financially and technologically viable strategy that is effective in
reducing lead in drinking water. The EPA is proposing the following
compliance alternatives for small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) installation
and maintenance of OCCT, or (3) installation and maintenance of point-
of-use (POU) devices. The EPA is proposing the above three
flexibilities for NTNCWS and an additional option of replacement of all
lead bearing plumbing fixtures at every tap where water could be used
for human consumption. The NTNCWS must have control of all plumbing
materials to select this option.
    Under this proposal, small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the
lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead and copper action levels
would need to evaluate the compliance alternatives and make a
recommendation to the State within six months on which compliance
alternative the water system would implement if the water system
exceeds the lead action level. The State would need to approve the
recommendation within six months of submittal. In the event these water
systems exceed the lead action level, they must implement the State-
approved compliance option.
    Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for
implementation of optimized CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action
level would be required to implement the State-approved option for CCT
in accordance with proposed requirements in Sec.  141.81(e). Small CWSs
and NTNCWSs that select and are approved for the POU option and
subsequently exceed the lead action level, would be required to
implement a POU program on a schedule specified by the State, but not-
to-exceed three months. Small water systems that select and are
approved for LSLR and subsequently exceed the lead action level would
be required to replace all LSLs on a schedule specified by the State,
not-to-exceed 15 years.
    Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead action level
but not the copper action level, had not previously exceeded the
trigger level, would need to evaluate the compliance alternatives and
make a recommendation to the State within six months. The State must
approve the system's recommendations within six months; these water
systems would then implement the State-approved compliance option on a
schedule specified by the State.
1. Lead Service Line Replacement
    The EPA is proposing that NTNCWSs and small CWSs with LSLs that
exceed the lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L may choose to fully
replace all of their LSLs until none remain. Those that choose this
compliance alternative would need to ensure they have the authority or
consent to remove the customer-owned portion of every LSL in its
distribution system. If the water system's 90th percentile drops below
the lead action level, the water system must continue to replace LSLs
until none remain. This

option is projected to be a practical choice for small systems that
have few LSLs that could be removed within a few years, thus
potentially avoiding the need to add a CCT process that would need to
be continually operated and maintained. Rather than split resources
between installing CCT and conducting LSLR, this proposal allows
resources to be focused on LSLR to accelerate completion of the program
and permanently remove a significant potential source of lead in
drinking water. Water systems would have to replace LSLs on a schedule
approved by the State not to exceed 15 years. The EPA has determined in
its analysis that water systems with a small number of LSLs may find
that removing relatively few LSLs is more cost effective than
installing and maintaining optimized CCT indefinitely, and logistically
less burdensome than installing and maintaining POU devices (see
section VI.C.4 of this notice).
2. Corrosion Control Treatment
    The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and
maintain optimized CCT as a compliance alternative after exceeding the
lead action level. The EPA has determined in its analysis that some
water systems may choose this alternative as the most effective and
viable strategy for reducing lead in drinking water (e.g., small water
systems with many LSLs to replace or a large number of households that
would make installation and maintenance of POU devices logistically
challenging) (see section VI.C.4 of this notice). The EPA is proposing
to require water systems, including small water systems, that have
already installed CCT and subsequently exceed the lead action level to
re-optimize CCT.
3. Point-of-Use Devices
    The EPA is proposing to allow NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install and
maintain POU devices certified to remove lead as a compliance
alternative to a lead action level exceedance in lieu of CCT and LSLR.
The EPA proposes to require small CWSs to provide a minimum of one POU
device per household, regardless of whether that household is served by
an LSL, to ensure the residents can access filtered water from at least
one tap. Since system-wide CCT is not being provided under this option,
even homes without LSLs would need to be provided with a POU device to
address lead leaching from old lead solder or brass plumbing fittings
and fixtures. The EPA proposes to require NTNCWSs to provide a POU
device for every tap intended for drinking or cooking to ensure all
building users can easily access filtered water. The water system would
be responsible for maintenance of the device, including changing filter
cartridges and resolving operational issues experienced by the
customer. Small CWSs that serve relatively few households, or NTNCWSs
that are responsible for the facility's plumbing, may find this to be
the most effective and viable compliance alternative (see section
VI.C.4 of this notice). Small CWSs would need to ensure water system
personnel have access to the homes of the residents to install and
maintain the POU devices, including changing the filters.
4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing Materials
    The EPA is proposing to provide an additional compliance
alternative for NTNCWS. Under this proposal, a NTNCWS that has control
over all plumbing in its buildings may choose to replace all lead
bearing plumbing in response to a lead action level exceedance.
Research has shown that corrosion of lead bearing premise plumbing has
the potential to leach higher levels of lead in drinking water (Elfland
et. al., 2010). Lead from premise plumbing contributes on average 20-35
percent of lead in drinking water where an LSL is present (AwwaRF,
2008), and could potentially represent an even greater percentage where
no LSL is present. The EPA proposes that the replacement of all lead
bearing plumbing occur on a schedule set by the State which must not
exceed one year. The EPA is proposing this compliance alternative only
apply to NTNCWS, because it is highly unlikely that a small CWS has
access to every residence and building it serves or that the CWS has
the authority to inspect and require replacement of all lead-bearing
plumbing materials in these locations.

