Public Comment and Response Document for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

Table of Contents

Introduction and Overview	1
Background	1
EPA's Categorization of Public Comments and Document Organization	1
Document Organization and Cross Referencing of Responses	7
1 General Matters	7
1.1 General Comments	7
1.2 Scope of Rule and Applicability	9
1.3 Complexity of Rule	11
1.4 How State and Federal Government Can Improve Assistance to PWSs Implementing the Rule	15
1.5 Other	18
2 Definitions	22
2.1 General Comments	22
2.2 Lead Service Line (LSL) Definition	24
Lead Connectors in LSL Definition	24
Galvanized Lines in LSL Definition	26
Other Comments on LSL Definition	29
2.3 Definition of Customer/Consumer/Owners of LSL/Residents	31
2.4 New Definitions Added	32
2.5 Other Existing Definitions Revised in Proposal	34
2.6 Definitions of Child Care Facility and Schools to be Covered Under Testing	36
Definition of Child Care Facility and Schools	36
2.7 Other Needed Definitions	38
3 Lead Trigger Level	40
3.1 General Comments	41
4 Corrosion Control Treatment	45
4.1 General Comments	46
Proposed Corrosion Control Treatment Optimization/Re-Optimization Requirements	46
Deemed Criteria for Corrosion Control Optimization or Re-Optimization	54
Corrosion Control Treatment-Related Comments on Proposed Requirement for Find-and-Fix Assessments at Tap Sample Sites Exceeding the Lead Action Level	56
Corrosion Control Treatment-Related Comments Pertaining to Systems Using the Small System Compliance Flexibility Options Under § 141.93	58
Corrosion Control Treatment-Related Comments Pertaining to State Review of Long-Term Treatment Changes or New Source Additions	59
Consecutive System Considerations	61
Other Provisions Applicable to Water Systems with Optimized and Re-Optimized Corrosion Control	63
4.2 Timeframes for CCT Optimization and Re-Optimization	64
4.3 Process for CCT Steps (Initial Optimization)	70
Initial Optimization Requirements Based on Lead 90th Percentile and Corrosion Control Treatment Status	70
Proposed Initial Optimization Steps and Requirements	75
4.4 Process for CCT Steps (Re-Optimization)	78
Re-Optimization Requirements Based on Lead 90[th] Percentile and Corrosion Control Treatment Status	78
Proposed State Decision Provisions for Requiring Studies to Identify Re-Optimized Corrosion Control Treatment	90
4.5 Corrosion Control Treatment Studies	90
Proposed Corrosion Control Study Requirements	91
Requirement to Evaluate Orthophosphate Addition at Residual Concentrations of 1 and 3 mg/L	99
Proposed Requirements Related to Pipe Rig/Loop Testing and Coupon Studies	104
4.6 State Designation of OWQPs (Initial Optimization & Re-Optimization)	107
4.7 Corrosion Control Treatment Options	111
Corrosion Control Treatment Options Listed in the Proposed Rule	111
Proposed Removal of Calcium Carbonate Stabilization as a Corrosion Control Treatment Method	112
Other Corrosion Control Treatment Options Not Listed in the Proposed Rule	114
4.8 Daily Optimal Water Quality Parameter Calculation Requirements	115
4.9 CCT Study vs Re-Optimization	115
4.10 CCT Review During Sanitary Surveys	117
5 Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory	119
5.1 General Comments	120
5.2 Timeframe to Submit Initial Inventory/Update Inventory	124
Initial Inventory Deadline of Three Years After Rule Publication	124
Inventory Update Frequency	128
Deadline to Verify All Lead Status Unknown Service Lines	129
5.3 Inventory Scope	130
5.4 Inventory Information Sources	139
Burden Associated with Certain Methods	139
Which Service Line Material Investigation Methods and Techniques are Acceptable	140
5.5 Public Availability of Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory Information	144
Requirement for Water Systems to Make its Inventory Publicly Accessible	144
Requirement of Water Systems to Include a Location Identifier, but Not Specific Street Address, in the Publicly Accessible Inventory	146
5.6 Format of Inventory	150
General Format of Inventory	150
Making the Public Inventory Available Electronically	152
6 Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR)	155
6.1 General LSLR comments	156
6.2 LSLR Plan	160
General Comments on LSLR Plans	160
LSLR Plans for Small Water Systems	163
LSLR Prioritization in the LSLR plan	164
Pitcher Filter Tracking and Maintenance Plan	166
Other Comments Regarding LSLR Plans	166
6.3 Types of Service Lines that Apply to Goal/Mandatory LSLR Rates	168
Inclusion of Galvanized Pipe in LSLR Rates	168
Inclusion of Lead Status Unknown Service Lines in LSLR Rates	169
Inclusion of Customer-Owned Service Lines in LSLR Rates	170
Inclusion of Lead Goosenecks, Pigtails, And Connectors (Connectors) in LSLR Rates	171
6.4 Lead Connector Replacement When Encountered	171
6.5 Customer-Requested LSLR	173
6.6 Post-disturbance/Replacement Protocol	177
Customer Notification After LSLR and Other Disturbances	177
Requirement for Water Systems to Provide Pitcher Filters Post-LSLR and After Other Disturbances	179
Requirement for Water Systems to Conduct Tap Sampling Post-LSLR and Other Types of Disturbances	182
6.7 Goal-based LSLR after TLE	183
6.8 Mandatory LSLR and Rate	187
LSLR Rate	187
Agency Response to Comments about States Setting a Higher LSLR Rate	190
Mandatory, Proactive LSLR	191
Rolling Average LSLR Rate	191
LSLR Funding	192
Timing of LSLR Requirements	192
6.9 Partial LSLR	193
6.10 Issues of Private Property and Ownership/Control	194
6.11 Mechanism to Cease LSLR by Documenting Customer Refusals	197
7 Small System Flexibilities	199
7.1 General Comments	200
7.2 Comments Supporting Small System Flexibility	202
7.3 Comments Opposing Small System Flexibility	203
7.4 Comments on the Small System Size Threshold	206
7.5 Corrosion Control Treatment	210
Systems Currently Operating Corrosion Control Treatments	210
Corrosion Control Treatment and Lead Service Line Replacement	211
7.6 Lead Service Line Replacement	212
7.7 Point-of-Use Devices	214
General Support for POU Device Compliance Option	214
General Opposition to POU Device Compliance Option	215
Request for Clarifications	217
Oversight, Implementation, and Maintenance Burden	218
7.8 Replacement of Lead-Bearing Plumbing	219
7.9 Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity	221
7.10 Timing and Implementation	222
Recommendations for Timing of Small System Flexibility Requirements	222
Requested Implementation Clarifications	223
8 Public Education Requirements	226
8.1 Public Notification and Public Education Development, Timing, and Delivery	226
Mandatory Lead Health Effects Language and Risk Communication	227
Burden of Public Education and Public Notification Material Development	228
Delivery and Timing	229
Requests for Additional Requirements	231
8.2 Public Notification Tier 1 Requirements	231
Appropriateness of a Tier 1 Public Notice Designation	232
Scope, Timing, and Delivery of Tier 1 Public Notifications	233
8.3 Public Education about Lead, Galvanized Requiring Replacement, and Lead Status Unknown Service Lines	235
Scope of Requirements	235
8.4 Notification of Individual Tap Sample > 15 ug/L	238
Scope, Timing, and Delivery of Notifications	238
Requests for Additional Guidance	240
8.5 Outreach to Local and State Health Agencies	241
8.6 Outreach Requirements for Failing to Meet Goal Rate for Lead Service Line Removal	243
8.7 Consumer Confidence Report Requirements	246
Mandatory Health Effects Language	246
Informational Statement about Lead in Drinking Water	247
Tap Sampling Results	248
Information about LSLs	249
CCR Templates	250
CCR Effectiveness	251
9 Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper	252
9.1 General Comments	253
9.2 Sampling Sites (Tiering)	258
9.2 First vs. Fifth Liter Option	261
9.4 90[th] Percentile Calculation	266
9.5 Frequency and Number of Samples	270
9.6 Sequential Sampling	273
9.7 Setting a Minimum Tap Sampling Frequency Following Addition of a New Source Water or a Long-term Treatment Change	274
9.8 Sampling Protocol and Methods	275
9.9 Customer-Requested Samples	279
10 Water Quality Parameter (WQP) Monitoring	280
10.1 General Comments	280
10.2 Monitoring Requirements for Systems w/CCT Above Trigger Level, but At or Below Action Level	282
10.3 Additional Corrosion Control Parameters in Addition to Those Listed in the Proposed Rule - Sulfate, Chloride, Oxidation/Reduction Potential	282
10.4 Monitoring frequency at Entry Points	285
11 Source Water Monitoring	286
11.1 Need for Evaluation Prior to Source Water and Treatment Changes	286
11.2 Waivers for Source Water Monitoring	288
11.3 New Sources and Guidance on the State Review, Approval and Requirements Following Addition of New Sources and Treatment Changes	289
11.4 Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Reporting of Results	290
12 Sampling for Lead in Schools and Child Care Facilities	292
12.1 Mandatory vs. On Request Sampling of Schools and Child Care Facilities	292
Proposed Mandatory and Alternative On Request Options for Sampling	293
Support for a Voluntary Sampling Option	296
Removal of Sampling Requirements from Final Rule	297
12.2 Scope of Monitoring Requirements and Sampling Protocol	298
Number of Samples and Frequency of Sampling	299
Sampling Protocol	301
Exemptions to Sampling and Applicability of Requirements	303
12.3 Role of Community Water Systems	305
Responsibilities of CWSs under §141.92	305
Requirement to Compile List of Schools and Child Care Facilities	308
Outreach to Schools and Child Care Facilities and Documenting Refusals	309
Additional Suggested Requirements for §141.92	311
12.4 Role of Other Agencies and Organizations	313
Responsibility of Other Entities for Select Requirements of §141.92	313
Alternative Regulatory Approaches for Lead Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities	314
Collaboration with Federal Agencies and Non-government Organizations	315
12.5 Lack of Threshold for Remediation	316
12.6 Resources for Remediation of Lead in Schools	319
Requirement for Water Systems to Provide Remediation Information to Schools and Child Care Facilities	319
Potential Resource Limitations	320
12.7 Results of School and Child Care Sampling	321
12.8 Waivers for Alternative Sampling Programs	323
13 Find-and-Fix	326
13.1 General Comments	327
13.2 Recommended Alternatives to Find-and-Fix	329
13.3 Tap Sampling Site Assessment	332
13.4 Recommendations for CCT and Distribution System Fixes	334
13.5 Water System and Homeowner Responsibilities	335
13.6 Schedule for Fix	336
14 System Reporting to Primacy Agency	337
14.1 General Comments	337
14.2 Report Tap Sampling and WQP Monitoring	340
14.3 Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory and Lead Service Line replacement (LSLR)	341
14.4 Reporting Tap Sampling and Trigger Level Exceedance (TLE) Notification	344
14.5 School and Child Care Sampling and Public Education (PE) Reporting	344
14.6 Find-and-Fix Reporting	348
14.7 Burden of Reporting Requirements	349
15 State Implementation and Enforcement	352
15.1 State Implementation and Enforcement	352
15.2 General and Special Primacy Requirements	355
15.3 State Recordkeeping Requirements	359
15.4 State Reporting Requirements	360
16 Economic Analysis	361
16.1 General Comments	361
16.2 Baseline Universe of Systems: Major Data Sources and Affected Entities	362
Number of Systems with LSLs	363
Trigger Level and Action Level Exceedance Data	363
Rule Complexity and Economic Analysis	365
Data Limitations and Uncertainty	365
Corrosion Control Treatment	366
16.3 Cost Analysis	367
Need to Re-evaluate the Cost Analysis	367
Timeframe for Implementing the Rule	369
Small Systems	369
16.3.1 SafeWater LCR National Cost Model	370
16.3.2 National Sampling Cost	372
<IP_ADDRESS> Lead Tap Sample Monitoring	373
Sampling Plans	373
Tap Sampling Costs	373
Recruiting Customers to Collect Samples	374
<IP_ADDRESS> School Sampling	374
Costs to Water Systems	375
Waivers	376
Number of Schools and Child Cares	377
Number of Samples	379
Burden Estimates Used in Cost Model	379
Costs to Schools and Child Cares	380
16.3.3 Corrosion Control Treatment Cost	381
Find-and-Fix	381
CCT Installation and Operation and Maintenance Costs	383
Changes in Source Water or Treatment Technology	384
16.3.4 LSL Inventory and Replacement Cost	384
LSL Inventory	385
Estimated Number of LSL Replacements	387
LSLR Cost Estimate	389
Pitcher Filter Costs	391
Need for Clarity Regarding LSL Replacement Rates	392
16.3.5 PWS Implementation and Administration Costs	393
16.3.6 Primacy Agency Cost	395
ASDWA CoSTS Model for Estimating Primacy Agency Workload	395
Data Management	397
State Analytical Services	398
OCCT Tracking and Recommendation Reviews	398
State Staffing Needs and Resources	399
16.3.7 Ecological Impacts and Cost of Added Phosphate	400
16.3.8 National Cost Estimates	403
16.4 Benefits Analysis	403
16.4.1 Drinking Water Lead Exposures: Concentration Data and Modeling	404
Water Lead Level (WLL) Estimation Method	404
Suitability of SHEDS-IEUBK and WLL Dataset	406
WLL Dataset Sample Size Differences	407
WLL Dataset Selection, Cleaning, and Model Performance	410
Data Availability for Non-LSL Locations	411
Post-Flint Voluntary State Actions and WLL Dataset Limitations	412
90th Percentile in WLL Estimation	414
16.4.2 Assignment of Lead Concentrations to Populations in Baseline and Tracking Concentration Changes in SafeWater	414
Sampling Tier Design for Geographic Diversity and Lead Concentrations at Non-LSL Locations	414
Benefit Timing for LSLR and CCT Optimization	416
16.4.3 Estimation of Blood Lead Level (BLL) Changes in Children	418
Selection of Water Lead Concentrations for BLL Modeling	418
Biological Variability	419
Blood Lead Distribution	420
16.4.4 WLL Reductions through Avoided IQ Point Loss	420
16.4.5 Valuation of IQ Point Loss	426
