceeding the lead action level at
a minimum rate of three percent over a two-year period. To calculate
the number of service lines requiring replacement in the LCRR, systems
add the number of LSLs and GRR service lines in the initial inventory
when the system first exceeds the trigger or action level plus the
number of unknown lines in the beginning of each year of a system's
annual goal or mandatory LSLR program.
    EPA has found that its proposed minimum average annual rate of 10
percent calculated across a three-year rolling period is feasible as
defined in section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA. See section V.B.2. for a
discussion on feasibility of the proposed service line replacement
requirements. During the LCRR review and proposed LCRI external
engagements, some stakeholders recommended that all LSLs should be
replaced as soon as possible but not in more than 10 years, given the
benefits of replacement to lower lead exposure from drinking water
(USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). Other stakeholders
recommended retaining the three-percent rate because a higher rate is
more challenging to meet when partial replacements and test-outs do not
count as full service line replacements (USEPA, 2023j). Some
stakeholders said that the LCRI should maintain the LCR's minimum seven
percent replacement rate because the LCRR's three-percent replacement
rate was too slow to protect public health, not counting partial
replacement or test-outs (see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255; USEPA,
2023j). Other stakeholders said that replacing all LSLs in less than 10
years may not be feasible for many systems that have a large number of
LSLs (USEPA, 2023j), and that any timeline should be balanced with
other competing activities the system is required to conduct (USEPA,
2023j). While EPA determined that a 10-year replacement deadline is
feasible in accordance with SDWA requirements (see section V.B.2.), EPA
is also proposing service line replacement deferral options for systems
meeting specific criteria because the 10-year replacement may be
infeasible, as described in section V.B.2.
    EPA is proposing that a system's ``replacement pool'' be calculated
and updated annually in a similar way as the LCRR's number of service
lines requiring replacement: the sum of the LSLs and GRR service lines
in the baseline inventory (the inventory submitted by the LCRI
compliance date), any non-lead service lines discovered as lead or GRR
service lines, and the current number of unknown service lines in the
inventory. The proposal details how a system calculates the annual
number of replacements needed for a given program year by dividing the
number of lines in the replacement pool by the number of years of the
system's replacement deadline (e.g., 10 years, or an alternative
deadline for a State-set shortened deadline or a deferred deadline).
EPA is proposing the replacement pool be updated annually to subtract
unknown service lines identified as non-lead lines as well as to add
any non-lead lines found to be LSLs or GRR service lines. Unknown
service lines identified to be LSLs or GRR service lines would be
recategorized in the replacement pool; although, this recategorization
would not change the number of lines in the replacement pool nor would
it affect the replacement rate because they would already have been
counted as LSLs or GRRs in determining the replacement pool and rate.
EPA is also proposing the replacement pool be updated annually to
subtract unknown service lines identified as non-lead lines as well as
to add any non-lead lines found to be LSLs or GRR service lines. This
approach incentivizes systems to investigate unknown service lines at a
faster rate to reduce their replacement pool and, therefore, the annual
number of replacements they must conduct. Faster identification of
unknown lines, including prior to the rule compliance date, would both
improve public health protection and transparency with the community.
    EPA is seeking comment on its proposed minimum average annual
replacement rate and proposed replacement deadline of ten years. EPA is
seeking comment on whether it is feasible or systems across the nation
to complete service line replacement in a shorter timeframe than ten
years, such as in six, seven, or eight years. EPA also is seeking
comment on the rate construct approach, including how to calculate
compliance with a given service line replacement deadline and average
annual rate calculated across a rolling three-year period. EPA also
seeks comment on whether systems should be required to meet a given
minimum replacement rate in the first three years to give States an
opportunity to enforce replacement rate progress sooner than three
years after the compliance date. Lastly, EPA seeks comment on the
complexity of the rate construct (see section IX. of this document).
4. Scope of Mandatory Service Line Replacement Requirement
Full Service Line Replacement
    EPA is proposing to specify which replacements would count as a
full

service line replacement in Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(B) and (C) and
which do not count in Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(D), as described below.
While the LCRR used the definition of ``full lead service line
replacement'' in subpart A of part 141 to specify full replacement
criteria, these are substantive provisions that are integral to the
requirements in Sec.  141.84 (the service line inventory and
replacement section). Including these substantive requirements in the
service line replacement section of subpart I of part 141 instead of
the definitions section of subpart A of part 141 should help water
systems and States in implementation of these regulatory requirements.
    EPA is proposing to modify the requirement in the LCRR definition
of full lead service line replacement, which specified that the line
had to meet the SDWA section 1417 definition of lead free that is
applicable at the time of the full replacement. As raised by
stakeholders in the proposed LCRI external engagements, the previous
requirement could have required systems to prove that all solder or
fittings meet the latest lead free definition in order to count as a
full service line replacement (USEPA, 2023m), which was not EPA's
intent. EPA recommends removing all sources of lead from drinking
water; however, a requirement for the water system to document the
material composition of each fitting and all solder in the service line
would not be practicable and would divert resources from replacing LSLs
and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible as well as likely result
in the unnecessary replacement of lead free fittings and solder where
documentation of their material is unable to be obtained. EPA is
therefore changing the criteria for full service line replacement to
require that the new service line (replacing the old line) must meet
the proposed LCRI definition for the ``non-lead'' service line material
categorization. To meet the definition of ``non-lead,'' a service line
must be determined through an evidence-based record, method, or
technique not to be an LSL or GRR service line.
    EPA is proposing to allow systems to physically disconnect the
service line (such as by cutting the pipe) and count the disconnection
as a full service line replacement if the service line is not in active
use (such as at abandoned properties) and there is a State or local law
in place or a system policy documented in writing that prohibits
disconnected LSLs and GRR service lines from being put back into
service. This proposed flexibility is in response to input heard during
the proposed LCRI consultations, where a stakeholder recommended
mandatory service line replacement account for cities that are
sometimes home to tens of thousands of vacant housing units, which are
not in active use and do not pose a risk of lead exposure in drinking
water (USEPA, 2023j). This approach would address these lead sources
more quickly and at a lower cost than a full service line replacement,
which could likely increase the annual number of replacements a system
may conduct, reduce costs by avoiding full replacement of lines that
are not expected to be used again or by deferring the cost of
replacement until the building is used again or the property is
redeveloped. These costs savings could benefit the entire community by
lowering the costs of the entire replacement program, potentially
stretching external funding to conduct replacement of more lines and
provide greater health protection to more individual customers. EPA
notes that a potential downside of this approach is that allowing these
disconnections to count as full service line replacements, which do not
generate public health benefits, may delay public health benefits to
consumers if these disconnections are conducted before full service
line replacements of occupied residences.
    EPA is seeking comment on allowing this practice to count towards a
full service line replacement under the mandatory service line
replacement program, whether the Agency should prohibit reconnection of
these disconnected LSL or GRR service lines, and any alternative
approaches to this practice. See section IX. of this document for more
information.
    EPA is also proposing to count full service line replacements where
a non-lead service line is installed for use and the lead or GRR
service line is disconnected from the water main or other service line.