F. Public Education

    Under the current LCR, water systems that exceed the lead action
level must initiate a public education program within 60 days of the
end of the monitoring period in which the action level exceedance
occurred. The purpose of public education is to inform consumers that
the water system has exceeded the action level, provide information
about the health effects of lead, the sources of lead in drinking
water, actions consumers can take to reduce exposure, and explain why
there are elevated levels of lead and actions the water system is
taking. Targeted public education for customers with an LSL or a
service line of unknown material is intended to raise awareness of
people in a household that may have higher lead exposures so that
consumers may take actions to reduce exposure to lead and participate
in LSLR programs.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory health effects
language required for public education materials as follows.
    Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could have
decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning and
behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases
prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become pregnant has
similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is released during
pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water
containing lead have increased risks of heart disease, high blood
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
    The EPA is also proposing enhancements to improve consumer
awareness and collaboration efforts with community organizations to
communicate lead risks. Proposed enhancements include a requirement for
systems to update public education materials with revised mandatory
health effects language and for systems with lead service lines to
include information about lead service line replacement programs and
opportunities available to customers for replacement. In addition, the
EPA is proposing to modify requirements to provide customers with their
tap sample results within 24 hours if the sample is greater than the
action level of 15 [mu]g/L, while maintaining the current rule
requirement to provide tap sample results within 30 days for samples
less than or equal to the action level. The EPA is proposing these
additional actions while retaining the current rule requirements for
public education following a lead action level exceedance.
1. Notification for Customers With a Lead Service Line
    The EPA is proposing to require water systems to conduct an LSL
inventory and provide public access to the inventory information (see
section III.C.1 of this notice). The EPA is proposing a new requirement
for water systems with LSLs to provide notification to households
served by an LSL and with unknown service line material, to include
information on: The health effects and sources of lead in drinking
water (including LSLs), how to have water tested for lead, actions