16.4.6 SafeWater Calculation of Benefits and Monetized Results	428
16.4.7 Unquantified Adult Cardiovascular Disease Benefits	431
16.4.8 Uncertainty in Benefits Estimates	433
16.4.9 Benefits: Other	435
Thoroughness of the Benefits Analysis	435
Need for WTP Survey or Literature Search Related to Drinking Water Safety	436
16.4.10 Application of Discount Rates to Benefits Analysis	439
16.5 Comparison of Costs and Benefits	440
16.6 Estimated Cost and Benefit for Alternative Options	443
Incremental Costs	443
Compliance Monitoring	444
Rule Options Considered	444
17 Regulatory Process	450
17.1 Request for Comment Period Extension	450
17.2 Funding, Guidance, and Regulatory Procedural Comments	451
17.3 EPA Stakeholder Engagement	454
18 Statutory and Administrative Requirements	456
18.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review	456
18.2 Paperwork Reduction Act	457
18.3 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act	459
18.4 Executive Order 13132: Federalism	460
18.5 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks	461
18.6 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act	462
18.7 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations	462
19 Other Recommended Rule Changes	465
19.1 Revising the Lead Action Level (AL)	465
19.2 Setting a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)	469

List of Acronyms
ug/L
Micrograms per liter
ACS
American Community Survey
AL
Action level
ALE
Action level exceedance
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
ASDWA
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
AWIA
America's Water Infrastructure Act
AWWA
American Water Works Association
BLL
Blood lead level
BMD
Benchmark dose
BMDL
Benchmark dose lower bound
BMR
Benchmark response
BPb
Blood lead level
CCR
Consumer Confidence Report
CCT
Corrosion control treatment
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CHAD
Consolidated Human Activity Database
CI
Confidence interval
CVD
Cardiovascular disease
CWS
Community water system
CWSS
Community Water System Survey
DEIs
Data entry instructions
DWSRF
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EA
Economic analysis
ECOS
Environmental Council of States
EDF
Environmental Defense Fund
EP
Entry point
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPDS
Entry point to the distribution system
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
FR
Federal Register
FRN
Federal Register Notice
FTE
Full-time equivalent
GAO
Government Accountability Office
GDP
Gross domestic product
GSD
Geometric standard deviation
GWR
Ground Water Rule
HBBF
Healthy Babies Bright Futures
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
HRRCA
Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis
HUD
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICP-MS
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
ICR
Information collection request
IQ
Intelligence quotient
ISA
Integrated Science Assessment for Lead
IT
Information technology
LCCA
Lead Contamination Control Act
LCR
Lead and Copper Rule
LCRR
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
LEA
Local educational agency
LIS
Lead Information Survey
LME
Linear mixed-effect models
LSL
Lead service line
LSLR
Lead service line replacement
MCL
Maximum contaminant level
MCLG
Maximum contaminant level goal
mg/L
Milligrams per liter
MOU
Memorandum of understanding
MRDL
Maximum disinfectant residual level
NCES
National Center for Education Statistics
NDEP
Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
NDWAC
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NHEXAS
National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDWR
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NRDC
Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF
NSF International
NTNCWS
Non-transient non-community water system
OCCT
Optimal corrosion control treatment
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
O&M
Operations and maintenance
OWQP
Optimal water quality parameter
PBPK
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic
PE
Public education
PFAS
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
PN
Public notice
POE
Point-of-entry
POU
Point-of-use
ppb
Parts per billion
PRA
Paperwork Reduction Act
PWS
Public water system
PWSS
Public Water System Supervision
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA
Regulatory impact assessment
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS
Safe Drinking Water Information System
SOP
Standard operating procedure
TL
Trigger level
TLE
Trigger level exceedance
TMF
Technical, managerial, and financial
TTAL
Treatment technique action level
UK
United Kingdom
UMRA
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USEPA
Unites States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VDH
Virginia Department of Health
WBS
Work breakdown structure
WIFIA
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
WIIN
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
WISC
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
WLL
Water lead level
WPPSI
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence
WQP
Water quality parameter
WTP
Willingness to pay
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant

Introduction and Overview
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulatory revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The proposed regulation, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions" was published on November 13, 2019 (84 FR 61684). The purpose of the proposed rule also referred to as the proposed LCRR was to provide more effective protection of public health by reducing exposure to lead and copper in drinking water. It also strengthened procedures and requirements related to health protection and the implementation of the previous Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: lead tap sampling; corrosion control treatment; lead service line replacement; consumer awareness; and public education. In addition, this proposal included new requirements for community water systems to conduct lead in drinking water testing and public education in schools and child care facilities.
Following publication of the proposed LCRR, EPA accepted public comments for 90 days. EPA received comments from over 79,000 individuals and organizations representing a wide range of stakeholders, including public water systems, states, tribes, other organizations, and private citizens. Each unique comment was read and considered in determining the final rule requirements. A record of the comments received on the proposal, as well as EPA's responses to these comments are provided in this document. Copies of unique individual comments are also available as part of the public record and can be accessed through EPA's docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300 at www.regulations.gov). In addition, the materials referenced in this document are also available in the docket.
In addition to public comment, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) provided recommendations for the LCRR in a report issued June 12, 2020 (USEPA 2020c). The SAB and SAB Drinking Water Committee met by teleconference on March 30, 2020 and elected to review the scientific and technical basis of the proposed rule titled National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (Proposed Rule). A work group held SAB deliberations on this topic at a public teleconference held on May 11, 2020. The SAB's advice and comments on the Proposed Rule were considered by EPA and the Agency's response is reflected in this document.
EPA's Categorization of Public Comments and Document Organization
EPA developed a list of numbered Comment Codes, organized by 19 main topics that were addressed by commenters. EPA further divided each main topic into more specific subtopics. The list of comments codes is provided in Exhibit 1.
To give each public submission a unique identifier, and to organize them in the docket for the rule, EPA assigned a unique Letter ID to each submission. The letter ID is the last four digits of the document ID, assigned by the docket when the letter is received. Each public submission was read by EPA and, where appropriate, was subdivided into distinct issue areas, based on topical breaks within the submission. EPA grouped these comment sections (hereinafter referred to as "comments") and assigned each comment a unique "EPA Comment ID" Comments that were similar in topic were then grouped together into a corresponding EPA Comment Code.

Exhibit 1: EPA Comment Codes
Topic
Topic Name
1
General Matters
1.1
General Comments
1.2
Scope of Rule and Applicability
1.3
Complexity of Rule
1.4
How State and Federal Government Can Improve Assistance to PWSs Implementing the Rule
1.5
Other
2
Definitions
2.1
General Comments
2.2
Lead Service Line (LSL) Definition
2.3
Definition of Customer/Consumer/Owners of LSL/Residents
2.4
New Definitions Added
2.5
Other Existing Definitions Revised in Proposal
2.6
Definitions of Child Care Facility and Schools to be Covered Under Testing
2.7
Other Needed Definitions
3
Lead Trigger Level
3.1
General Comments
4
Corrosion Control Treatment
4.1
General Comments
4.2
Comments on Timeframes for CCT Optimization and Re-Optimization
4.3
Comments on Process for CCT Steps (Initial Optimization)
4.4
Comments on Process for CCT Steps (Re-Optimization)
4.5
Comments on Corrosion Control Treatment Studies
4.6
Comments on State Designation of OWQPs (Initial Optimization & Re-Optimization)
4.7
Comments on Corrosion Control Treatment Options
4.8
Comments on Daily Optimal Water Quality Parameter Calculation Requirements
4.9
Comments on CCT Study vs Re-Optimization
4.10
Comments on CCT Review During Sanitary Surveys
5
Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory
5.1
General Comments
5.2
Timeframe to Submit Initial Inventory/Update Inventory
5.3
Inventory Scope
5.4
Inventory Information Sources
5.5
Public Availability of Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory Information
5.6
Format of Inventory
6
Lead Service Line Replacement
6.1
General LSLR Comments
6.2
LSLR Plan
6.3
Types of Service Lines that Apply to Goal/Mandatory LSLR Rates
6.4
Lead Connector Replacement When Encountered
6.5
Customer-Requested LSLR
6.6
Post-disturbance/Replacement Protocol
6.7
Goal-based LSLR after TLE
6.8
Mandatory LSLR and Rate
6.9
Partial LSLR
6.10
Issues of Private Property and Ownership/Control
6.11
Customer Refusals and Mechanisms to Cease LSLR After Documenting Refusals
7
Small System Flexibility Comment Summaries and Agency Response
7.1
General Comments
7.2
Comments Supporting Small System Flexibility
7.3
Comments Opposing Small System Flexibility
7.4
Comments on the Small System Size Threshold
7.5
Corrosion Control Treatment
7.6
Lead Service Line Replacement
7.7
Point-of-Use Devices
7.8
Replacement of Lead-Bearing Plumbing
7.9
Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity
7.10
Timing and Implementation
8
Public Education Requirements
8.1
Public Notification and Public Education Development, Timing, and Delivery
8.2
Public Notification Tier 1 Requirements
8.3
Public Education about Lead, Galvanized Requiring Replacement, and Lead Status Unknown Service Lines
8.4
Notification of Individual Tap Sample > 15 ug/L
8.5
Outreach to Local and State Health Agencies
8.6
Outreach Requirements for Failing to Meet Goal Rate for Lead Service Line Removal
8.7
Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
9
Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper
9.1
General Comments
9.2
Sampling Sites (Tiering)
9.3
First vs. Fifth Liter Option
9.4
90[th] Percentile Calculation
9.5
Frequency and Number of Samples
9.6
Sequential Sampling
9.7
Setting a Minimum Tap Sampling Frequency Following Addition of a New Source Water or a Long-term Treatment Change
9.8
Sampling Protocol and Methods
9.9
Customer-Requested Samples
10
Water Quality Parameter (WQP) Monitoring
10.1
General Comments
10.2
Monitoring Requirements for Systems w/CCT Above Trigger Level, but at or Below Action Level
10.3
Additional Corrosion Control Parameters In Addition to Those Listed in the Proposed Rule - Sulfate, Chloride, Oxidation/Reduction Potential
10.4
Monitoring Frequency at Entry Points
11
Source Water Monitoring
11.1
Need for Evaluation Prior to Source Water and Treatment Changes
11.2
Waivers for Source Water Monitoring
11.3
New Sources and Guidance on the State Review, Approval and Requirements Following Addition of New Sources and Treatment Changes
11.4
Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Reporting of Results
12
Sampling for Lead in Schools and Child Care Facilities
12.1
Mandatory vs. On Request Sampling of Schools and Child Care Facilities
12.2
Scope of Monitoring Requirements and Sampling Protocol
12.3
Role of Community Water Systems
12.4
Role of Other Agencies and Organizations
12.5
Lack of Threshold for Remediation
12.6
Resources for Remediation of Lead in Schools
12.7
Results of School and Child Care Sampling
12.8
Waivers for Alternative Sampling Programs
13
Find-and-Fix
13.1
General Comments
13.2
Recommended Alternatives to Find-and-Fix
13.3
Tap Sampling Site Assessment
13.4
Recommendations for CCT and Distribution System Fixes
13.5
Water System and Homeowner Responsibilities
13.6
Schedule for Fix
14
System Reporting to Primacy Agency
14.1
General Comments
14.2
Report Tap Sampling and WQP Monitoring
14.3
Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory and Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR)
14.4
Reporting Tap Sampling and Trigger Level Exceedance Notification
14.5
School and Child Care Sampling and Public education (PE) Reporting
14.6
Find-and-Fix Reporting
14.7
Burden of Reporting Requirements