EPA is also proposing that when the lead or GRR service line is
disconnected from the water main or system-owned portion of the service
line but not removed, the water system must be subject to a State or
local law or have a written policy to preclude the water system from
reconnecting the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line
to the water main or other service line. EPA is seeking comment on
EPA's approach to counting these lines as full replacements.
    The proposed LCRI also would not permit lining or coating
technologies to count as full service line replacement. Central to this
rule is the goal of permanently removing from service all LSLs and GRR
service lines in the nation. Lining and coating technologies do not
permanently remove these lead sources from service. In addition, the
uncertainty of the performance of these technologies over time would
potentially require additional monitoring to ensure lead levels at the
tap remain low. The added costs of site-specific evaluation to
determine if this technology is appropriate, continued site monitoring
to evaluate performance, and eventual re-lining or replacement of the
service line when it reaches the end of its useful life, may reduce any
potential cost savings associated with lining and coating technologies
relative to full service line replacement, especially when compared to
less expensive replacement methods (i.e., trenchless replacement
technologies).
Partial Service Line Replacement
    While the LCRR eliminates any requirement for water systems to
conduct partial replacements to comply with the rule's mandatory and
goal-based LSLR requirements, the rule does not explicitly restrict or
ban partial replacements because partial replacements may be necessary
to maintain water service in certain cases (e.g., following an
emergency repair where the water system does not have access to conduct
full service line replacement). The LCRR requires that, when conducting
a partial LSLR, systems must provide advance notification to customers
along with an offer to replace the customer-owned portion of the LSL
and take risk mitigation measures after a partial replacement to reduce
lead exposure that may result from the partial replacement, including
providing public education and a pitcher filter or point-of-use device.
The proposed LCRI, like the LCRR, would continue to prohibit both
partial service line replacements and ``test-outs'' (i.e., where a tap
sample from the service line tests at or below the lead action level
following a minimum six-hour stagnation and is therefore considered
``replaced'') from counting towards the required average annual
replacement rate, permitting only full service line replacements to
count towards the replacement rate. Research has found that partial
LSLR has not been shown to reliably reduce lead levels in the short
term and may temporarily increase lead levels due to disruptions of
established scales or galvanic corrosion (USEPA, 2011; see sections
V.B.6. and V.B.9.), while service lines that have been sampled and have
tested-out may contribute to lead at a later date (Del Toral et al.,
2013).

    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to prohibit partial service line
replacements unless it is conducted as part of an emergency repair or
in coordination with planned infrastructure work, excluding planned
infrastructure work solely for the purposes of LSL or GRR service line
replacement. The exclusion clause would ensure that the rule itself
does not cause additional partial replacements to be conducted solely
for the purpose of LSL or GRR service line replacement. Planned
infrastructure work would include water infrastructure or capital
improvement projects that do not solely replace lead and GRR service
lines as part of a service line replacement program. EPA discourages
partial service line replacement due to its potential to temporarily
increase lead levels in drinking water; however, the Agency anticipates
an outright ban on the practice could be infeasible (USEPA, 2020b). For
example, water systems conducting emergency main replacement may
require the removal of at least a portion of the LSL due to the
alignment or spacing requirements to connect the new main with existing
service lines (USEPA, 2020b; USEPA, 2023j). Although EPA views planned
and emergency infrastructure work as an opportunity for coordination
with full service line replacement, barriers to access to the customer-
owned service line may occur. EPA seeks any supporting or contrary
views, any data or analyses about this exclusion of planned
infrastructure work from the prohibition on partial service line
replacement, and whether there are any additional limitations that
could be added to ensure that partial service line replacements are
only performed when necessary to avoid greater harms as a result of the
emergency or inability to conduct planned infrastructure work for
purposes other than solely to replace LSLs and GRR service lines. EPA
strongly encourages water systems to conduct full service line
replacement in coordination with planned infrastructure work to realize
the efficiencies that can be gained (see section V.B.7. of this notice
for additional information on service line replacement plans).
    EPA considered requests from stakeholders to ban all partial
replacements in all circumstances. However, as stated above, the Agency
anticipates an outright ban on the practice could be infeasible (USEPA,
2020b). In the case of some emergency repairs, a partial replacement
may be necessary to ensure prompt restoration of water service to the
customer. Water service is critical to public health as it provides
water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation.
    LSLs and GRR service lines are likely to undergo significant
disturbance as a result of planned infrastructure work or emergency
repairs, increasing the risk from all lead sources that remain
following the infrastructure work including partial, customer-side
LSLs. To address the increased risk as a result of the disturbance, EPA
is proposing that the system implements additional risk mitigation
actions (see section V.B.6.). Proposed risk mitigation measures would
take place immediately following the partial replacement and extend for
up to six months after the partial replacement to protect public
health. Coordinating replacements with existing infrastructure work may
also result in lower costs of the overall replacement program and lower
cost impacts to households where the program is funded through rate
revenue. A stakeholder noted that this can also benefit low-income
customers, who may be paying a larger percentage of their income
towards their water bill (USEPA, 2023j). Proposed risk mitigation
measures would take place prior to, during, and immediately following
the partial replacement and extend for up to six months after the
partial replacement to protect public health.
    The proposed requirement to prohibit partial replacements, except
during the limited circumstances described above, would improve public
health protection by further limiting instances of partial service line
replacements that pose risks to public health. EPA anticipates it will
also strengthen environmental justice outcomes by eliminating partial
replacements for lower-income customers solely for the purpose of
service line replacement, given the greater costs of full replacement.
In cases where partial replacement is planned to occur in coordination
with non-emergency infrastructure work, EPA is proposing that systems
must offer to replace the customer-owned portion at least 45 days prior
to the replacement. The system would not be required to complete the
full service line replacement where it does not have access to the
customer-owned portion of the line. For more information about EPA's
proposed requirements related to access, see section V.B.5. of this
document. In the cases where the system is unable to gain access to
complete the full service line replacement, it must take the proposed
risk mitigation and notification protocols to reduce lead exposure to
the consumer(s). The proposed rule also would require systems to
include a dielectric coupling separating the remaining service line and
the new service line to prevent galvanic corrosion unless the new
service line is made of plastic (see section V.B.6. of this document
for more information).
    EPA is seeking comment on its approach to prohibit partial service
line replacement unless the replacement is conducted in coordination
with an emergency repair or planned infrastructure work (excluding
planned infrastructure work that solely replaces LSLs and GRR service
lines as part of a service line replacement program). See section IX.
of this document for more information.