customers can take to reduce exposure to lead, and information about
the opportunities for LSLR, including the water system's requirement to
replace its portion of an LSL when notified by a customer that they
intend to replace the customer-owned portion of the LSL. The EPA is
proposing that a water system provide this notification to existing
customers served by an LSL and service lines of unknown material within
30 days of completing its LSL inventory and for new customers that
initiate new water service from a home or building with an LSL or a
service line of unknown material at the time service (i.e., billing) is
initiated. This proposal would require CWSs to send a notification on
an annual basis to customers until the LSL is replaced or the unknown
service line is determined not be an LSL. This notification must
include a section describing programs that provide innovative financing
solutions for customers seeking to replace their portion of a lead
service line. Small systems may wish to refer to a national information
source, such as one provided by EPA; large systems may wish to tailor
such information to their circumstances. This section must also include
a clear explanation of how the water system defines ownerships of lead
service lines, who has financial responsibility for the replacement,
and the legal basis for that determination. Additionally, the EPA
proposes that CWSs provide notification to LSL and unknowns service
line customers informing them of actions consumers can take to reduce
their exposure including replacing their lead service line when they
exceed the lead trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L but do not exceed the
lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L. The EPA believes that these
proposed notification requirements have value for both occupants of
rental properties as well as homeowners. Information regarding the
existence of an LSL will provide important information for renters on
potential lead exposure in their home and could prompt a communication
with their landlord regarding lead service line replacement. Occupants
of rental properties will also benefit from the information on other
actions they can take to reduce lead exposure in drinking water. The
CWS must provide the same information noted above and include an
invitation to participate in the LSLR program and repeat the notice
annually until it is at or below the lead trigger level.
2. Outreach Activities After Failing To Meet a Lead Service Line
Replacement Goal
    The EPA is proposing to require CWSs serving more than 10,000
persons that fail to meet their annual LSLR goal to conduct public
outreach activities. Failure to meet the LSLR goal would not be a
violation, however, failure to conduct public outreach activities would
result in a treatment technique violation. To increase customer
awareness of the potential higher exposure to lead from a LSLR and
advance customer interest in participating in the goal based LSLR
program, the EPA proposes that water systems conduct annual public
outreach activities until the water system meets its replacement goal.
Water systems can stop their goal LSLR program when tap sampling shows
that the 90th percentile of lead is at or below the trigger level for
two consecutive monitoring periods. To enhance community engagement and
allow water system flexibility as suggested by the NDWAC, the EPA is
proposing to provide options to meet this requirement, so water systems
can conduct effective community engagement. A water system that does
not meet its LSLR goal rate would select one of the proposed outreach
activities that would be most appropriate for that community. Outreach
activities include one or more of the following activities: (1) A
social media campaign (e.g., face book, twitter), (2) outreach to
organizations representing plumbers and contractors to discuss
identification of LSLs during home repair, (3) certified mail to LSL
customers inviting them to participate in the LSLR program, (4) conduct
a town hall meeting or participate in a community event to provide
information on the LSLR program, (5) direct contact (by phone or in
person) to customers to discuss LSLR program and opportunities for
LSLR, or (6) obtain written refusal from all LSL customers to
participate in the LSLR program. Water systems would be required to
complete at least one activity in the year following failure to meet
the replacement goal. If the water system continues to fail to meet the
annual replacement goal in the following year, the EPA is proposing
that the number of efforts be increased to two per year to promote
participation in the LSLR program. The NDWAC recommended this approach
to enhance engagement with homeowners and promote their participation
in LSLR programs. Water systems would provide written certification to
the State that they have conducted the required outreach activities
under this proposal.
3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach
    The EPA proposes for any individual tap sample that exceeds the
lead action level of 15 [micro]g/L, the water system would notify
consumers at the site within 24 hours of learning of the lead tap
sampling result. This is in addition to the current LCR requirement to
provide a notice of the individual tap sample results from lead testing
to persons served at the sampling site, which must be sent within 30
days of receiving results. For tap samples that do not exceed the lead
action level, the 30-day notice will remain in effect. Under this
proposal, water systems that have individual tap samples greater than
15 [micro]g/L would also be required to implement the ``find-and-fix''
provisions as described in section III.K. of this notice.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing that community water systems
conduct annual outreach to State and local health agencies to explain
the sources of lead in drinking water, discuss health effects of lead,
and explore collaborative efforts. This annual outreach would help to
ensure that caregivers and health providers hear and respond
appropriately to information about lead in drinking water and for water
utilities to participate in joint communication efforts, led by state
health departments, state lead poisoning prevention agencies, and/or
state drinking water primacy agencies (NDWAC, 2015).

G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and Copper in Tap Water Sampling

    Unlike most contaminants that are found in sources of drinking
water, lead and copper enter drinking water as it moves through the
distribution system and comes into contact with leaded materials, such
as lead service lines, leaded solder, brass/bronze fittings, galvanized
piping, faucets, and water meters. Therefore, measurements of lead and
copper are taken at the consumers tap. Tap sampling is a fundamental
part of the LCR designed to target sites expected to have the highest
lead levels and is used to assess the effectiveness of corrosion
control treatment and/or source water treatment in the water system.
This is done through targeted site selection (i.e., sampling locations
with lead service lines) and the use of a tap sample collection
protocol.
    All CWSs and NTNCWSs must collect lead and copper tap samples. The
water system may choose to have staff collect the samples if feasible,
or have residents collect the samples. Due to the required six hour
stagnation period prior to sample collection, it is often less