15
State Implementation and Enforcement
15.1
General Comments about State Implementation and Enforcement
15.2
General and Special Primacy Requirements
15.3
State Recordkeeping Requirements
15.4
State Reporting Requirements
16
Economic Analysis
16.1
General Comments
16.2
Baseline Universe of Systems: Major Data Sources and Affected Entities
16.3
Cost Analysis
16.3.1
Safe Water LCR National Cost Model
16.3.2
National Sampling Cost
<IP_ADDRESS>
Lead Tap Sample Monitoring
<IP_ADDRESS>
School Sampling
16.3.3
Corrosion Control Treatment Cost
16.3.4
LSL Inventory and Replacement Cost
16.3.5
PWS Implementation and Administrative Costs
16.3.6
Primacy Agency Cost
16.3.7
Ecological Impacts and Cost of Added Phosphate
16.3.8
National Cost Estimates
16.4
Benefits Analysis
16.4.1
Drinking Water Lead Exposures: Concentration Data and Modeling
16.4.2
Assignment of Lead Concentrations to Populations in Baseline and Tracking Concentration Changes in SafeWater
16.4.3
Estimation of Blood Lead Level (BLL) Changes in Children
16.4.4
WLL Reductions through Avoided IQ Point Loss
16.4.5
Valuation of IQ point loss
16.4.6
SafeWater Calculation of Benefits and Monetized Results
16.4.7
Unquantified Adult Cardiovascular Disease Benefits
16.4.8
Uncertainty in Benefits Estimates
16.4.9
Benefits: Other
16.4.10
Application of Discount Rates to Benefits Analysis
16.5
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
16.6
Estimated Cost and Benefit for Alternative Options
17
Regulatory Process
17.1
Request for Comment Period Extension
17.2
Funding, Guidance, and Regulatory Procedural Comments
17.3
EPA Stakeholder Engagement
18
Statutory and Administrative Requirements
18.1
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
18.2
Paperwork Reduction Act
18.3
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
18.4
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
18.5
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
18.6
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
18.7
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
19
Other Recommended Rule Changes
19.1
Revising the Lead Action Level (AL)
19.2
Setting a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

Document Organization and Cross Referencing of Responses
The remainder of this document is organized by the 19 topic codes. For example, the first section 1.0, "General Matters," includes an introductory paragraph, followed by five subsections 1.1 through 1.5. Within each subsection, EPA has included a "Summary of Comments," followed by "Agency Response" that addresses each of the comments raised in the summary of comments. In some instances a subsection may include multiple summaries and Agency responses. In addition, a reference section is provided at the end of each main section, where applicable.
In some cases, comments that addressed several distinct issues within a sentence or a paragraph could not practically be divided into individual Comment IDs. For these comments, EPA placed the comment section where it was judged to be the best fit and has cross referenced responses in other sections to provide clarity, avoid redundancy, and ensure consistency.
1 General Matters
In the proposed rule, EPA requested comments on general matters pertaining to the proposed Lead and Copper Rule revisions (LCRR), the appropriate scope and content of the rule, complexity, and implementation challenges, specifically:
"The EPA is requesting comment on the overall framework for the proposed LCR revisions. Has the EPA developed proposed revisions that address the variability in conditions among the regulated water systems that effect the levels of lead that may be present in drinking water? Do the proposed revisions to the LCR target the appropriate treatment technique actions to prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects to the extent feasible in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)?
The EPA requests comment on the complexity of the regulatory requirements that result from targeting different actions for different types of water systems and challenges States and water systems will encounter. The EPA requests comment on ways that the proposed LCR revisions could be simplified and burden, including paperwork burden, could be reduced while still assuring adverse health effects are prevented to the extent feasible.
The EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve the ability of State or Federal government to enforce this rule. The EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve the ability of State or Federal government to assist water systems with compliance."
EPA received comments on overarching issues, scope of rule and applicability, complexity of the rule, and how state and federal governments can improve assistance.
1.1 General Comments
Summary of Comments
EPA received numerous general comments pertaining to the LCRR. Most of the comments reiterated the importance of removing lead from drinking water. The public was especially concerned about lead's harmful impact on children since there is no safe level of lead. Many commenters acknowledged the difficulty of revising a regulation as complex as the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and commended EPA's efforts. For example, one comment stated, "Balancing regulatory flexibility and ease of implementation is always challenging in EPA's regulatory development process." The positive comments overall believed EPA was taking a step in the right direction but recognized more revisions would be needed in the future.
While EPA did receive positive comments about the LCRR, there were several dissenting comments. Some dissenting comments raised concern about the complexity of the rule and whether it is based on unrealistic expectations regarding state and local government and public water systems (PWSs). For example, one commenter stated, "...the rule as written may be problematic to implement..." Other commenters were concerned the LCRR does not do enough to protect drinking water or address the stated failures of the previous LCR. For example, a comment that was submitted stated, "As the proposal stands, it is inadequate to provide a safe reliable source of primary water" and another commenter stated "The current LCR has long-standing problems, including permitting problematic testing methods that do not accurately reflect lead exposure, and opportunities for states to avoid the actions needed to truly protect children" and added "proposed revisions do not fix these underlying issues, and will not address the national public health crisis of lead in our drinking water delivery system swiftly enough." In addition, one commenter stated "...it does not go far enough to reduce lead in drinking water. The revision fails to proactively replace system-wide lead service lines."
There were several comments regarding rule flexibilities in the proposed LCRR. Overall, the commenters encouraged flexibility to address potential local and regional needs. However, the commenters cautioned EPA against providing too much flexibility since it could create potential loopholes which would undermine rule provisions. For example, one commenter stated "...too much flexibility can create confusion, inconsistency and unintended "loopholes" and may mean that critical issues for protecting public health might not get recognized and resolved."
Agency Response
EPA agrees with commenters regarding the importance of reducing lead in drinking water. EPA acknowledges that the final rule introduces several new provisions which states, and water systems will need to learn and implement, but the Agency does not believe the rule as a whole is too complex or burdensome to implement. EPA understands that rule guidance is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide training and other supporting materials that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency.
The proposed rule structure, which has been retained for the final rule, was based on recommendations from the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) that were provided to EPA during the Federalism consultation that took place in January 2018. This structure, which compels more actions by water systems to reduce lead in drinking water prior to exceeding the lead action level, addresses commenter concerns that the previous rule is not prevention oriented. For more detailed responses addressing individual rule provisions, see the corresponding comment response sections.
EPA agrees with commenters who acknowledged the balance between offering rule flexibilities to account for local or regional needs, as well as the potential for flexibilities to create additional burden and loopholes. EPA has designed the final rule to offer targeted flexibilities in key rule areas (such as flexibilities for small systems) and has avoided introducing new flexibilities where they are not necessary.
EPA disagrees that the proposed rule would undermine confidence in drinking water. The proposed rule includes improved transparency, public education, and public notification provisions regarding lead in drinking water. EPA finds that the proposed rule would strengthen confidence in drinking water, while a rule that deemphasizes transparency and public education would decrease confidence. The final rule retains these provisions.
In response to a comment about impacts of lead exposure falling disproportionally on vulnerable populations, please see response to comment Sections 6 and 18.
In response to the comment noting that the proposal did not require proactive removal of all lead service lines (LSLs), please see response to comment Section 6.
In response to comments about testing methods, see response to comment Section 9.
In response to comments about high lead levels in individual taps, please see response to comment Section 13.
In response to a comment suggesting the rule should include a health-based value for lead in drinking water, please see response to comment Section 19.
1.2 Scope of Rule and Applicability
Summary of Comments
EPA received multiple comments concerning the scope of the LCRR and its applicability.
Many comments frequently highlighted Flint, Michigan as an example of the pitfalls of failing to protect drinking water. The comments inferred that EPA should use Flint as a case study to develop the LCRR. For example, one commenter stated, "rather than learning the lessons of Flint and respecting the science of lead's neurotoxicity, the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) are a missed opportunity to protect the public's health and to rebuild trust in our nation's drinking water."
Overall, the comments show a lack of support for how copper is addressed in the LCRR. The comments about copper were mostly negative albeit for various reasons. Some commenters claimed the LCRR should not treat copper in the same way as lead. For example, "EPA should consider every possible way to diverge pathways to address copper issues more simply as compared to lead issues." Some commenters believed copper exceedances can be remedied through individual treatments like flushing, rather than installing permanent corrosion control treatment. Commenters suggested eliminating the stringent copper rules to reduce compliance costs without encroaching on public health. Other commenters believed the LCRR does not sufficiently address copper corrosion. For example, one commenter states "copper corrosion is a problem in many water systems but the LCR treats copper as an orphaned child." The commenter believes EPA should use the LCRR as an opportunity to improve the copper corrosion issues and educate the public about copper. One commenter suggested that EPA introduce public notification requirements when high copper levels are detected. Regardless of the viewpoints, overall, the commenters agreed LCRR did not adequately address the copper issues.
Additionally, one commenter recommended EPA take a holistic regulatory approach while developing the LCRR. The commenter stated the addition of phosphate-based corrosion control treatment (CCT) could impact other EPA regulations such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), potentially causing discharge limits violations or forcing additional investment to install a nutrient removal treatment system.
Agency Response
EPA notes that the final rule improves public health protection relative to the previous rule, as described in the economic analysis and elsewhere in the record. The final rule also increases transparency, strengthens public notification and public education requirements, and introduces provisions that require water systems to inventory service line materials. More stringent tap sampling procedures and inclusion of lead service line replacement (LSLR) requirements prior to exceeding the lead action level also contribute to improvements of the final rule relative to the previous rule. In addition, in §141.82(g) of the final rule, EPA has clarified that the requirement to continue CCT applies to consecutive systems such as Flint that receive water that has been treated to control corrosion.
Regarding comments about copper, EPA finds that because the source of lead and copper in drinking water are generally the same (i.e., corrosion from fixtures or pipes containing the metal), and because the treatment technology for elevated copper levels is also the primary treatment for lead (i.e., reducing corrosion in the distribution system), it is logical to group these two contaminants into a single rule. Additionally, both lead and copper require sampling at taps, rather than at the entry point of the distribution system.