Lead Sources Subject To Replacement
    Galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream of an LSL
can adsorb upstream lead particulates and contribute to lead in
drinking water even after the original lead source has been removed
(Deshommes et al., 2010; McFadden et al., 2011). EPA's proposed rule,
like the LCRR, refers to these lines as ``galvanized requiring
replacement'' or ``GRR'' service lines. Lead particles released from
upstream LSLs can adsorb onto exposed iron scales, resulting in a
buildup of lead particles in GRR service lines, which can persist even
after the upstream LSL is removed (Wasserstrom, 2017). Lead can release
from these scales contributing to lead occurrence in drinking water
(Deshommes et al., 2010; Pieper, 2017; Sandvig et al., 2008). The co-
occurrence of lead with iron was documented in a study in Washington,
DC, that found at least 10 homes with galvanized iron premise plumbing
that, after full or partial LSLR, still had tap samples exceeding 0.015
mg/L lead, which was attributed to continued release of lead particles
from exposed iron scales (McFadden et al., 2011). This study also
conducted laboratory experiments on harvested galvanized iron pipes
that had been downstream of LSLs specifically and showed elevated lead
release over the entire 21 weeks of experiments. Due to the depth of
lead scales in these iron pipes, the authors concluded that lead
release could be triggered over the remaining pipe lifetime,
acknowledging that changes in flow patterns or other site-specific
circumstances could impact whether or not such releases occur (McFadden
et al., 2011). While one stakeholder recommended that galvanized lines
that were downstream of an LSL should be classified as non-lead after a
period of time, stating that these lines eventually stop being a lead
source (USEPA, 2023j), EPA disagrees with this stakeholder

because the scientific literature does not support a timeline for these
GRR service lines to cease contributing lead into drinking water.
    These factors are why the LCRR service line replacement
requirements include GRR service lines. It is also why the proposed
LCRI retains the inclusion of GRR service lines in the mandatory
service line replacement program. Where systems are unable to
demonstrate that a galvanized service line never was downstream of an
LSL, it must be categorized as a GRR service line and be subject to the
proposed rule's service line replacement requirement to ensure that all
potential GRR service lines are eliminated from the system. By
downstream, EPA means that the galvanized service line was located
after the LSL and in the direction of flow. For example, a customer's
galvanized line would be downstream of an LSL if the LSL was installed
in between the galvanized line and the water main.
    The LCRR does not include lead connectors in the mandatory or goal-
based LSLR program requirements. Lead connectors are short segments of
lead pipe that are used for connections, usually between the service
line and the water main. These connectors were excluded from the LCRR
inventory requirements, and the LCRR did not require connectors to be
replaced to meet the mandatory or goal-based LSLR requirements because
in many cases connector material records are not available, and field
investigating all connector material in the absence of records ``would
not be feasible or practical for most systems'' as material
identification would generally require disturbing pavement and repaving
(86 FR 4213, USEPA, 2021a). The LCRR requires connectors to be replaced
when the connector is encountered by the water system during planned or
unplanned infrastructure work, which would include the required service
line replacement program if encountered. Therefore, even without an
affirmative requirement to locate, inventory, and replace a percentage
of lead connectors, the LCRR requires the removal of some of these lead
sources over time as they are encountered by the water system.
    EPA is proposing to retain the LCRR requirement that systems must
replace lead connectors as they are encountered, consistent with some
stakeholder feedback EPA received during the proposed LCRI external
engagements (USEPA, 2023m). While other stakeholders recommended that
EPA go farther and require all lead connectors to be inventoried and
included in the mandatory service line replacement requirement (USEPA,
2023j; USEPA, 2023l), the proposed rule does not include those
requirements because it would reduce the resources available for
service line identification and replacement. The approach of the
proposal ensures regular progress towards lead connector replacement is
made in coordination with other activities, such as planned
infrastructure work, while resources are prioritized for replacement of
all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. EPA notes that,
where lead connectors are encountered during replacement of an LSL,
they would be required to be replaced. Thus, all lead connectors that
are attached to a lead or GRR service line would be replaced by the end
of the mandatory service line replacement program. EPA also expects
that many lead connectors may be connected to aging water mains and
likely to undergo replacement with routine main replacement activities
in coming years. Given the Federal lead piping ban in 1986, any lead
connector is expected to be a minimum of 41 years old by the LCRI
compliance date in 2027. The average service life of cast iron, ductile
iron, and asbestos-cement pipe is 40 years (Florida Department of
State, 2010). A recent survey determined that 82 percent of all cast
iron mains and 27 percent of all cement mains are over 50 years old
(Folkman, 2018). Correspondingly, overall leak rates have increased
almost 30 percent between 2012 and 2018, with even greater increases in
iron and cement mains (Folkman, 2018). Thus, many aging mains may
likely be replaced in the coming years, either because they are at the
end of their useful life or because they are leaking, resulting in the
replacement of additional lead connectors attached to those aging
mains. Main replacement involves cutting pavement, digging, and
reconnecting service lines to the new main; therefore, lead connectors
replaced in coordination with main replacement can be more efficient
and a better use of time and resources. Additionally, as discussed in
section V.D.4., EPA is proposing to require lead connectors to be
inventoried where records are available as well as where lead
connectors are replaced and for that inventory information to be made
available to the public. Including in the inventory where lead
connectors have been replaced can provide additional information to the
public on potential sources of lead in drinking water, which can be
especially informative for customers with galvanized service lines or
premise plumbing, since these galvanized pipes previously downstream of
a lead connector could be a source of lead as further discussed below.
These additional requirements increase transparency about this
potential source of lead exposure. EPA is also proposing a definition
for lead connectors to not exceed two feet to ensure all LSLs are
captured in the mandatory replacement requirement (see section V.L.3.)
and not improperly categorized as connectors.
    Some stakeholders have recommended that EPA require replacement of
galvanized service lines downstream of lead connectors because these
lines may adsorb lead by the same mechanism as galvanized service lines
downstream of LSLs. EPA supports water system efforts to remove any
potential source of lead in drinking water, including galvanized
service lines that are or were downstream of lead connectors. EPA notes
that these service lines are eligible for funding under the $15 billion
BIL DWSRF LSLR appropriation along with service line identification and
replacement of LSLs, GRR service lines, and lead connectors as well as
planning, design, and other pre-project costs directly connected to
LSLR. EPA is proposing that the LCRI service line replacement
requirements focus on eliminating the most significant sources of lead
in drinking water, which are lead and GRR service lines where present,
from the system as quickly as is feasible. This approach would not
delay the public health benefits associated with replacing these more
significant lead sources for customers served by these service lines.
It is hypothesized that galvanized service lines that are or were
downstream of an LSL may be a more significant lead source than those
that are or were downstream of a lead connector, given that previous
research has suggested that the length and diameter of LSLs are likely
to be key factors in the amount of lead released (Deshommes, 2016;
Sandvig et al., 2008). Given that LSLs are tens of feet long, while
EPA's proposed definition of connectors does not exceed two feet, EPA
expects that galvanized lines downstream of lead connectors may
contribute less lead into drinking water than those that were
downstream of much longer LSLs.