disruptive for the customer to collect the tap sample themselves. The
frequency of monitoring and number of samples to be collected and
analyzed is based primarily on how many people the water system serves
and previous tap water monitoring results. If residents are collecting
tap samples, the water system must recruit volunteers at the sites that
are most likely to have elevated lead based on the tiering criteria
described in the section below.
    To the extent feasible, water systems should use the same tap
sample sites each monitoring period. If a resident decides to
discontinue participation in tap sampling, the water system must select
a similarly ``tiered'' site. Due to potential non response from
resident volunteers, the EPA recommends including more sampling sites
in the pool of targeted sampling sites than the minimum number of tap
samples required be identified. Under the proposed rule, water systems
would be required to provide resident volunteers must be provided with
a wide-mouth collection bottle each time and a tap sample collection
protocol, including instructions on how the water system will pick up
samples for laboratory analysis, which must be done within two weeks
after the tap sample is drawn. The water system would then be required
to calculate a 90th percentile separately for lead and copper at the
end of each monitoring period. This 90th percentile value would be
reported to the State and is used to determine whether the system must
comply with other requirements of the rule, such as corrosion control
treatment, public education and LSLR.
    This proposal describes several revisions to the current LCR to
improve tap sampling requirements in the areas of site selection
tiering criteria, sample collection, and frequency provisions based on
the lead 90th percentile level. The current LCR requires water systems
to obtain samples from consumer's taps and use these samples to
calculate their 90th percentile value. The EPA is proposing revisions
to tap sampling procedures to increase the likelihood of capturing
elevated lead levels by revising tap sample site selection criteria,
i.e., tiering, and ensuring tap sample protocols contain accurate
instructions that will capture elevated lead levels at the tap. In
addition, to improve transparency and raise consumer awareness, the EPA
proposes to require water systems to make the results of all tap
samples collected in accordance with 141.86(b) publicly available
within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period.
1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites
    The LCR requires water systems to select sites for tap sampling
based on certain characteristics (i.e., single family home, multi-
family residence) and material of the service line (i.e., lead, copper
pipes with lead solder). Tiers establish the priority of sites selected
for tap sampling, with tier 1 being the highest priority, or highest
potential for elevated lead and tier 3 being the lowest priority. The
EPA is proposing to revise the tiering criteria for selection of tap
sampling sites to better target locations most likely to have higher
levels of lead in drinking water.
    The EPA is proposing that Tier 1 sampling sites for CWSs consist of
single-family structures (SFS) that are served by an LSL. When
multiple-family residences (MFRs) comprise at least 20 percent of the
structures served by a water system, the water system may include these
types of structures in its sampling pool as Tier 1 sampling sites, as
provided in the current LCR. The EPA is proposing that Tier 2 sampling
sites for CWSs are buildings, including MFRs that are served by an LSL.
The EPA also proposes that Tier 3 sampling sites for CWSs consist of
single SFSs that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before
the effective date of the applicable State's lead ban. The EPA is
proposing that NTNCWS Tier 1 sampling sites consist of buildings that
are served by an LSL and the remaining tap samples be taken at
buildings with copper pipe and lead solder installed before the
effective date of the applicable State's lead ban (Tier 3 sites). The
EPA is not modifying the definition of a ``representative site'' but is
referring to it as a ``Tier 4'' site. The revised tiering structure is
outlined below.

       Exhibit 1--Revised Lead and Copper Site Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Tier                     CWSs                   NTNCWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.................  Collect samples from     Collect samples from
                          SFSs served by LSLs.     building.
                          Tier 1 samples can be
                          collected from MFRs if
                          they represent at
                          least 20 percent of
                          structures served by
                          the water system.
Tier 2.................  Collect samples from     N/A.
                          buildings and MFRs
                          served by LSLs.
Tier 3.................  Collect samples from     Collect samples from
                          SFSs with copper pipes   buildings with copper
                          with lead solder         pipe and lead solder
                          installed before the     installed before the
                          effective date of the    effective date of the
                          State's lead ban.        State's lead ban.
Tier 4.................  Representative sample    Representative sample
                          where the plumbing is    where the plumbing is
                          similar to that used     similar to that used
                          at other sites served.   at other sites
                                                   served.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LSL = lead service line; MFR =
  multi-family residence; N/A = not applicable; NTNCWS = non-transient
  non-community water system; SFS = single family structure.

    The 1991 LCR made a clear distinction between the copper pipes with
lead solder installed after 1982, but before the effective date of
applicable state lead ban and designated these sites as Tier 1.
However, copper pipe with lead solder installed before 1983 are
designated as Tier 3 sites. In the 1991 LCR, the EPA based this
distinction on studies in which lead leaching from solder was found to
decrease with age (USEPA, 1990; Oliphant, 1982) and, as a result,
samples from copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983 were
expected to have lower lead levels.
    The EPA is basing its current proposal to revise the tiering
criteria for lead solder on the increased understanding of corrosion
mechanisms and sources of lead, in particular, lead from solder, as a
result of the studies conducted since the 1991 rulemaking (for example,
De Rosa and Williams, 1992; Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007; Nguyen
et al., 2010). Additionally, given that it has been over 30 years since
lead solder was banned in all jurisdictions, and considering lead
solder's ability to leach lead is reduced by age (USEPA, 1990), lead
levels in samples collected from sites containing copper pipe with lead
solder installed between 1983 and 1988 no longer present as significant
a source of lead as assumed in 1991. Based on the most recent science,
the EPA is proposing the above revisions to the tap sample site
selection tiering criteria to assure prioritization of sites that are