While EPA's focus in the LCRR was lead, and the Agency did not propose revisions to address copper, the rule revisions will also reduce copper levels when systems optimize or re-optimize CCTs such as pH and alkalinity adjustment and orthophosphate inhibitors because they are effective mechanisms for controlling copper corrosion as well. The re-optimization of existing corrosion control for systems above the lead trigger level of 10 ug/L will likely reduce copper levels as well due to the improved corrosion control. Additionally, the find-and-fix requirements related to lead will reveal potential distribution system issues as systems are required to take water quality parameter samples at a location on the same size main in the same pressure zone located within one half-mile of the sampling site where lead exceeds 15 ug/L. Solutions to elevated lead levels can include changes to the CCT or changes in distribution system practices, such as flushing to reduce water age or nitrification, which in turn may reduce copper levels. The rule also allows states to add other water quality parameters for monitoring that it deems necessary for corrosion control.
The final rule retains the notification requirements under the previous rule for copper action level exceedances (ALEs). The 24-hour public notification for lead is based on a statutory requirement (see Section 1414(c)(2)(C) of the SDWA), applicable to exceedances of the lead action level only, not the copper action level. It is discussed in the preamble of the final rule. EPA disagrees that the 24-hour deadline should apply for copper because exceedance of the copper action level is not a violation of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) or a lead ALE and therefore should not be treated as a Tier 1 and not subject to SDWA Section 1414(c)(2)(C). EPA intends to consider revisions for copper in the future after evaluating the effectiveness of the tools in the implementation of the revisions for lead.
One commenter suggested that the final rule should take an overarching approach that, for example, considers orthophosphate CCT's potential downstream NPDES impacts. The statutory framework for promulgation of an NPDWR requires a treatment technique rule to prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible" (emphasis added); EPA cannot promulgate a rule that is less stringent than required by SDWA to address surface water impacts. Additionally, because the LCR is such a multifaceted regulation, and because water systems differ so greatly in size, prevalence of LSLs, and other factors, EPA finds that variances to the entire rule or a rule component provide the most appropriate response to local or individual concerns as needed. A provision written into a national rule would fail to consider water systems on a case-by-case basis and could potentially create loopholes.
For response to comments about copper monitoring, please see the response to comment Section 9.
In response to comment about certification of lead fixtures as "lead free," EPA notes that the LCR does not include any such provisions. Please find more information at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water.
1.3 Complexity of Rule
Summary of Comments
EPA received many comments regarding the complexity of the proposed rule. Overall, commenters stated that the proposed rule is more complex than the previous rule and that the new requirements (e.g., trigger level, LSL inventory, school and child care lead sampling, public education and reporting requirements) introduce "confusion and uncertainty within the regulated community and unnecessary concern and anxiety for consumers." Commenters suggested that EPA simplify requirements and reconcile apparent inconsistencies between the rule preamble and regulation text, adopt clear definitions, and make editorial changes to reduce ambiguity and potential confusion. Some commenters also suggested simplifying CCT steps, removing the trigger level and lowering the action level for lead, setting a timeframe for removal of LSLs, simplifying LSL inventory requirements, and clarifying tap sampling requirements as ways to reduce rule complexity. One commenter noted that the final rule should clearly define responsibilities of water systems and customers. A few commenters also expressed concern that the lack of a health-based level for lead will lead to challenges in communicating water system actions and exceedance of the trigger level and action level to the public.
Some commenters further stated that the proposed rule is a "one size fits all approach" and argued that EPA has not considered local and regional variability across water systems. One commenter suggested that each local community is "unique in its operations and character" and that the "federal government should not `promulgate uniform regulations'" for local communities. A few commenters noted that the tap monitoring requirements do not address communities with seasonal water use and should allow a confirmatory sampling process, while another stated that first liter sampling does not capture peak lead levels in homes with LSLs. Conversely, other commenters expressed that multiple pathways to comply with the rule based on system size, type, monitoring results, and threshold exceedances would make compliance and implementation difficult. Another commenter argued that EPA lacks appropriate data resulting in a rule with multiple tiers and trigger levels to capture "every violation scenario." They stated that increased complexity contributes to "the unreliability of the reported lead levels and widespread violations", with another commenter questioning if the additional requirements were needed to reduce lead risks. Likewise, a few commenters argue that additional complexity will lead to more widespread violations that are procedural in nature and not due to lead contamination. One commenter suggested that the rule should focus on "big picture" items and reduce paperwork and reporting burdens that are "not important for public health."
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule requires an increased level of interaction between states and water systems leading to increased regulatory burden. A few commenters also stated that increased interactions between states and water systems may create conflict. Commenters noted concerns regarding a potential increase in administrative and financial costs and stated that water systems and states lack the necessary staff expertise and/or finances to meet the proposed requirements, and that training and assistance responsibility will likely fall to states. A few commenters also noted concerns regarding the complexity of data management and the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) and that some states may not seek primacy due to burden and lack of resources. Conversely, one commenter suggested that states be responsible for some of the new rule requirements such as school and child care sampling and public education. Finally, other commenters expressed concern that oversight requirements by primacy agencies and EPA creates the possibility that water systems, "despite significant efforts at complying with the rule's substance and intent, would be subject to the caprices of state or Regional EPA administrators," particularly regarding CCT and the LSL inventory.
Agency Response
EPA acknowledges that the LCR is a complicated rule. This is primarily due to the need to control the corrosivity of drinking water as it travels through water system distribution systems to consumer's tap, coupled with the variability in water chemistry and distribution system materials, as well as other treatment processes used by the system to comply with other NPDWRs. Furthermore, additional actions by both water systems and consumers are needed to reduce lead levels due to the ubiquity of lead in aging drinking water infrastructure and premise plumbing. This includes actions such as LSLR and taking steps to reduce lead exposure through public education and water system engagement. However, EPA disagrees that the new rule requirements will introduce confusion and uncertainty for water systems. The Agency acknowledges inconsistencies between the rule text and preamble in the November 2019 Federal Register Notice (FRN) and has made revisions to clarify the requirements for many aspects of the rule (USEPA, 2019a). EPA will work with primacy agencies and water systems to assure they understand different actions that must be taken when water systems exceed the trigger level or action level . EPA also notes suggestions to simplify various aspects of the rule. Please see the response to comments sections for definitions (Section 2), CCT (Section 4), LSL inventory (Section 5), LSLR (Section 6), and lead tap monitoring (Section 9) and other relevant sections for details. In response to concerns regarding water system responsibility, EPA notes that the final rule has been revised to clearly differentiate water system requirements from voluntary consumer actions. For response to comments on reducing complexity by lowering the lead action level in lieu of the trigger level and setting a health-based level for lead, see response to comment Section 19.
EPA disagrees that the revised rule will result in "unnecessary concern and anxiety" for water system consumers. Public awareness of lead in drinking water and the steps people can take to reduce lead exposure is an important component of the revised rule and is necessary to "prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible" (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). EPA anticipates that the added public education requirements in §141.85 will help to educate people about the sources and health risks of lead in drinking water and steps that both they and their water system can take to reduce exposure. For further details please see response to comment Section 8.
EPA further disagrees that the proposed rule is a "one size fits all approach." The proposed rule requires different actions to reduce lead and copper based on characteristics such as system size, system type (e.g., community water systems (CWSs), non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs)), LSL status, and lead and copper levels (see Section III.A of the FRN; USEPA, 2020a). Some provisions such as LSL inventory in §141.84(a) and many of the public education requirements in §141.85 apply to all systems to increase public awareness of lead sources and risks. However, EPA has included flexibilities in the rule based on system size and type including alternatives to CCT for small systems (serving 10,000 or fewer people) and all NTNCWSs. Please see response to comment Sections 5 (LSL inventory), 7 (small system flexibilities) and 8 (public education requirements) for further detail. EPA further notes that requirements are not uniform for all systems. For example, the LSL requirements in §141.84 are targeted to the systems with higher lead levels and address weaknesses in the previous rule to achieve full LSLR in the communities where they are needed most. EPA has also increased flexibility in the process for systems optimizing and re-optimizing CCT. EPA disagrees that it has not justified differing requirements for CCT based on system size. For discussion on the framework for CCT requirements see the response to comment Section 4.
EPA also disagrees that the complexity of the rule and addition of the trigger level for lead stem from lack of data. EPA established the trigger level to allow states to focus on water systems with elevated lead before an ALE occurs. By taking a progressive set of actions, such as reevaluating CCT, initiating goal-based LSLR, and more frequent tap sampling, the trigger level ensures that systems can rapidly respond if there is an ALE. EPA found that it is both feasible for systems to take the required actions when there is a trigger level exceedance (TLE), (the lead 90[th] percentile level is above 10 ug/L but at or below 15 ug/L) and that they prevent known or anticipated adverse effects to the health of persons. In addition, significant benefits accrue from these actions (see the Economic Analysis; USEPA, 2020b). EPA notes that requiring a progressive set of actions based upon lead levels at the tap are appropriate to assure reduced exposure to lead (see the response to comment Section 3). EPA disagrees that these requirements will lead to unreliable lead levels and violations. EPA has revised the tap sampling requirements in §141.86 to ensure that the tap sampling criteria gives priority to highest risk lead sites and that the sampling methodology captures the highest lead levels by requiring fifth liter sampling at sites served by LSLs (see the response to comment Section 9). EPA notes that a TLE does not constitute a violation, but instead ensures systems take progressive actions to reduce lead levels and prevent future ALEs. Failure to take required actions due to a lead TLE or ALE results in the water system being in violation of the treatment technique or monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA does not believe that reporting or notification requirements are "not important to public health." For example, failure to notify the public of an ALE or presence of an LSL prevents consumers from taking individual steps to reduce their risk of exposure to lead. Please see the response to comment Sections 8 and 14 for detailed discussions on public education and water system reporting requirements, respectively.
EPA agrees with commenters that the proposed rule will increase the level of interaction between states and water systems for some systems. For example, in the final rule a TLE requires systems to take actions (e.g., increased tap sampling, CCT steps, goal-based LSLR) that require state approval and oversight. By targeting actions when a system's lead levels are high, but not exceeding the action level, systems and states can engage in a more manageable and orderly process to reduce lead levels in drinking water so that they remain below the lead action level, and to prepare for actions that would be required in the event of an ALE (see also the response to comment Section 19). EPA has determined that the benefits justify the costs of the final rule.
EPA disagrees with some commenters who expressed concerns that water systems without LSLs will be required to fulfill "onerous" requirements. EPA notes that under the final rule in §141.84, water systems that demonstrate through their inventory that they have no LSLs, would not be required to update their inventory over time or conduct LSLR after a lead TLE or ALE. Water systems with no LSLs also have a potentially greater number of tap sampling sites that can be used in accordance with §141.86, reducing burden to find and retain customer participants. EPA notes that this is not an exhaustive list of ways the final rule requires less burden for non-LSL systems. Other rule provisions, such as CCT and find-and-fix, apply regardless of a system's LSL status because elevated lead levels can result from corrosivity of water and its interaction with other sources of lead in plumbing. For response to comments suggesting a requirement for states to conduct school and child care lead sampling in lieu of water systems please see response to comment Section 12.
EPA understands the concerns states and water systems may have about the changes to the LCR and finance and resource limitations. Please see the response to comment Section 17 for discussion of funding concerns. Furthermore, as noted above, EPA has maintained flexibilities for CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons that may face more significant resource challenges. The Agency determined the compliance flexibility options would be most appropriate for small water systems that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, as they are most frequently the systems that are struggling to maintain compliance with the previous LCR and/or do not have the technical, financial and managerial capacity to operate CCT in conjunction with other complex treatment technique requirements. Options such as selecting a lead reduction approach in the event of an ALE including CCT, LSLR, replacement of lead-bearing materials, and provision of point-of-use devices are offered in lieu of completing several requirements at the same time under the revised rule and will alleviate some of the financial concerns raised by commenters (see response to comment Section 7 for more details). Likewise, a process for issuing waivers for existing lead sampling programs in schools and child care facilities under §141.92(d) will reduce duplicative efforts (see the response to comment Section 12). EPA notes requests for guidance to provide additional clarity of rule requirements. EPA understands that rule guidance is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide training and other supporting materials that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency.