    Additionally, EPA expects that some systems may voluntarily replace
galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream of a lead
connector when encountered during main replacement, given the age and
likely poor condition of these service lines. The average service life
(i.e., the period of service that can be reasonably

expected) of a galvanized steel pipe is 35 years (Florida Department of
State, 2010). By the proposed LCRI compliance date in 2027, most
galvanized service lines that are or were attached to a lead connector
will be a minimum of 41 years old, as lead piping was banned at the
Federal level in 1986. An examination of the galvanized pipe and
related products certified by NSF to NSF 61 revealed only one
manufacturer of galvanized water pipes (National Sanitation Foundation,
2023), so EPA does not expect that it would be common for new
galvanized service lines to be installed. Because both the system-owned
and customer-owned portions of a galvanized service line would be
beyond their useful life, and because it is more cost efficient to
simultaneously replace both portions of the service line, EPA expects
that some systems may fully replace these galvanized service lines. It
is also possible that due to the significant rusting and likely poor
condition of these lines, service lines at or past their physical life
may break during construction or burst following re-pressurization
following a main replacement or following a partial service line
replacement, necessitating their replacement to allow for continued
water service. EPA expects that some replacement of these galvanized
service lines that are or were downstream of a lead connector may occur
in coming years with planned or emergency main replacement as well as
when these service lines fail. Focusing the proposed service line
replacement requirements on LSLs and galvanized service lines that are
or were downstream of an LSL will allow these more significant lead
sources to be eliminated as quickly as feasible, and with lower overall
replacement program costs.
    EPA has found limited information of the existence of lead-lined
galvanized service lines and little information about their prevalence
(MWRA, 2023; Sedimentary Ores, n.d.). A lead-lined galvanized service
line is covered by the definition of an LSL under the LCRR (USEPA,
2022b), and this remains true under the proposed LCRI. Therefore, any
lead-lined pipe would be required to be categorized as an LSL in the
inventory and would be subject to the same proposed LCRI requirements
as other LSLs in the inventory, such as mandatory service line
replacement, public education, tap sample tiering, and risk mitigation.
As EPA notes in its ``Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service
Line Inventory'' (or the LCRR Inventory Guidance, USEPA (2022b)),
systems that attempt to identify lead-lined pipes by visual observation
(such as excavation) may not see an interior lead lining, and the
guidance contains recommendations for systems to consider information
available that indicates the possible presence of lead-lined service
lines when categorizing their service lines and choosing material
investigation techniques (USEPA, 2022b).
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of its proposed scope of
the replacement requirements, including what constitutes a full service
line replacement and which lead sources are subject to replacement
under the mandatory service line replacement program. For more
information, see section IX. of this document.
5. Water System Access to Full Service Line
    EPA is authorized by SDWA to regulate PWSs to include any
``distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system
and used primarily in connection with such system'' (SDWA 1401(4)(A)).
In the LCRR, EPA permits only full lead service line replacement to
count towards a system's replacement rate, but allows the system to
remain in compliance if they were unable to meet the mandatory
replacement rate because a customer refuses to participate in the
replacement program or does not respond to the system after two good
faith efforts to reach the customer.
    The proposed LCRI would require water systems to replace all lead
and GRR service lines, and any lead connectors encountered, that are
``under control of'' the water system. EPA is proposing to treat a
service line as under the system's control wherever a water system has
adequate access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct full
service line replacement. This means that a water system would be in
violation of the rule if the system fails to replace a service line in
accordance with the proposed requirements even though it has adequate
access to conduct a full service line replacement. EPA is proposing to
treat a connector as under the system's control wherever a water system
has adequate access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct
replacement of the connector. EPA is not proposing to delineate the
prerequisites or elements of ``access'' that a system would need to
conduct full service line or connector replacement because of the wide
variation of relevant State and local laws and water tariff agreements
as well as the potential for these to change over time. Instead, EPA
emphasizes the many requirements proposed in the LCRI, in addition to
funding and non-regulatory actions, that can increase a system's access
to full service line replacement. EPA is aware of data and anecdotes
from water systems demonstrating the ability to increase access for
full service line replacement, such as where customer consent or
payment is required for access. EPA included in the proposed LCRI
requirements and flexibilities to increase access and expedite full
service line replacement and are described in detail in the following
sections.
Service Line Replacement Plan
    As described in section V.B.8. on the service line replacement
plan, EPA is proposing that systems include in their plans
identification of any State or local laws or water tariff agreement
provisions that govern the water system's access to conduct full
service line replacement. States would be required to identify any
State laws, including statutes and constitutional provisions, that
pertain to a water system's access to conduct full service line
replacement and notify water systems in writing whether any such laws
exist or not by the LCRI compliance date. States must also notify
systems within six months of the enactment of any new or revised State
law impacting access to full service line replacement. Based on EPA's
evaluation of full service line replacement programs, EPA is aware that
there are laws and water tariff agreements relevant to whether a water
system has access to conduct full service line replacement (USEPA,
2019a; USEPA, 2023g). These include laws governing the water system's
physical access to private property to conduct the replacement and the
water system's ability to conduct full service line replacement without
the expressed consent of the customer and, in some places, without the
customer's agreement to pay for all or a portion of the replacement
costs.
    These proposed service line replacement plan requirements would
support and encourage water systems to comply with the proposed rule to
conduct full service line replacement when the service line is under
control of the system. This is especially important where the water
system's self-identified elements of ``control'' of the service line
determine whether the water system must conduct the replacement. In
some cases, identification of applicable laws and tariffs may help
systems to realize they already have access to the full service line
for replacement. The requirement to make these potential access
barriers

publicly available in the service line replacement plan would also
facilitate public engagement on the effect existing State or local laws
or water tariff agreements have on a system's access for full service
line replacement. Examples of systems and States that have changed
existing State or local laws or water tariff agreements to overcome
barriers to full service line replacement are described in section
V.B.8.
Public Education and Engagement
    As described in Section V.H., the proposed LCRI includes additional
requirements, along with public education requirements maintained from
LCRR, for water systems to better inform customers of the risks of lead
in drinking water and the benefits of full lead and GRR service line
replacement, which could increase the number of customers willing to
provide any necessary physical access where customer consent is
required. For example, customers must be notified annually if they have
an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line, including
information about service line replacement, and must also be given
notice whenever these lines are disturbed by the water system. EPA is
proposing in the LCRI that systems would make a ``reasonable attempt''
to engage the property owner about service line replacement, which
entails at least four outreach attempts using at least two different
communication methods. Systems must attempt to gain access for full
replacement again upon any change in property ownership, even after the
systems' replacement deadline has passed. Systems that fail to meet
their service line replacement rate are subject to proposed
requirements to conduct at least one of a prescribed list of public
education activities to discuss their mandatory service line
replacement program and opportunities for replacement. With the
proposed requirements for systems to provide customer-requested
sampling and as well as the requirement to provide prompt notice of
consumers' lead sample results, EPA expects some customers might be
more willing to provide access based on sampling results. Where
compliance sampling tests above the lead action level and is subject to
the proposed distribution system and site assessment requirements, a
system could identify the presence of a lead or GRR service line as the
probable cause for the higher lead levels, which could increase the
likelihood that customers provide access for service line replacement.