currently the most likely to yield elevated lead levels in drinking
water.
2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling
    The EPA is proposing additional requirements for LSL water systems
to enable prioritization of LSL sites in tap sampling. All water
systems with LSLs or potential LSLs must re-evaluate their lead
sampling sites based on their LSL inventory, prepared in accordance
with this proposal. These water systems would also be required to
update their inventory annually and ensure tap sampling sites are
served by an LSL. Under the current LCR, water systems with LSLs must
collect at least half of their tap samples from sites with known LSLs.
However, in this proposal, water systems with LSLs must collect all tap
samples from sites with known LSLs if possible, increasing the
likelihood of detecting elevated lead levels in the water system. The
EPA is proposing that water systems use the most up-to-date information
to select their tap sampling sites and prioritize sites with a higher
likelihood of elevated lead. Under this proposal, water systems with an
adequate number of LSL sites to meet the required minimum number of tap
sampling sites outlined in exhibit 2 below, must calculate their lead
90th percentile using only tap samples from LSL sites (100 percent
LSLs), as opposed to the current rule which allows water systems to use
samples from at least half LSL sites.

Exhibit 2--Minimum Number of Lead and Copper Tap Samples by Water System
                         Size, 40 CFR 141.86(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of     Number of
                                                  sites         sites
    System size (number of people served)       (standard     (reduced
                                               monitoring)   monitoring)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000....................................           100            50
10,001 to 100,000...........................            60            30
3,301 to 10,000.............................            40            20
501 to 3,300................................            20            10
101 to 500..................................            10             5
<=100.......................................             5             5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing that if a water system does not have an
adequate number of LSL sites to meet the minimum number of tap samples
to calculate the 90th percentile level, outlined in Sec.  141.86(c), it
may collect the remainder of the samples from non-LSL sites after all
the LSL tap sampling sites are utilized. If the water system conducts
tap sampling at non-LSL sites beyond what is required under Sec.
141.86(c), the water system must include only the tap samples with the
highest lead concentrations to meet the number of sites required for
the 90th percentile calculation. This provision would ensure that
additional tap samples collected above the minimum required, at sites
that are less likely to detect lead at similar levels as LSL sites,
cannot be used to ``dilute'' the lead 90th percentile level. Studies
demonstrate that when present, LSLs represents the largest source of
lead in tap water (Sandvig et al., 2008). Requiring use of only the
highest lead levels from non-LSL sites for the 90th percentile
calculation would increase the likelihood that sites with other major
sources of lead, such as lead-bearing brass or bronze fixtures and
galvanized service lines formerly downstream of an LSL, are captured in
the calculation. Using non-LSL sites as part of the 90th percentile
calculation is proposed to be utilized solely by water systems with
fewer LSL tap sample sites than the number required under Sec.
141.86(c). The EPA proposes that tap samples collected that are not
used in the lead 90th percentile calculation must still be reported to
the State.
    The EPA is proposing to permit the use of grandfathered data to
meet initial lead monitoring requirements if the data are from sites
that meet the proposed tiering requirements. Water systems that collect
lead tap samples after the publication date of the final rule, but
before the rule compliance date (three years after final rule
publication), in accordance with the proposed revised tap sample site
selection criteria, may use these data to satisfy the initial
monitoring requirement. Initial tap sampling establishes the water
system's sampling schedule and the number of tap samples it is required
to collect. The EPA is proposing to permit grandfathered data for an
LSL water system only if the data are from sites that meet the proposed
tiering requirements (i.e., all samples collected from LSL sites, if
available). Any water system that is conducting tap monitoring every
six months and intends to use these data for purposes of
grandfathering, must use the higher lead 90th percentile level to
establish the monitoring frequency and number of tap samples. The EPA
is proposing that water systems that do not have qualifying
grandfathered data must use the lead 90th percentile results from the
first tap sampling period after the compliance date of the final rule.
Following the establishment of the initial sampling schedule and number
of tap samples (based on either grandfathered data or data collected
during the first tap sampling period after the rule compliance date),
the system would be required to commence the appropriate tap sampling
schedule. The proposed criteria for using grandfathered data would
ensure that historical data are used only if they are from samples with
the highest potential lead concentrations.
    No changes are being proposed to the copper sampling requirements
in the current LCR. However, due to proposed increased tap sampling
requirements for lead, each tap sample collected may not be required to
be analyzed for both lead and copper. This is a result of the lead and
copper tap sampling schedules diverging for some water systems. Under
the current rule, any water system that exceeds either the lead or
copper action level (15 [micro]g/L or 1.3 mg/L, respectively), would
conduct tap monitoring every six months for both lead and copper. Once
a water system measures 90th percentile tap concentrations at or below
the lead and copper action levels for two consecutive rounds of
monitoring, the water system may reduce to annual monitoring for lead
and copper. Water systems that meet the lead and copper action levels
for three consecutive rounds of annual monitoring may reduce to
triennial sampling at a reduced number of sites.
    As discussed above, the EPA is proposing to establish a lead
trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L that would affect the tap sampling
frequency. Under this proposal, water systems that exceed the lead
trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L but do not exceed the copper and lead
action levels and that are conducting tap sampling on a triennial
basis, would be required to begin annual tap sampling at the standard
number of sites for lead but may remain on triennial sampling for
copper at the reduced number of sites. Water systems that meet the lead
trigger level for three consecutive years of annual monitoring and have
also met the copper action level, may reduce their lead and copper tap
sampling to a triennial basis at the reduced number of sites. Water
systems that exceed the lead trigger level and are on annual monitoring
would not be eligible for triennial monitoring for lead at a reduced
number of sites until the lead 90th percentile result is at or below
the lead trigger level for three consecutive years.
    In this proposal, changes to reduced monitoring are contingent upon
several factors, including but not limited to: Results of lead and
copper tap sampling, the size of the water system (i.e., small water
system flexibilities), and maintaining water quality parameters (WQPs)
if CCT is installed. The schedule for tap sampling may be affected when
these factors change.