EPA disagrees that water systems will be held in non-compliance due to the "caprices" of the state or Regional EPA Administrator. State and EPA oversight assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce lead levels and protect public health. One commenter specifically noted concern over state discretion on early implementation of LSL inventory requirements. For response to comments on the LSL inventory see Section 5. EPA has not changed existing provisions in Subpart I that allow EPA, using the procedures specified in §142.19, to establish certain requirements for systems related to corrosion control and monitoring, in lieu of the State determinations which allow the Regional EPA administrator oversight of state implementation of NPDWRs under the SDWA. This includes the provision in §141.82(i) which allows the EPA administrator to review CCT determinations made by a state and issue a federal treatment determination under certain specified circumstances (e.g., if a state has failed to issue a treatment determination by the applicable deadline or the state has abused its discretion in a substantial number of cases or in cases affecting a substantial population). Please see the responses to comment Section 4 for discussion of state designation of water quality parameters under CCT optimization and re-optimization.
1.4 How State and Federal Government Can Improve Assistance to PWSs Implementing the Rule
Summary of Comments
EPA received many comments related to how the LCRR could be improved for PWSs. One of the frequent suggestions cited in comments was for EPA to adopt the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC) recommendations. Examples of the NDWAC's recommendation that were suggested for EPA to adopt included providing incentives to water systems and creating an informational website that could be accessed by the general public. For instance, one comment stated "The NDWAC discussed the value of incentives, but the proposal does not provide incentives to promote proactive action by systems." Another comment stated, "EPA should follow through on the NDWAC recommendation to develop a comprehensive and sound website to support effective risk communication."
A major concern that was echoed throughout the comments was the concept of shared responsibility. Commenters argued that EPA did not show a meaningful effort to support the collaboration between states and local governments, water systems and customers and that EPA's lack of support fails to help water systems be successful. For example, a commenter stated, "EPA did not describe any significant new efforts by the Agency or Safe Drinking Water Act primacy agencies, or other federal agencies to support the proposed framework, so that water systems subject to the rule would be empowered to be successful." Some suggestions given to help water systems meet the LCRR's requirements include revising the plumbing code, expanding training, and supporting rate commission filings.
Commenters addressed issues of scientific basis and transparency. Some commenters were concerned EPA did not rely on sound science while developing the LCRR. One comment stated "It is clear that EPA has ignored any research published on lead solubility in the past 15 years, even that conducted by its own scientists, in the preparation of these revisions to the LCR in the area of optimal chemistry and water quality parameters. EPA must use "`the best available peer-reviewed science and supporting studies' and so must revise the ENTIRE section on optimal corrosion control treatment..." Another commenter recommended that EPA look into ways to prevent data suppression and increase transparency.
Commenters were also concerned that the three-year timeframe is inadequate for water systems to fully comply with the LCRR's requirement. The comment states, "The three-year timeframe for water systems to come into full compliance with the final rule may not be feasible as proposed... Existing EPA guidance is inadequate and new guidance will not be developed with sufficient speed and informed stakeholder input with public notice and comment to allow timely utilization." It was argued the LCRR's complexity and lack of transparency would hinder water systems to accurately comply with the rule's requirements. Another suggestion given to improve compliance was that EPA should remove the provision that allows water systems to phase out of corrosion control. It was argued that once corrosion control is established it needs to remain in place for public health and infrastructure reasons.
One commenter suggested EPA should create and provide editable templates for states. They argued states have limited resources and thus some of the LCRR's requirements will be unachievable without some additional assistance from EPA. The editable templates would help reduce the regulatory burden on states.
A couple of comments addressed lead from other sources (i.e., paint, dust, and soil). One commenter stated that lead in paint "poses a far greater risk of exposure" than lead from water, and that addressing LSL without addressing lead in paint is "not a responsible solution." Another commenter suggested that "water lead exposure" should be integrated into existing state and national lead mitigation programs, which usually focus on lead from paint, dust, and soil.
Agency Response
EPA has adopted some of the recommendations made by the NDWAC. In December 2015, the NDWAC prepared a report outlining its recommendations for the LCR (NDWAC, 2015). EPA considered these recommendations when revising the LCR. On December 4-5, 2019, EPA presented the LCRR to the NDWAC, highlighting that the revisions were developed with input from state, local and tribal partners. Some of these changes include requirements to report the following data to the state: tap sampling results, monitoring results, and LSL inventories.
Regarding comments addressing incentives to states and water systems, EPA emphasizes that the rule's structure encourages a "proactive" LSLR (thus avoiding lead ALEs) by implementing goal-based, requiring the creation of an LSLR plan, replacing lead connectors when encountered and including customer-initiated LSLR, regardless of lead levels (see the response to comment Section 6). Regarding systems with existing LSLR programs with concerns about competing or conflicting rule requirements, EPA encourages systems to continue their existing proactive LSLR programs. For instance, if a water system already has an LSLR plan, according to §141.84(b), the existing plan must be submitted to the state. With respect to lead goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors, §141.84(c)(6) takes into account states that may already include these components in their definition of LSLs (see also the response to comment Section 5). In addition, the final rule addresses other means of reducing lead in drinking water, which include CCT, public education, customer notification, etc. EPA disagrees with the concerns that the rule's implementation would discourage customer requested samples, EPA requires that results from customer-requested sampling only be considered in the 90[th] percentile calculations if the sample meets the requirements for compliance tap samples in §141.86.
In response to concerns that EPA did not address "shared responsibility," EPA did engage state, local and tribal partners in Federalism consultations on two occasions (November 2011 and January 2018) early in the revision proposal process. The final rule includes many opportunities for interaction with consumers to help facilitate the shared responsibility. For example, LSL customers will receive notification annually, all consumers will be notified within 24 hours of a lead ALE, tap sampling sites will receive results with 3 days if >15 ug/L or 30 days if <=15 ug/L; a component of all of these requirements is to provide consumers with information about the health effects of lead, source of lead in drinking water and actions consumers can take to reduce lead in drinking water, including LSLR. In addition, customers will be engaged for find-and-fix activities.
EPA consider state legislative schedules to give states more time to make any necessary "legislative changes" to comply with the rule, the Agency highlights that state and local organizations were engaged throughout the LCR's revision process via Federalism consultation and a series of follow-up meetings where participants could provide input. The compliance dates in the rule are consistent with the requirements of Section 1412(b)(10) of the SDWA which requires NPDWRs to take effect three years after promulgation unless an earlier compliance date is practicable. The Administrator or, on a case-by-case basis, a state may allow a system up to two additional years to achieve compliance if the additional time is needed for capital improvements. Section 1413 of the SDWA requires states to adopt regulations no less stringent than the LCRR not later than 2 years after promulgation of the LCRR, unless the State requests, and EPA approves, an extension request for up to 2 additional years. See also §142.12(b).
In response to recommendations on how EPA could help support water systems including revising plumbing codes, public health codes and rate commission filings, EPA would point out that model plumbing codes are industry developed standards. EPA does not have control over the content of the plumbing codes. Model codes have no force or effect as a legal matter unless, and to the extent they are adopted into state or local law. Similarly, EPA cannot control whether, and to what extent, a state or local jurisdiction adopts a model code. Meanwhile, plumbing codes are generally written or adopted as part of city or state law, and adjustments to rate structures are generally under jurisdiction of a municipal government or state utilities commission. The Agency will support water systems and states with implementation in that EPA intends to develop implementation guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide training and other supporting materials (e.g., templates, website) that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency. In response to comments concerning SDWIS (i.e., updates), please see the response to comment Section 15.
In response to concerns that three years might be insufficient time to develop an LSL inventory, EPA maintains the three-year time limit is feasible due to the flexibility water systems are given in identifying service line materials. For instance, during this time, water systems can designate service lines that may be hard to identify as "lead status unknown service lines." With respect to requests for guidance and templates, EPA understands that rule guidance is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in protecting public health. See Section 5 for response to comments on developing the LSL inventory.
Concerns were raised about the science underlying the LCR, with special emphasis on CCT and lead solubility. In response, the EPA highlights that in proposing the revisions, it must rely on the "best available peer-reviewed science" as stated in §1412(b)(3)(a)(i). A list of the peer-reviewed studies can be consulted in the reference section of the FRN. In addition, EPA highlights that it has engaged the Science Advisory Board (SAB) as recently as March 30, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the SAB has provided feedback confirming that the proposed CCT requirements are based on sound science (USEPA, 2020c). With respect to current knowledge on lead solubility and its relation to elevated lead levels, EPA concludes that the cases of elevated lead levels (Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Greenville, SC) that were cited in the comment were due to changes in the water treatment process. Consequently, EPA emphasizes that the 2007 LCR revisions (USEPA, 2007) require the water system to inform the state of any treatment changes prior to their application and this requirement is maintained in the current LCR (§141.90(a)(3)). In response to the additional recommendation to modify the rule that applies to ALEs in communities under 50,000 with no prior CCT, EPA revised this section of the rule to require optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) installation if any CWS serving more than 10,000 persons has an ALE. Further, the final rule established a trigger level which if exceeded requires systems without prior CCT to conduct a CCT study to be prepared in the event of a subsequent ALE. Also, §141.82(i) gives the EPA the authority to issue "corrosion control treatment determinations" in lieu of the state's OCCT determination in certain circumstances.
In response to concerns over transparency (e.g., data suppression), the revisions in the LCR aim to improve the transparency of water systems and states. For instance, a tap sampling results must be made publicly available and tap sampling sites receive their lead and copper results. In addition, the LSL inventory must be available to the public, including the locations of the LSLs identified (see Section 5). Also, all CWS must compile a list of schools and child care facilities for public education outreach and sampling (see Section 12). All of these measures ensure that important information is made available to the public or those who are affected in a timely fashion.
In response to the comment on exposure to lead from other sources such as paint and dust, EPA notes that existing legislation, regulations, and proposals address other means of lead exposure. For example, in 1978, lead paint for residential and commercial use was banned (16 CFR part 1303 and 40 CFR part 141). In 1995, a ban was instituted on lead solder in food cans (21 CFR 189.240). In 2019, EPA revised the dust lead hazard standards for floors and windowsills (USEPA, 2019b), and in June 2020, EPA proposed lowering dust lead clearance levels for dust on floors and windowsills (USEPA, 2020d). On September 1, 2020, EPA published the final regulation "Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and Flux for Drinking Water" (USEPA, 2020e), which requires that manufacturers or importers certify that their products meet the lead free requirements as defined in Section 1417 of the SDWA. These certification requirements will ensure that only lead free plumbing products are used in repairs and new installations of potable use applications. Legislation such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund have addressed lead in soil.
1.5 Other
Summary of Comments
EPA received comments on various miscellaneous issues related to the proposed LCRR. Some of the commenters requested that EPA provide further clarification on the LCRR requirements; however, they did not have a specific question. Other comments further detailed the inadequacies and gaps of the LCRR to meet public health needs. Commenters insisted the LCRR's complexity would create additional problems for states and local government as well as for customers and water systems. Some commenters called to further revise the sampling protocol so more accurate results could be obtained. One commenter argued that the data on violations is flawed and thus violations are being under-reported.
A commenter suggested EPA allow more flexibility to water systems so they can apply community specific solutions rather than be confined to a one size fits all approach. Furthermore, a commenter asked EPA to reconsider the LCRR timelines because states oversee a lot of water systems. The timelines in the LCRR are argued to be infeasible to abide by and are seen as a potential source of conflict between states and water systems. One commenter was concerned about the number of activities the state must conduct between the effective date of the LCRR and the first tap sampling period. Another commenter expressed concern that the extra costs water systems would face to comply with the LCRR would divert resources from public health issues other than lead.
Many commenters called EPA to do more in the way of LSLR. Commenters wanted LSLR to be more of a priority in the LCRR. There was a call for better inventory data and more education surrounding LSLs. One commenter stated that EPA continues to remain silent on consecutive systems. Consecutive systems would like EPA to provide more guidance on how the LCRR applies to their complex situation.
A commenter suggested that the Agency remove the requirement that pitcher filters and 3 months of filter packages be provided to customers following a full or partial LSLR.
Several commenters noted errors in the proposed rule, including incomplete sentences, conflicting requirements, and improper section references. One commenter recommended that EPA review past guidance to ensure consistency with the LCRR and minimize confusion, particularly with definitions where the commenter noted redundancy and a need for greater precision.
A commenter asserted that the LCRR will detract from addressing other drinking water contaminants such as PFAS.