The community as a whole will be better informed of the service line
replacement program through their system's publicly accessible
inventory that includes proposed requirements for increased
transparency and publicly accessible service line replacement plan, in
addition to proposed requirements for information about them to be
included in the annual Consumer Confidence Report. Systems that exceed
the lead action level, in accordance with the LCRR, are required to
provide public notice within 24 hours as well as public education
within 60 days, the latter of which must include information about
service line replacement. Additional public education requirements are
proposed after a system has multiple lead action level exceedances,
which could further educate customers about lead in drinking water and
the benefits of service line replacement. The increased notification
and public education, especially after water systems report higher lead
levels could increase customer willingness to provide access for
service line replacement. For water systems serving a large proportion
of consumers with limited English proficiency, the proposal requires
public education materials to include information about where consumers
can obtain a translated copy of the materials or translation
assistance.
    EPA is aware of anecdotes supporting the notion that robust public
education can increase customer participation in systems' replacement
programs. Many of these customer engagement best practices have been
incorporated into this proposed rule to facilitate systems reaching the
goal of replacing 100 percent of LSLs and GRR service lines in the
nation (see above and section V.H.). These anecdotes are summarized
below.
    Frequent customer communication and engagement using multiple
outreach methods was cited as important to obtaining customer consent
for full service line replacement. For example, the Lansing Board of
Water and Light in Michigan replaced 100 percent of their LSLs over a
12-year period and noted that the system had not sought easements to
conduct replacements, relying instead on ``good customer interaction
and follow-through'' (AWWA, 2016). Lansing emphasized their engagement
strategies, such as brochures and bill stuffers, open houses at local
schools and community centers, customer education in their water
quality report, letters sent to homes with LSLs, and in-person follow
up with the customer prior to the date of the service line replacement
to explain the replacement process. A ``comprehensive community
outreach effort'' in Detroit, Michigan, is credited as one of the main
factors allowing the City to achieve 100 percent homeowner
participation to conduct private side replacements in accordance with
main replacements (City of Detroit, 2023). The engagement process,
which started approximately 40 days in advance of construction,
included ``extensive outreach'' that included community meetings in
nearby parks or public areas, information packets hand-delivered to
each residence, and provision of pitcher filters (City of Detroit,
2023). Officials from Stoughton, Wisconsin, a small system that
replaced all of the city's nearly 700 LSLs in 2021, cited phone calls,
social media, local newspapers, and an LSLR program website as key to
keeping citizens engaged and informed (City of Stoughton Utilities
Committee, 2022). Quincy, Massachusetts, another small system, cited
use of multiple communication mediums to inform customers about their
LSLR program, such as community meetings, a public-facing website,
public displays, letters to targeted homes, translated informational
letters, and certified mail (MWRA, 2023). The Halifax, Canada water
system recognized the importance of customer engagement and recommended
the use of communications consultants prior to launching a replacement
program. Halifax also recommended sending customers multiple
notifications, including targeted communications for those who are
scheduled for imminent replacement (AWWA, 2022). Green Bay, who
replaced all their LSLs in 2021 (AWWA, 2020) hired consultants to
evaluate their communication needs and ultimately decided to hire a
full-time staff to lead that effort. They also noted that many
customers did not respond on the first notification attempt and
recommended diversifying by using all available channels and
communication types (AWWA, 2022). Denver Water similarly emphasized the
importance of using multiple communication methods and making multiple
attempts to reach customers, requiring a customer be contacted twice by
mail and once in-person before being added to the ``non-responsive''
list (Denver Water, 2023b). Even upon being added to this list,
additional contact attempts when city contractors are in the area are
permitted, and an additional outreach approach was developed for those
who initially refused contact. Further, if a property on the ``non-
responsive'' or ``refusal'' list changes ownership, the outreach

process was automatically restarted. This organized outreach approach
resulted in acceptance of full service line replacement in
approximately 90 percent of homes, with partial replacements only
conducted in one to two percent of homes between 2020 and 2022 (Denver
Water, 2023b). Another strategy employed in both Denver and Chicago was
conducting a pilot-program in targeted neighborhoods to receive
feedback and learn best practices prior to beginning their full-scale
programs (Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.).
    Partnerships with organizations outside the water system were also
cited as increasing customer participation in several service line
replacement programs. Denver Water specifically identified and enacted
paid partnerships with community organizations who had connections with
marginalized communities to build trust in these areas (Wilking et al.,
2022). Denver also worked with local administrators of the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
who provided geographic data to better understand where homes with
people most sensitive to the adverse health effects of lead (i.e.,
infants and pregnant women) were located. Green Bay's water system
employed similar partnerships with local organizations, working with
both the local WIC program and pediatricians in the area to better
identify high risk populations (AWWA, 2022). Similarly, Toledo's water
system partnered with Freshwater Future, an environmental organization
already working in the area, to gather input and host lead educational
events about the occurrence and risks of lead in drinking water
(Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.). Some systems have used designated
ambassadors to ensure their message is reached by specific communities.
Newark's water system, who has replaced 100 percent of their LSLs,
coordinated closely with existing community partners that became
ambassadors for the LSLR program (AWWA, 2022). In Philadelphia,
following a survey showing that 42 percent of residents drink bottled
water instead of tap water, ambassadors were recruited from populations
who reported high bottled water use to educate those communities about
the activities of the drinking water system and were tasked with
engaging community members at events sponsored by the ambassador
organization (Drink Philly Tap, n.d.).
    In addition to individual customer communication, some water
systems conducted community events to promote their service line
replacement programs to the public. The previous examples mention
systems hosting open houses at local schools and community centers and
community meetings to inform the public about service line replacement.
Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority also used community events,
hosting multiple events around the city to hear customer concerns,
answer questions, and describe plans for their service line replacement
program (PGH2O, n.d.). These events, along with individual outreach
efforts prior to starting any construction, helped secure approval for
full service line replacement from approximately 90 percent of
residents when an LSL was discovered on their property.
Funding and Non-Regulatory Actions Supporting Service Line Replacement
    Significant funding is available for covering the cost to replace
the customer's portion of the service line, such as the $15 billion
from BIL. Section IV.G. of this document summarizes the many funding
sources available for service line replacement.
    EPA also supports water systems with service line replacement
through its water technical assistance (WaterTA) and ``Lead Service
Line Replacement Accelerators'' initiatives (see section IV.G. of this
document). EPA's assistance may contribute to increased system access
to full service lines given the Agency's experience working with many
systems and identifying best practices that can inform other water
system's replacement programs. In addition. EPA guidance documents
``Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line Replacement'' (USEPA,
2019a) and ``Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service Line
Inventory'' (USEPA (2022b) contain information and case study examples
which may assist water systems in identifying ways to increase their
access to identify service line materials and fully replace service
lines.
Additional Incentives To Overcome Customer Access Barriers
    The proposal contains several additional requirements and
flexibilities for water systems to overcome potential customer access
barriers and expedite service line replacements. For example, the
proposal allows systems to defer CCT steps, including costly and
complex pipe loop optimization/re-optimization studies, if they can
replace all lead and GRR service lines in their system within five
years at a rate of a minimum of 20 percent of lines per year. To take
advantage of this proposed pathway, systems are incentivized to find
ways to obtain access to each lead and GRR service line to replace 100%
of lead and GRR service lines within five years.