Agency Response
For responses to comments related to the complexity of the rule, please refer to response to comment Section 1.2. For responses to comments regarding the tap sampling protocol, see the response to comment Section 9.
One of the commenters expressed concern with the quality of state and regional program data on violations, leading to underreporting. The final rule requires compliance reporting or certification for new requirements for example the LSL inventory, LSLR plan, tap sampling plan based on new site selection tiering criteria. EPA believes the final rule revisions will enhance oversight and compliance assurance. The final rule requires greater coordination between water systems and states. For example, when water systems have a 90[th] percentile concentration that exceeds the lead trigger level, the actions they must take under the final rule (e.g., CCT) require review and oversight from states to assure that they are effective in reducing drinking water lead levels. Specifically, CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons that exceed the trigger level and do not have CCT in place are required to conduct a CCT study and obtain state approval for designated CCT. For more information on this new CCT requirement, see sections III.A and III.B of the final rule FRN (USEPA, 2020a). EPA also expects CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons to work with their state to select a compliance option to reduce drinking water lead levels. Under the final rule, CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs that exceed the trigger level must evaluate the LCRR's four compliance alternatives listed in the next paragraph and make a recommendation to the state within six months on which compliance alternative the water system would implement if the water system subsequently exceeds the lead action level. The state must approve the recommendation or designate an alternative compliance option within six months of submittal; see section III.E of final rule FRN for more information. The final rule also requires all water systems with LSLs or lead status unknown service lines in their inventory to submit an LSLR plan to their state; for more information see section III.D of the final rule FRN. In addition, systems that exceed the trigger level must start LSLR programs at a rate they set with their state; see section III.D of the final rule FRN for more information.
Several commenters requested greater flexibility for water systems in carrying out the various requirements of the proposed rule, particularly for small systems. EPA notes that the final rule provides many flexibilities for small water systems and NTNCWSs. For information on these flexibilities, please see § 141.93 of the final rule and response to comment Section 7. For example, CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons and NTNCWSs with a TLE can choose from various options, with state approval, to comply with the final rule, including CCT, LSLR, provision and maintenance of point-of-use devices, or replacing all lead-bearing plumbing materials. EPA disagrees with the comment requesting that the Agency remove the requirement that pitcher filters and 3 months of filter packages be provided to customers following a full or partial LSLR; however, the final rule extends the 3-month period to 6 months. EPA believes provision of filters is important in order to help customers reduce their risk of exposure to lead in drinking water following LSLR. In response to the comment concerned about "false reliance upon filter," EPA notes that the final rule also requires public education informing customers of additional actions they can take to reduce their risk of lead exposure; for more information on what materials water systems are required to provide following a full or partial LSLR, please see § 141.85(f)(3) of the final rule and response to comment Section 6. For additional examples of how the final rule is not a "one size fits all" approach and the various flexibilities it allows, please see response to comment Section 1.2.
EPA considered comments on the feasibility of timelines for water systems and states in the proposed rule. In response, EPA has revised some timelines for water systems, including requiring water systems to notify customers of individual sampling results that exceed 15 ug/L lead within three business days, rather than the proposed 24 hours (see response to comment Section 8 for more information). EPA also revised the reporting date for the annual requirement for CWSs to provide public education and find-and-fix information to local and state health agencies from January 15 to July 1 to coincide with notifying health agencies of school sampling results, consistent with the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) (see response to comments in Section 8 for more information). However, EPA believes the other timelines in the proposed rule are feasible for water systems and states to implement and has maintained them in the final rule.
EPA does not believe that the LCRR should detract from addressing other drinking water contaminants such as PFAS, as one comment expressed. EPA believes the final rule requirements are necessary to improve implementation of the LCR and better protect public health. For information on how EPA is addressing PFAS, please refer to the PFAS Action Plan at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan.
For responses to comments related to the LSL inventory and public education about LSLs, please see response to comment Sections 5 and 8, respectively.
EPA received a comment requesting Agency guidance on implementation of the revised rule for consecutive systems. One commenter recommended that EPA review past guidance to ensure consistency with the LCRR and minimize confusion, particularly with definitions where the commenter noted redundancy and a need for greater precision. EPA understands this is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide training and other supporting materials that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency. For response to comments on definitions, please see response to comment Section 2.
One commenter asked for the effective dates of the requirements in § 141.91, § 141.92 and § 141.93. EPA notes that the requirements of Subpart I, including § 141.91, § 141.92 and § 141.93, are effective 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and the compliance deadline is 3 years after publication in the Federal Register except where otherwise specified. See Section § 141.80 for more detail.
Several commenters noted errors in the proposed rule, including incomplete sentences, conflicting requirements, and improper section references. EPA acknowledges that there were errors in the proposed rule and has worked to correct them in the final rule. One commenter inquired why there was no § 141.83 in the proposed rule although it was cited in other parts of the rule; EPA notes that this section is part of the previous rule and was not included in the proposed rule since no revisions were proposed to it. For more information on revisions made to definitions between the proposed and final rule, please see section IV.C. of the preamble to the final rule FRN (USEPA, 2020a).
One commenter wrote that the intergovernmental collaborative should be incorporated into the rule to ensure public health protection. EPA notes that the Agency consulted with governmental entities affected by the rule, consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), section 204.
One commenter requested that EPA develop a centralized information warehouse on lead health risk and risk reduction, corrosion control training and guidance for state regulators and public water utilities. EPA intends to provide training and other supporting materials that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency.
One commenter took issue with the proposed LCRR not discussing climate change effects on water supply and quality, recommending that the rule revisions be examined from a climate change perspective. EPA acknowledges the impact of climate change on water resources; however, the Agency believes its discussion is beyond the scope of the rule. For information on how EPA is addressing the impact of climate change on water resources and information on initiatives to help water systems adapt to climate change and comply with NPDWRs, please visit https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-water-sector/epa-action-addressing-climate-change-impacts-water-resources.
One commenter requested clarification on a variety of topics but did not provide specific questions. For response to comments on notifying customers within 24 hours of the lead 90[th] percentile exceeding the action level, see response to Section 8. For clarification on whether broadcast media includes social media, see response to Section 8. For LSL definitions, see response to comment Section 2. For the LSL inventory and galvanized service line considerations, see response to comment Section 5. For LSLR, see response to comment Section 6; for costs, see response to comment Section 16. For CCT options, see response to comment Section 4. For WQP monitoring framework revisions, see response to comment Section 10; for budget effects, see response to comment Section 16. For school and child care sampling responsibilities, see response to comment Section 12; for estimated costs of the rule, see response to comment Section 16. The commenter also requested flow charts and fact sheets to better understand the rule revisions; EPA intends to develop supporting materials to facilitate understanding of the final rule.
References
National Drinking Water Advisory Council. 2015. Recommendations to the Administrator for the Long Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). December 15, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwacrecommtoadmin121515.pdf.
USEPA. 2007. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Final Rule. Federal Register 72(195):57782. October 10, 2007. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2019a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Federal Register 84(219):61684. November 13, 2019. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2019b. Review of Dust-Lead Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint. Federal Register 84(131):32632. July 9, 2019. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-09/pdf/2019-14024.pdf.
USEPA. 2020a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Final Rule. Federal Register xx(xxx): p. Date. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2020b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2020c. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA's Proposed Rule Titled National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. June 2020. Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-20-007. https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebProjectsCurrentBOARD/3F7193E0C9A7755385258589005849FB/$File/EPA-SAB-20-007.pdf.
USEPA. 2020d. Review of Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels  -  Proposed Rule. Federal Register (85)(122):37810. June 24, 2020. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-06-24/pdf/2020-13582.pdf.
USEPA. 2020e. Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and Flux for Drinking Water; Final Rule. Federal Register 85(170):54235. September 1, 2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09-01/pdf/2020-16869.pdf.
2 Definitions
EPA received comments on the terms and definitions defined under § 141.2. These included new terms with definitions added in the proposal, updated definitions to existing terms from the previous Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), and slight changes to the terminology itself. Commenters were concerned about the amount of detail and specificity in the definitions provided, some recommending less detail, while many asked for additional detail and information. EPA reviewed all comments thoroughly and updated the definitions accordingly to enhance clarity in terminology in § 141.2 and throughout the rule.
2.1 General Comments
Summary of Comments
One commenter asked EPA to clarify what a point-of-entry device or, "POE" means, and if this refers to the filter in a residence or at the water system. Another commenter explained that the new terminology (lead service line (LSL), trigger level, etc.) used in the proposal will need to be more clearly defined and communicated between the various stakeholders that the rule affects. Another commenter asked for more details on the definition of "lead service line" and "shut off" to avoid misinterpretation. Finally, one commenter explained that states require more clarity on some of the terms proposed including the concepts around them. Some examples of these include: "property owner," "optimized," and "re-optimized." They recommend revising these terms in the final rule or with a supplemental notice.
One commenter asked for several updates to the proposed definitions. First, the commenter states that the "first draw" definition should not only refer to § 141.86, monitoring for lead and copper at the tap, because a first draw sample is also required for school sampling. Several commenters also ask that "hydrovacing," "potholing," and "trenching" be removed from the rule because the commenters either do not support these methods of LSL identification or because the limited use in the rule does not warrant a definition for each. They also suggest retaining the definitions of "small water system" and "medium-size water system" to align with other drinking water regulations, thus keeping small water system as serving populations of 3,300 as below, to prevent inconsistency between different regulations which leads to errors by the regulated community. Finally, a commenter suggested several editorial changes to individual definitions in the proposal rule, including the removal of "generally" from the definition of a galvanized service line because it could be open to too much interpretation with this added
One commenter asked for clarification on the existing definition of "consecutive system" in Part 141, which was not proposed for revision in the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), and the applicability of the corrosion control treatment (CCT) and water quality parameter monitoring requirements to consecutive systems.
Agency Response
In response to the request for clarification of POE, EPA notes it is currently defined under § 141.2 as "a treatment device applied to the drinking water entering a house or building for the purpose of reducing contaminants in the drinking water distributed throughout the house or building." A water softener is an example of a POE device. "Shut off" refers to when water to a building is turned off from a service line or main. EPA has not included a definition of "shut off" in the final rule because the action is self-explanatory. Regarding comments on additional clarification on new terms used in the rule such as the "lead trigger level" and "lead service line," EPA has provided clarification in §§ 141.80 and 141.2 respectively. EPA has changed the term "trigger level" to "lead trigger level." For more information about "lead trigger level" see response to comment Section 2.4 New Definitions Added. In addition, EPA has not included "optimized," "re-optimized" or "property owner" in the updated definitions because optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) is already included in § 141.2. EPA believes that it is clear that property owner is the party or individual that owns that property referenced in the rule; thus, EPA did not include a definition for this term.
EPA has retained the reference to sampling collection methods under § 141.86 for the "first draw" definition because this refers to sampling after a stagnation period of six hours under the tap sampling methods. The protocol for sampling at schools under § 141.92 in the final rule uses the phrase "first draw" but the volumes of the first draw and stagnation periods differ depending on whether the sampling is for compliance with §§ 141.86 or 141.92. EPA chose to include a definition of "first draw" in § 141.2 that is applicable only to the sampling conducted under § 141.86 and not to expand the definition to reference the sampling conducted at schools and child-care facilities under § 141.92 in order for the sampling requirements for schools and childcare facilities to be self-contained in § 141.92 and to avoid confusion as to the sampling requirements for public water systems (PWSs), which may include schools that are regulated PWSs. This choice has no substantive impact on the requirements for sampling under either §§ 141.86 or 141.92. The terms "hydrovacing," "potholing," and "trenching" have been removed from the final rule because, as pointed out by commenters, they are not used in the rule. EPA disagrees with commenters that small systems should be defined as they have been "for the purpose of Subpart I of this part only" as a "water system that serves 3,300 persons or fewer". For purposes of small system flexibility options under § 141.93, a small system is one serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and the definition of a medium-size system has been modified for subpart I only, to encompass those systems serving greater than 10,000 to less than or equal to 50,000 persons. EPA recognizes that while small systems serving between 3,301 and 10,000 persons may have greater technical, managerial and financial capacity than smaller systems, they still face financial and managerial limitations. EPA has determined that it is not feasible for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to implement the multiple treatment technique actions of (OCCT), public education (PE) and lead service line replacement (LSLR). Implementing such a complex program requires consequential managerial, operational, and financial investment. Please see response to comment Section 7 for a more in-depth discussion.