    Systems are also incentivized to find ways to access each lead and
GRR service line for replacement because replacement of these
significant lead sources can reduce the system's 90th percentile lead
level, decreasing the likelihood of a lead action level exceedance and
the subsequent need to install (and maintain) or re-optimize OCCT (that
could involve costly CCT studies), replace lead-bearing plumbing or
install point-of-use filters (for small systems that choose not to
install or re-optimize CCT), and make filters available if the system
meets the definition for multiple lead action level exceedances. In
addition, for systems without lead and GRR service lines that exceed
the action level due to other sources of lead (i.e., premise plumbing),
they would be able to conduct less costly, less complex, and less time-
consuming CCT studies, such as coupon studies, should they be required
to initiate OCCT steps. Other proposed requirements, such as the more
rigorous sampling of the first and fifth liter at LSL sites, could also
be avoided where systems accessed and replaced all lead and GRR service
lines.
    In addition, systems that have replaced all their lead and GRR
service lines would have to meet fewer public education requirements.
For example, systems without lead, GRR, or unknown service lines would
not have to meet the proposed notification and risk mitigation
requirements after a service line disturbance, as well as the annual
notification of service line material type to these consumers.
Additionally, systems would not have to meet the proposed requirements
for system outreach to individual customers to attempt to gain access
for the full replacement if there is a change in the ownership of the
property. With the most significant lead sources replaced, systems
would also have a lower likelihood of measuring higher lead levels,
which are tied to the 24-hour notification requirements after a lead
action level exceedance and distribution system and site assessment
requirements.
Proposed Requirements When a System Is Unable To Obtain Access
    EPA expects that, in cases where customer consent is required by
State or local laws to complete full service line replacement, some
customers may not consent to replace the full service line. This
concern was raised in the proposed LCRI external engagements (USEPA,
2023m). EPA is proposing that, where

customer consent is required by State or local law or water tariff
agreement, the system would be required to make a reasonable effort to
obtain property owner consent. EPA is proposing that a reasonable
effort includes a minimum of at least four attempts to engage the
customer using at least two different methods, which is double the
outreach as compared to the LCRR and incorporates the best practice of
using multiple communication methods to reach the customer. EPA is
proposing to explicitly provide that States may require systems to
conduct additional attempts and may require specific outreach methods
to be used. If customer consent is required by State or local laws and
the water system is unable to obtain consent, the water system would
not be required to conduct a full service line replacement because,
under those circumstances, the full service line would not be ``under
the control'' of the operator of the system. EPA is requesting comment
as to whether a reasonable effort to obtain property owner consent
should be more than four times (e.g., five, six, or seven times).
    This proposed requirement is also responsive to some stakeholders
who, during the proposed LCRI external engagements, sought a clearer
definition of a ``good faith effort'' to contact the homeowner
regarding service line replacement and stated that systems should not
be held responsible when customers refuse access for replacement of
their portion of the line (USEPA, 2023j). In the proposed LCRI, water
systems would be required to continue annual outreach at sites where
customer consent is required by law or water tariff agreement, but the
customer refused to provide consent for replacement and the LSL or GRR
service line remains in place. In addition, whenever there is a change
in ownership, even after the mandatory service line replacement
deadline has passed, the system would be required to offer to conduct
the replacement.
    During the LCRR review and proposed LCRI external engagements, EPA
heard anecdotes of customers refusing replacement, even if it was
offered for free, for reasons including mistrust of the water system or
government, not believing the replacement is important, or to avoid the
disruption to landscaping that may result from a replacement (USEPA,
2023j). A system's existing authority to access the service line and
complete the full service line replacement might provide the system
with the legal authority to conduct the service line replacement over
the objection of the property owner or resident. However, as some
stakeholders noted, requiring service line replacement at properties
where customers object to their replacement could create potential
safety concerns for utility staff. EPA is seeking comment on whether
the proposed LCRI should either allow systems to treat those service
lines as not under the control of the system and forego replacement of
the lines or require systems to conduct full service line replacement
in situations where the system has legal access to conduct the full
replacement but property owners or residents deny physical access.
Assessment of Service Line Replacement Cost-Sharing Prohibition
    Some stakeholders have argued that EPA ``can require full LSLR
through the authority granted by the SDWA to regulate `distribution
facilities under the control of the operator' of a public water
system'' and that ``PWSs exert control over the entire service line,
including the part located under private property, in various ways, as
recognized by both EPA and water systems themselves.'' These
stakeholders argue that full service line replacement is the ``best
available technology'' based on the records for the 1991 LCR and the
LCRR, the legislative history on the definition of ``feasibility'' in
SDWA (See ``NRDC and Earthjustice 2023 Letter.pdf'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801), and the City of Newark's service line replacement program (City
of Newark, n.d.a).
    These stakeholders assert that ``full LSLR as a treatment technique
and BAT [best available technologies] necessitates the prohibition of
cost-sharing'' (i.e., requiring customers to pay for the replacement of
their portion of the line). They reason that ``[w]hen utilities rely
upon cost-sharing, low-income communities and communities of color are
less likely to benefit from full service line replacement. Thus, cost-
sharing fails to carry out the statutory mandate to use the best
feasible technology or technique available to reduce lead levels across
the distribution system controlled by the public water system.''
Therefore, the stakeholders conclude, ``to reduce lead in drinking
water and comply with the SDWA and LCR, EPA must prohibit cost-sharing
by water systems. Without such a prohibition, either no replacement or
only partial replacement will continue to take place in vulnerable
communities, with lead levels either remaining the same or increasing,
respectively'' (see ``2023-04-28 Authority Letter Final'' in EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0801).
    In developing the proposed rule, EPA considered this perspective,
but ultimately chose not to ban cost-sharing. EPA is not aware of a
factual basis to support the stakeholders' assertion that PWSs control
all portions of all service lines. To the contrary, EPA is aware that
in some cases, public water systems do not control all portions of all
service lines (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.a). EPA is also aware that water
systems have conducted systemwide full service line replacement with
cost-sharing (e.g., Madison, Wisconsin) (Madison Water Utility, 2014).
    Moreover, EPA is concerned that such a prohibition would result in
the further delay of full service line replacement. EPA has not used
its section 1412 authority under SDWA to direct how a water system
covers the costs of compliance with a national primary drinking water
rule, which is, at its core, a matter of State and local law. There is
no explicit statutory authority for EPA to do so; State and local
governments regulate how water systems provide and charge for services
to their customers. EPA expects that any attempt to assert Federal
authority over how water systems charge for their services would be met
with a protracted legal challenge that would delay implementation of
the rule.
    At the same time, EPA recognizes that the LCR and LCRR include
statements that address the question of who pays to replace the portion
of the LSL that is not ``owned'' by a water system, asserting that
``[t]he water system is not required to bear the cost of replacement of
the portion of the lead service line not owned by the water system''
(see 40 CFR 141.84(e) and (g)(7) in the LCRR and 141.84(d)(1) in the
LCR). Consistent with the lack of authority to determine how water
systems charge for services, EPA proposes to remove from the LCRI any
statements from the LCR and LCRR that address how a water system should
or should not cover the cost of replacing services lines under the
control of the system as well as statements on whether a water system
is or is not responsible for the cost of full service line replacement.
Instead, the proposed LCRI remains neutral on this matter of State and
local law.
    EPA does, however, strongly encourage customer-side service line
replacement to be offered at no direct cost to the customer wherever
possible to achieve higher customer participation rates and reduce
potential environmental justice impacts that may result where customers
cannot afford to replace their portion of the line. EPA anticipates the
proposed requirements and flexibilities to incentivize systems

obtaining access, as described above in section V.B.5., would also
incentivize water systems to fund customer-side service line
replacement. Furthermore, significant Federal funding is available for
service line replacement (discussed in section IV.G.), some of which is
directed to disadvantaged communities least likely to afford full
service line replacement. Additionally, Federal civil rights laws,
including Title VI as described in sections IV.H. and V.B.9.,
incentivize systems to achieve full replacement outcomes that do not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
6. Risk Mitigation Activities To Reduce Lead Exposures
    The LCRR requires systems to take specific risk mitigation actions
after various types of disturbances and replacements because of their
potential to temporarily increase lead levels in drinking water. The
LCRR requires water systems to provide pitcher filters or point-of-use
devices certified by an American National Standards Institute
accredited certifier to reduce lead in drinking water (along with
public education materials and six months of filter replacement
cartridges) following partial and full LSLR, replacement of a lead
connector, and some disturbances before the affected service line is
returned to service. The LCRR also requires that water systems include
information for customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing
of particulate lead in their LSLR plan.
    EPA is maintaining the LCRR requirement that water systems provide
pitcher filters or point-of-use devices certified by an American
National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in
drinking water following full and partial replacement of lead and GRR
service lines and after replacement of a lead connector, inline water
meter, and water meter setter. Research shows that, while flushing can
be effective at reducing lead levels, particulate lead spikes are still
possible in the short term while the service line reaches stabilization
following service line replacement. A study conducted sequential
sampling following LSLR at 14 sites across the United States and
Canada, where each site was flushed for 15 minutes, both immediately
following LSLR and again the day after replacement (Sandvig et al.,
2008). The authors noted that many sites registered high lead
concentrations, primarily from particulate lead, and that the flushing
protocol ``did not adequately reduce these high lead levels.'' While
most detected particulate releases took place in the first several days
following LSLR, data from one site suggested the potential for lead
accumulated in the system to be released for months afterwards (Sandvig
et al., 2008). In a more recent study, Brown and Cornwell (2015)
examined three more rigorous high-velocity flushing protocols in three
communities following LSLR. In all three communities, lead levels above
0.015 mg/L were still observed in at least one sample after flushing,
and no flushing protocol tested was able to entirely prevent such lead
releases from occurring. Additionally, in the only community examined
with pre-LSLR lead data available, lead levels improved or remained
below the detection limit in seven homes after LSLR, while there were
short-term increases in the remaining five homes (Brown and Cornwell,
2015). Because of the shortcomings of flushing alone, the proposed LCRI
would maintain and strengthen the LCRR requirements to provide pitcher
filters or point-of-use devices following full and partial replacement
of LSLs and GRR service lines and after replacement of a lead
connector, inline water meter, and water meter setter.
    To further strengthen these risk mitigation requirements, EPA is
proposing to revise the regulatory language regarding filter
distribution to clarify that water systems are required to provide
filters and replacement cartridges to every occupancy, rather than
residence, as required in the LCRR, to ensure that non-residence
building occupants, such as businesses, also receive filters following
replacement or disturbances. While some stakeholders raised concerns
during the proposed LCRI engagements about the availability of
sufficient filter quantities in the market to meet new demand created
by additional rule requirements (USEPA, 2023j), EPA assumes the market
will respond to meet the needs of the final LCRI requirements (see
discussion in section V.B.2. of this document).
    EPA is proposing to maintain the requirement that filter
replacement cartridges be provided for six months. Many stakeholders
recommended the use of filters for six months following service line
replacement (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i). The six-month timeframe would
allow consumers to continue drinking filtered water while waiting for
the results of their follow up tap sample, which EPA proposes that
water systems take between three and six months following replacement.
EPA also notes that some filters are certified to reduce lead in
drinking water with one cartridge lasting six months, depending on
water usage. For water systems using these filters, only one filter
cartridge may be needed when assuming typical water use.
    In addition, EPA is proposing a new mitigation requirement that,
following partial service line replacement, water systems would be
required to install a dielectric coupling separating the remaining LSL
or GRR service line and the replaced service line unless the replaced
service line (i.e., new service line) is made of plastic. This
requirement aims to reduce the risks of galvanic corrosion between lead
and other metallic pipes because resulting lead release has been
documented in previous lab-scale studies (DeSantis et al., 2018;
Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Multiple
laboratory experiments using harvested pipes have shown substantial
decreases in lead release when the electric connection is broken or
dielectric couplings are inserted (Clark et al., 2013; St. Clair et
al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013), lending credence to the value of
requiring the insertion of such couplings. Additionally, the Science
Advisory Board noted in 2011 that ``[i]nsertion of a lead-free
dielectric eliminates galvanic corrosion at the new pipe junction by
breaking the electrical circuit between the new and old pipes,''
concluding that ``insertion of a dielectric will likely reduce lead
levels in tap water, but it cannot confidently estimate the magnitude
of the reductions because the contribution of galvanic corrosion and
depositional corrosion to drinking water lead levels has not been
quantified'' (USEPA, 2011). EPA is requesting comment on the
requirement to include a dielectric coupling and request comment on
other risk mitigation steps water systems could take.
    The proposed LCRI clarifies the type of tap sample (e.g., first
liter, paired first and fifth liter) water systems would be required to
offer to customers following full and partial service line replacement
to conform with proposed requirements under tap sampling (see section
V.C. of this document). Following a full service line replacement, the
proposed rule would require a first-liter sample to be taken, as higher
lead levels are not expected in the fifth liter, which has stagnated in
contact with the new, non-lead service line. Following a partial
service line replacement, systems would be required to take a first-
and fifth-liter sample to screen for lead in the service line as well
as premise plumbing.
    EPA is proposing to retain the requirement that water systems
conduct risk mitigation steps following disturbance of a lead, GRR, or
unknown service line. Following operations that cause the water to be
shut off or

bypassed, EPA is proposing that systems must provide customers with
flushing instructions before the affected line is returned to service.
Following more significant disturbances, such as those that result in
the pipe being cut, EPA is proposing to also add the requirement that
the customer be provided with a filter. EPA is proposing to require
risk mitigation actions following disturbances resulting from physical
action or vibration (e.g., mechanical or vacuum excavation during
service line material investigations). For more information, see
section V.H.2. EPA is proposing that risk mitigation actions after a
disturbance apply to lead status unknown service lines, given the
possibility they might be LSLs or GRR service lines. For example, in
the case of significant disturbances, EPA is proposing that systems
must provide filters to their customers with unknown service lines,
just as EPA is proposing for LSLs or GRR service lines.