EPA did not define "consecutive water system" in the final rule but has clarified requirements for sampling and monitoring. See response to comment Section 4 and 10.
2.2 Lead Service Line (LSL) Definition
EPA reviewed the comments received on the proposed definition of "lead service line." Some commenters were opposed to the exclusion of goosenecks, pigtails and connectors from the definition, explaining that these connectors are a source of lead and must be included. Other commenters asked for increased clarity on how galvanized service lines fit into the definition. Some commenters disagree with including the private side of the LSL in the definition which affects implementation of various parts of the rule. Some commenters recommended increasing the clarity of the definition as they claim it is confusing as written in the proposal.
Lead Connectors in LSL Definition
Summary of Comments
Many commenters objected to the exclusion of connectors in the proposed definition of an LSL. These commenters argued that connectors are made of lead so should be included because they directly contribute to lead in drinking water, and therefore, exposure. Commenters stated that they are also a significant source of lead in drinking water because of how they flex with temperature which compromises the protective coating developed from CCT. In turn, they argued this increases the likelihood that the connectors release lead particulates into drinking water. These commenters state that excluding them from the definition is providing false information to residents who have connectors which creates a risk. These commenters asserted the proposed definition is problematic because it exempts connectors as LSLs. Therefore, the water system's inventory and customer notices will be misleading stating "non-lead" although connectors are made of lead and may be present. This will also impact the types of lines that are sampled under § 141.86. For instance, under the proposal, lead connectors would not be sampled, only if they are in a building connected to LSLs. Another commenter states if the rest of the line is non-lead and because EPA has not defined "service line," if the system is replacing only the connector, this would be equivalent to a partial LSLR. These commenters state that EPA provided no explanation for this change but obviously sees these connectors as posing a risk to lead in drinking water because they are required to be removed upon LSLR and during routine and emergency maintenance in § 141.84(c). These commenters also explain how an LSL is defined by the states of California, Michigan and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act.
One commenter asks that EPA share data to justify why connectors are excluded from the definition. Another commenter states that if a connector is a part of a service line then the service line should be considered lead until all lead is removed. Another commenter states that failure to keep connectors in the definition will result in elevated sources of lead in homes and provide inaccurate messages that a pipe or system is completely lead-free. One commenter stated that regardless of what it is connected to, a lead connector should be considered an LSL. One commenter states the exclusion of connectors from the definition is unjustified and since it is a requirement to remove them during replacement of LSLs, this should prompt their inclusion in the definition of LSL. One commenter suggests all lead fittings be included in the LSL definition, including connectors even when they are the only part of the line that contains lead.
Some commenters support including connectors in the definition for purposes of the inventory and replacement provisions in the rule. These commenters explain that their system will not be able to confirm what is or was upstream, prompting them into replacing many that may be of no risk. Another commenter supports the mandatory replacement of connectors urging them to be included in the definition.
A commenter argues EPA does not offer justification for excluding connectors from the definition and including them only when they are connected to a galvanized line requiring replacement. A commenter states that even though connectors may pose a lesser risk to lead in drinking water than a full LSL because of their size, they should be included in the definition. This commenter states that it aligns with the reasons behind the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC's) recommendation: "any service line where any portion, including a lead pigtail, gooseneck or other fitting, is made of lead" (NDWAC, 2015a). This commenter also states that the proposed definition goes against the WIIN Act which prohibits the exemption of connectors from the definition: "The term `lead service line' means a pipe and its fittings, which are not lead free (as defined in section 1417(d)), that connect the drinking water main to the building inlet." A commenter questions whether the exclusion of connectors is permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for an LSL, "a pipe and its fittings which are not lead-free," given that connectors are not lead-free. They state that their exclusion is problematic, that EPA lacks legal authority to define an LSL in different way from Congress under 42 U.S.C. § 300j-19b(a)(4), and if connectors are included, they should count towards LSLR rates. Several commenters propose their own LSL definition which includes connectors. One commenter states the exclusion of these connectors from the definition is a weakening of requirements under SDWA and the 1991 Rule. They argue that there would be partial replacements if the portion inside the house is also not removed.
Two commenters request that EPA clarify why if the only part of a service line is a gooseneck, then it is not considered an LSL. One asks for data to prove it isn't lead and does not understand why they must be replaced when encountered but not included in the sampling tiering criteria under § 141.86. Two commenters do not support connectors in the LSL inventory because they do not believe they should be counted separately as LSLs unless they are the only leaded portion of the line. These commenters support their removal when found during LSLR.
One commenter stated that if any part of a service line contains lead, then it contributes to lead exposure in drinking water, including all lead connectors such as goosenecks and pigtails. Another commenter asks about the definition of an LSL in regard to LSLR notification requirements under § 141.85(f) and if the replacement of a lead connector is included under these requirements. One commenter explains that lead connectors can be a major source of lead in drinking water and should not be excluded from the LSL definition. They state, the connecters can release lead into drinking water when they move and note that EPA implicitly acknowledges that risk in the proposed requirement in § 141.84 to replace connecters when encountered during other maintenance activities. This commenter disagrees with a situation where a service line is made of unknown material or non-lead material, but contains one or multiple lead connectors, and according to the proposed definition, it would not be considered an LSL.
Agency Response
EPA agrees that clarity was needed in the definition of an LSL due to its importance related to LSL inventory, LSLR outreach, and selection of tap sample sites and has clarified this in section III.C of the final rule notice (USEPA, 2020). EPA has modified the definition to simplify it and to specify that it is for the purposes of the LCRR only, to prioritize tap sampling sites and replacement of full LSLs. EPA excluded the lead connector portion of the LSL definition and has clarified the lead connector definition itself. For purposes of this rule, lead connectors are not a part of the service line and are required to be replaced only when identified while conducting other maintenance and replacement activities. EPA has kept these connectors out of the LSL definition to ensure water systems are conducting LSLR on service lines and not counting replacement of connectors as a replaced LSL.
The Agency agrees these are sources of lead and present a risk to public health and have included appropriate rule provisions to address them. In response to notification requirements regarding the replacement of connectors, EPA has included a notification requirement after the replacement of a connector due to a disturbance under § 141.85 (f)(2).
EPA disagrees with commenters who suggested that the privately owned portion of an LSL should not be included in the definition because the LCRR requires full LSLR, not just replacement of the water system owned portion.
Galvanized Lines in LSL Definition
Summary of Comments
Many commenters sought clarification on galvanized service lines in the LSL definition. Several commenters asked for clarification on inventory requirements since they are included in the definition of an LSL. Another commenter asked EPA to explain how these lines warrant enough risk for replacement but not for tap sampling and how this provision will impact state oversight specifically with tap sample site selection. Many commenters state that all galvanized pipe should be included in the definition regardless of what it is connected to. Another commenter recommends excluding all galvanized lines from the definition of an LSL stating it will be impossible to determine what was upstream of the line and it is confusing how these are treated in different parts of the rule. This commenter explains they do not have LSLs so these lines would be their major lead concern for their system. Several commenters ask for clarification on when a galvanized service line is considered an LSL. One commenter suggests several subcategories to define LSLs based on if lead is expected or not for unknowns (lead probable or not).
One commenter suggests including all galvanized service lines in the definition of the LSL or none of them in lieu of partial inclusion of them that is proposed. The commenter explains, like many others, that it will be extremely difficult to determine if one was ever downstream of a lead source. Another commenter requested clarification as to where galvanized service lines fit in the tiering pool under § 141.86 based on the LSL definition. One commenter stated that the galvanized line downstream of an LSL will be problematic for their system, causing them to replace thousands of lines with "virtually no public health benefit."
Many commenters state that EPA does not provide rationale for galvanized lines downstream of lead needing replacement (§ 141.84) but not monitoring at the tap (§ 141.86). They explain that because the galvanized lines are not considered an LSL for the purposes of tap sampling, but included in the LSL definition, it is unclear how water systems would manage this discrepancy when developing sampling plans. While many others express concern it will be too challenging to implement because most systems won't have records to know what was upstream of the galvanized line. One commenter suggests defining how a galvanized line would be considered "downstream" and define it separately. Another commenter recommends a new term for these titled "lead impacted service line" and suggested providing a definition.
One commenter believes that galvanized lines should not be considered in the LSL inventory as these have not been incorporated before and they explain this would be a large burden to the PWS. They state this would involve more communication with the homeowner to determine if galvanized lines are a part of the internal plumbing system. This commenter explains that the studies EPA cited when making this decision are "bad science" and do not reasonably conclude the dissolved lead from galvanized lines is not reasonably different than that from mixed home plumbing.
One commenter suggests that galvanized lines should either be considered an LSL or not regardless of what is upstream to avoid confusion. Another commenter asks why EPA would only consider galvanized lines downstream of a lead source when there is lead risk from the zinc coating internal of the galvanized pipe. One commenter suggests that galvanized lines should not be called LSLs but should be subject to the same requirements including inventory and replacement.
One commenter suggests that after a period of time, the lead risk would decrease from galvanized lines downstream of a lead source and therefore, a time period should be included in this portion of the LSL definition. Similarly, another commenter explains that the inclusion of "ever was" in the definition is problematic without providing a definitive time frame. Another commenter suggests the definition is problematic, because many LSLRs took place voluntarily, so records do not exist for when these occurred. Therefore, determining if the line "ever was" downstream of a lead source will be almost impossible so most galvanized lines will be considered an LSL due to lack of records.
One commenter states the preamble should include information on how to prove the galvanized line is meeting the definition's criteria. Another commenter supports the inclusion of galvanized lines as proposed in the LSL definition because of their ability to absorb then leach lead particles into drinking water. They ask EPA to clarify this part of the definition. Other commenters echo that the "ever was" would create problems, stating to include a galvanized line in the definition regardless of what is upstream for simplicity.
One commenter asserted that a galvanized service line with only a gooseneck upstream should not be considered an LSL. Several commenters ask if a galvanized service line downstream of a gooseneck, etc. not just an LSL or unknown would be considered an LSL. They state that the LCRR allows them to be counted for inventory purposes but not used for tap sample collection. Another suggested EPA provided visuals of a galvanized service line downstream of an LSL and a connector. One commenter supports the exclusion of galvanized service lines downstream of a lead gooseneck, etc. from the definition.
One commenter explains there is confusion on how galvanized lines are being addressed differently in the rule and expressed concern that a galvanized service line downstream of a connector is considered an LSL in the rule and definition. This is a concern since their system does not have LSLs and asks that galvanized service lines be separated out from the LSL definition.
Two commenters ask for clarification that galvanized lines downstream of only a lead connector would not be considered an LSL. They state that because they do not have LSLs but have galvanized lines that are potentially downstream of a connector, since they cannot confirm, most of these lines would be classified as an LSL. Therefore, this may result in low lead sampling results because these lines may not actually have a lead gooseneck. Therefore, this will not provide an accurate indication of how well CCT is working. They also suggest that for systems without LSLs, unknown service lines should not be considered LSLs. One commenter asks why EPA considers LSLs that are upstream of a galvanized line as contributors to lead in drinking water but lead connectors are not. Several commenters suggest that systems do not have records for when they replaced connectors and ask for recommendations on how to determine this.
One commenter states that it is confusing in the proposal where a galvanized line is considered an LSL for the purposes of inventory but not for sampling and they suggest these should be included as Tier 1 sampling sites and that most utilities will not have adequate records to determine upstream material so they will be deemed an LSL by default. One commenter asks that galvanized lines downstream of a connector are not considered an LSL since connectors are not defined as an LSL.
Several commenters state the proposed LSL definition is circular in nature and asks EPA to delineate if a galvanized line downstream of a lead connector is an LSL.
Agency Response
The Agency modified a couple of definitions to address commenter concerns and to improve clarity. EPA determined that a galvanized service line that is or ever was downstream from an LSL requires replacement but is not included in the LSL definition to reduce confusion and because it has its own definition. In addition, EPA included sites served by a galvanized requiring replacement in the tap sample site selection criteria (Tier 3) in the final rule. This also helps clarify that while galvanized service lines that were or are upstream of an LSL require replacement, they are not appropriate sites for tap sampling.
The Agency has also clarified the various rule requirements associated with galvanized service lines with added language in the respective rule sections, such as in § 141.84 and § 141.86(a). For example, in § 141.86 the Agency has added a new tier for tap sample selection to address galvanized lines that could be a lead source. In this final rule, Tier 3 contains "galvanized lines identified as being downstream of an LSL currently or in the past or known to be downstream of a lead connector (lead gooseneck, pigtail or connector)." With this update, those galvanized service lines that have been impacted by upstream lead sources, including connectors are now prioritized in tap sampling. In response to the public comments and to specifically address those water systems which have no LSLs or very few, Tier 3 will ensure the sites selected will contain lead-impacted galvanized service lines if the water system has these.
EPA has removed the portion of the LSL definition related to galvanized lines to avoid confusion. Instead, the Agency has retained the separate definition for "galvanized service line" and has included detail in the corresponding rule sections as necessary, like in § 141.86 described above. The treatment of galvanized lines with regard to other provisions is described in those sections, such as in § 141.84, where galvanized lines requiring replacement are handled in LSL inventory and LSLR. In addition, EPA added a new definition "full lead service line replacement" to make clarifications requested by commenters. EPA believes the modified and new definitions associated with LSLs and LSLRs will improve implementation for tap sample site selection, LSL inventories, and LSLRs.
Other Comments on LSL Definition
Summary of Comments
Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of an LSL under § 141.2 is not clear and is too complicated. Several commenters state that it is difficult to understand and thereby may be misinterpreted by relevant stakeholders and needs to be clear and consistent in the entirety of the rule and at present it is not. They recommend providing a table or visual to help interpret how an LSL is defined and affects different parts of the rule. One commenter explains the confusion in how galvanized service lines downstream of lead are included in the definition but lead goosenecks, etc. are not. One is concerned that the definition is too broad as currently written. Another commenter urges that the definitions between EPA and states be consistent.
One commenter asks that EPA make the definition clearer and provides suggestions to delineate the different types of service lines from a lead pipe to an unknown service line. Another commenter states that the parts of the definition around ownership should be removed and instead included in guidance. This commenter recommended that EPA retain the current definition. Two commenters state that goosenecks, galvanized lines and lead solder should be considered an LSL for simplicity and because these are all sources of lead. One of these commenters cites the NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group "a lead pipe, even if only a small portion, poses a sufficiently similar risk as a full lead service line" (NDWAC, 2015b). A commenter also asks EPA to remove the phrases containing "galvanized service lines" and "goosenecks" altogether because they already have definitions.
EPA also received comments on how service lines of unknown lead status are considered in the LSL definition and under various parts of the rule. One commenter asks for clarification on when an LSL is referred to in the rule and if it is referring to known LSLs only, or also unknown service lines. They refer specifically to sections §§ 141.84(a)(5)(i) and 141.84(a)(5) of the proposed LCRR (USEPA, 2019). They suggest adding another term for these unknowns and to be clear in the rule text when EPA is referring to both or either one. Another commenter asks EPA to provide criteria for what an "unknown" is since they are included in the LSLR. One commenter suggests including categories for unknowns for when lead is expected to be present or not.
Two commenters asked for clarification of "building inlet" in § 141.2, in "a service line made of lead, which connects the water main to the building inlet." One states this could be interpreted as the outside wall of the building which would result in plumbing inside not being replaced. Another questioned which part of the line is included, asking if it is the premise plumbing itself, from the line to the meter or something else.
A commenter states that leaded solder is a significant source of lead and should be explained in the rule, specifically on the customer side, asking EPA to include lead solder as an LSL because it poses a lead risk. Several commenters ask EPA to disclose all leaded parts of service lines. One asks for criteria to be provided for "lead" vs "non-lead" designations.
Several commenters state that EPA has not differentiated the LSLs that are used for other services such as fire protection or irrigation, and these sites that are not used for drinking water consumption should be given a lesser priority or should not be included in the replacement and sampling plan. Another commenter asked if fire lines and other non-potable uses are considered as an LSL in the LCR.
Another commenter asks for clarification on "downstream of an LSL" in the definition, because it could be misinterpreted. They suggest that it should be clearly stated to mean lines downstream from the water main not downstream of the water main like in the Total Coliform Rule (Subpart Y).
One commenter asks that EPA delineate the public and private side in the rule to standardize it because currently many states use the meter as the differentiation. One commenter expresses that expanding the definition into the private side and for unknown service line increases the burden to the system to remove lead beyond its control. Another commenter asks EPA to define service line from water main to the meter and confirmed lead lines would be removed by the system. One commenter asks EPA to clarify the distinction between public and private lines and designate the responsibility of the water system. They explain that across the area there are different ways to determine this and it can create confusion during replacement activities. Another commenter explains the difficulty with access to the customer-side of the service line and asks that the customer side of the service line "be limited to the boundaries between the water meter and the customer property limit."
One commenter supports the inclusion of galvanized lines in the definition but with some alterations in the text and asks EPA to include lead connectors as an LSL and additional language in the definition of "lead goosenecks, pigtails and connectors" as it relates to the LSL definition. One commenter proposed their own definition for EPA's use in the final rule with an addition to the portion on lead goosenecks to improve clarity.
One commenter asks what EPA means by "downstream of any service line" and how water systems will prove if a galvanized line ever was downstream of a lead source/connector. They assume that it is directly connected to the service line made of lead. One commenter asks that all leaded lines and parts be disclosed and included in the definition of an LSL and provide criteria for what is "lead" and "non-lead."
Another commenter encourages EPA to use California's definition of a "Lead User Service Line." This definition only includes the pipeline between the water main and water meter, yet it does include any lead connector, which the commenter feels should be included in EPA's LSL definition. The commenter asserted differences in these definitions and thus the inventory will cause confusion and unduly burden to systems in California. The commenter also states that the LSL definition is problematic because it includes the pipe from the water main to the building inlet and there are properties that have a long setback from the property boundary, so the system may not be able to determine the material of the line.
Agency Response
The Agency recognizes the importance of clearly communicating these terms to water systems, states, and other affected parties. The proposed definition of an LSL contained many nuances with connectors, service lines that are of unknown material, and galvanized service lines. The Agency modified the LSL definition and added a definition for a "full lead service line replacement" in order to improve clarity. EPA also, revised the LSL inventory requirements, LSLR requirements, and tap sample site selection tiering criteria to further clarify how lead connectors and galvanized service lines are to be considered in the final rule. See response to comment Sections 5, 6, and 9, respectively.
EPA agrees that LSLs from "other services" as fire protection and irrigation, may be of a lesser priority than LSLs servicing sites with drinking water uses. However, EPA disagrees with including "potable" in the LSL definition because it isn't certain that these sites would not be used for drinking water and the water system may not be aware of all uses for each site.
For designations of lead and non-lead, commenters should refer to the definition of "lead-free" in Section 1417 of SDWA. The designations of service line materials for the inventory can be found in § 141.84(a)(4). To address comments on the "unknown service lines" in the proposed LSL definition, EPA has termed these "lead status unknown service line" and has defined them.
EPA is maintaining the proposed LSL definition regarding ownership ("an LSL may be owned by the water system, owned by the property owner, or both") to ensure that the customer or private side of the service line are included in rule requirements such as inventory and replacement. EPA is maintaining the requirement for full LSLR regardless of ownership.
2.3 Definition of Customer/Consumer/Owners of LSL/Residents
Summary of Comments
One commenter expressed concern about how the definitions of "customers" and "consumers" are used throughout the rule, specifically in §§ 141.84 and 141.85 and alerts EPA of the different groups of people impacted. This commenter explains that "customers," as defined, should be manageable for the water system to communicate with because they are the paying users of the water system. They discuss how those that own the service line are not included in either the "consumer" or "customer" definition but may be assumed to be the customer, and how both of these terms are used interchangeably in the preamble; whereas "resident" is not defined in the rule but the water system will need to communicate with them. This commenter explains that because the definition for "consumer" is so broad and may include residents, tenants in a building, etc. it will be difficult to contact them for purposes of §§ 141.84 and 141.85.
Several commenters stated that "consumer" and "customer" are not used as unique terms throughout the rule and ask EPA to clarify their definitions and use, such as in "consumer notification" under § 141.85. One of these commenters explains that in their water system, the "customer" refers to the owner of the property. Another commenter explains how these two terms are misused in the proposal and do not match the appropriate definition, citing several examples where there are errors in both §§ 141.84 and 141.85.
Agency Response
EPA reassessed the utility of codifying definitions for consumer and customer in § 141.2 since the definitions would apply more broadly than just to the LCRR. Other regulations that water systems must comply with, such as the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) (USEPA, 1998) and Public Notification (PN) (USEPA, 2000) have defined these terms. EPA agrees that the preamble and regulatory text inconsistently used these terms and has made modifications to improve clarity and ensure consistency. EPA determined that these modifications within Subpart I are clear and include the appropriate population in the various sections of the rule with more detail such as "persons served by the water system at the service connection." The Agency concluded that water systems and states have implemented the previous LCR without requiring these definitions in § 141.2 and believes that more accurately specifying the intended audience for various PE and notification purposes in the final rule addresses commenter concerns about ambiguity and confusion.
2.4 New Definitions Added
Summary of Comments
EPA proposed various new definition under § 141.2 in the proposed LCRR and received many comments and questions about these new terms. Several commenters asked EPA to clarify the definition of "pitcher filter" specifically as it relates to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certifying body. They also commented on the wording and the inclusion of both parts of the device (pitcher and cartridge). One commenter recommended edits to the "pitcher filter" definition using the correct term to refer to the ANSI. One commenter asks the Agency to refine the "pitcher filter" definition as written because they asserted the definition in the proposal only refers to the insert and not the pitcher. A commenter recommended that the definition of a "pitcher filter" include the standard for reduction of lead. Several other commenters also stated that the standard should be included in the definition of "pitcher filter." One commenter asked for the definition of "pitcher filter" to include what is acceptable and expand beyond ANSI standards. One commenter had several suggestions for the "pitcher filter" definition. First, not including "remove" because these devices can only reduce lead. They stated that the definition as proposed only includes the insert and asked EPA to explain the appropriate lead reduction standard for use. Another commenter stated that "pitcher filter" is unclear specifically with the definition's reference to ANSI standards, and they offer a substitution that includes other certifying bodies. A commenter asked that EPA not limit the types of pitcher filters allowed for use, because some faucet filters (point-of-use or "POU" devices) are certified to remove lead.
Another commenter asked for clarification on the definition of "wide mouth bottle" which included a specification for being at least 55 mm wide. The commenter asked EPA which part of the bottle this is referring to (inside of mouth, outside, etc.). This commenter asked EPA to clarify a specific inner and outer measurement for "wide mouth bottles" and if there are bottles currently available as specified in the proposal. Several commenters suggest deleting "to optimize capturing accurate lead measurements" from the "wide mouth bottle" definition as it implies that this is the only important aspect of these bottles. Another commenter suggests including a volume in the definition of "wide mouth bottle."
Two commenters ask that the term of "find-and-fix" be changed to "sample site assessment." While another commenter requested that the name of these activities be changed to "follow-up sampling." One commenter stated that "find-and-fix" definition should be more generic for future regulations as it is too specific to the LCR as proposed. One commenter claims that because find-and-fix is explained in § 141.82(j), the definition is unnecessary.
One commenter gave a robust explanation for the terms "compliance period," "monitoring period," and "sample period" and the guidance provided by EPA in the past. Others state that "sampling period" is used synonymously with "monitoring period" in the proposal and the Agency has replaced "compliance period" with "monitoring period" and replaced "monitoring period" with "sampling period," asking EPA to clarify this confusion. They also provide a suggestion for the definition of "sampling period." Another commenter had a similar concern with these three terms being used interchangeably. One commenter declared that both "sampling period" and "monitoring period" may not be needed because they can cause confusion.