7. Service Line Replacement Plan
    The LCRR introduced the requirement for systems to develop an LSLR
plan to allow them (1) to quickly commence a systemwide replacement
program following a lead trigger level or action level exceedance and
(2) to be ready to complete customer-initiated LSLR requests regardless
of their 90th percentile lead level. Additional plan elements were
included to advance public health protection, efficiencies, and equity
in the overall replacement program. The required plan elements
included:
     A strategy for determining the composition of lead status
unknown service lines in the system's inventory;
     A procedure for conducting full LSLR;
     A strategy for informing customers before a full or
partial LSLR;
     For systems that serve more than 10,000 persons, an LSLR
goal rate recommended by the system in the event of a lead trigger
level exceedance;
     A procedure for customers to flush service lines and
premise plumbing of particulate lead;
     An LSLR prioritization strategy based on factors including
but not limited to the targeting of known LSLs, LSLR for disadvantaged
consumers and populations most sensitive to the effects of lead; and
     A funding strategy for conducting LSLRs that considers
ways to accommodate customers that are unable to pay to replace the
portion they own.
    The proposed LCRI updates and expands on the LCRR's LSLR plan
requirements. The service line replacement plan is important because a
well-developed plan can facilitate timely compliance with the proposed
mandatory service line replacement requirements and, therefore, provide
greater public health protection and replacement program efficiency.
First, EPA is proposing that systems must identify any State and local
laws and water tariff agreements relevant to the water system's ability
to gain access to conduct full lead and GRR service line replacement as
well as a citation to the source of the requirement (such as any
specific State or local law or water tariff agreement provision that
requires property owner consent for replacement or cost-sharing).
Should these laws or agreements change in the duration of the
replacement period, the proposed rule would not require systems to
update the plan to reflect those changes. EPA is seeking comment on
whether a requirement to update the plan is necessary to fulfill the
purpose of the plan or whether a recommendation from EPA for systems to
update this component of the service line replacement plan would be
adequate. See section IX. of this document.
    Second, EPA is proposing that water systems must create a
communication strategy to inform customers and consumers (e.g.,
property owners, renters, and tenants) served by the system about the
service line replacement plan and program. This proposed plan element
assures that both the consumers and owners of rental properties are
aware of the water system's program to replace lead and GRR service
lines and ensures that both tenants and their landlords have
information about the program. This proposed requirement is responsive
to stakeholder feedback about renters not having the authority to
approve full service line replacement (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i),
ensuring that the proposal at least includes a provision to keep
renters informed about the system's planned activities.
    In addition, the LCRI proposes to remove the requirement that
systems recommend a goal replacement rate in their plan because the
proposal eliminates the goal-based LSLR program. The proposed LCRI
maintains LCRR plan elements that remain relevant to achieving timely
compliance with the replacement requirements, such as strategies for
inventory development, procedures for full service line replacement, a
customer communication strategy to take place before the replacement
occurs, flushing instructions to reduce particulates following service
line disturbances or replacements, a replacement prioritization
strategy (including but not limited to local communities particularly
or disproportionately impacted by lead, populations most sensitive to
the effects of lead, and high-risk areas identified through lead data),
and a funding strategy for conducting replacements. EPA is aware of a
system that developed and completed an LSLR prioritization program that
identified and replaced LSLs at daycare facilities and sites where lead
previously tested high (PGH2O, 2023).
    EPA is proposing that water systems must develop, submit to the
State, and publish a service line replacement plan by the proposed LCRI
compliance date, three years following promulgation of the final rule.
Providing three years allows time for meaningful plan development. For
example, EPA strongly recommends water systems engage their community
in the development of the service line replacement plan. EPA expects
that some plans may continue to be refined until full service line
replacement requirements begin. EPA is also proposing to require the
plan to be made publicly available, which would increase transparency
about the service line replacement process and ensure the community is
informed about all aspects of the system's replacement program.
Increasing the transparency of the process provides an opportunity to
get the community more involved in the replacement process and support
the success of the program. EPA is proposing that systems serving over
50,000 people make the plan available online, which is the same
proposed size threshold for systems that must make their inventory
available online. EPA is seeking comment on whether this size threshold
for publishing the inventory and replacement plan online should be
lowered (See section IX. of this document).
8. Impact of State and Local Laws on Service Line Replacement
    There are several possible approaches water systems could use to
overcome barriers to full service line replacement, some of which may
be unique to the CWS. Specific State and local factors (e.g., State
laws, local ordinances, and available funding) can affect how a water
system achieves 100 percent replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines
as quickly as feasible (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.f). For example, in
many communities, a significant barrier to achieving higher rates of
customer participation in a service line replacement program is lack of
adequate financial resources combined with a requirement that the
customer pays to replace all or a portion of the service

line (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 2023m). A system
might not require customer cost-sharing for a replacement where it has
external funding that either allows or requires the system to use the
funds to replace the customer's portion of the service line: such an
approach would mitigate or eliminate any barrier to full service line
replacement as a result of customer cost-sharing. Achieving 100 percent
customer participation through a single strategy, such as securing
funding for customer-side replacements, may obviate the need for using
an additional approach. Below EPA has provided examples of a range of
strategies that systems, municipalities, and States have used to
overcome both financial and non-financial barriers to full service line
replacement.
Examples of Systems and Municipalities Overcoming Access Barriers
    EPA's guidance document titled, ``Strategies to Achieve Full Lead
Service Line Replacement'' (USEPA, 2019a), highlights water systems
that have amended water service agreements to facilitate service line
replacement. The document highlights the Milford Water Company
(Milford, MA), who amended their service agreement to temporarily allow
the system to replace customer-owned LSLs at the system's expense. EPA
expects that many water systems could similarly consider, depending on
the exact language of the agreement and the process to change it,
temporarily or permanently revising service agreements to overcome
access barriers to facilitate full service line replacement.
    Several communities have changed local ordinances to facilitate
full service line replacement. For example, in 1986, the City of
Woonsocket, Rhode Island, ``adopted a policy that builders must replace
LSLs when a building is sold, demolished or replaced'' (LSLR
Collaborative, n.d.a). Other local ordinances require customers to
replace their portion of the LSL in coordination with other water
infrastructure work, such as during main replacement or emergency
repair, or in accordance with a system's proactive service line
replacement program, such as the ordinances adopted in the Cities of
Appleton and Madison in Wisconsin (City of Appleton, 2022; Madison
Water Utility, 2014). With its ordinance, Madison was able to replace
all LSLs in the distribution system (Madison Water Utility, 2014). In
Milwaukee, Wisconsin an ordinance requiring full service line
replacement allows customers to find their own contractor or to
authorize the city contractor to replace the customer portion of the
line. The ordinance applies when the system-owned portion is being
removed on a planned or emergency basis and requires the city to notify
the customer before the commencement of a planned water system-owned
LSLR (City of Milwaukee, 2023). The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources includes information on their website to facilitate planning
for replacement programs, including the decision of whether to mandate