Opportunities for reduction in tap sampling frequency and number of
sites are more stringent under this proposal compared to the current
rule. A water system must not exceed the trigger level of 10 [micro]g/L
to move into a triennial monitoring schedule at the reduced number of
tap sample sites for lead. The proposed revisions to tap sampling
frequency and locations are meant to ensure more frequent tap sampling
is occurring at the most representative sites to identify elevated lead
levels.
3. Sample Collection Methods
    The EPA is proposing several changes to the tap sampling protocol,
consistent with the Agency's February 2016 memorandum (USEPA, 2016d).
Under the current LCR, a one-liter sample is collected from the tap
after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing system for at
least six hours (i.e., stagnation). This is a called a first-draw
sample. Water systems provide residents with a protocol for carrying
out tap sampling in accordance with the LCR, if the water system itself
is not collecting the tap samples. The EPA is aware that some water
systems have provided sampling procedures to residents that included
recommendations that may inadvertently reduce the lead levels detected,
including a recommendation to run water from the tap, called flushing,
prior to initiating the required minimum 6-hour stagnation time. This
practice is referred to as pre-stagnation flushing. With pre-stagnation
flushing, the water from the tap is run until water from the LSL is
flushed out, then the water is turned off for at least six hours prior
to sample collection. Based on historical data and more recent studies
(e.g., Katner, et al. 2018; Del Toral et al., 2013), it is evident that
pre-stagnation flushing may reduce measured lead levels at the tap
compared to when it is not practiced. Flushing, or running taps, has
long been understood to decrease water lead levels overall, and thus
has been a recommendation by Federal, State and local authorities as a
way to reduce lead exposure prior to water use, especially in
residences of higher risk (e.g., houses containing LSLs). In addition,
flushing removes water that may be in contact with LSLs for extended
periods of time, which is when lead typically leaches into drinking
water (USEPA, 2016). As a general matter, the EPA recommends consumers
flush taps as a regular public health protective practice to reduce
household exposure to lead in drinking water. However, in the case of
collecting samples to determine water system compliance with the LCR,
this practice may mask potential higher lead exposure that may be
representative of exposure in households that do not regularly flush
taps before use. Therefore, EPA is proposing to prohibit pre-stagnation
flushing in tap sampling protocols.
    The EPA is also aware that some tap sampling protocols contain a
recommendation to remove or clean the faucet aerator prior to sampling.
The taps used for monitoring likely contain an aerator as part of the
faucet assembly, and particulate matter, including lead, may accumulate
within these aerators. Thus, removing and/or cleaning these aerators
prior to or during sample collection could mask the contribution of
particulate lead. It is advisable to regularly remove and clean faucet
aerators to avoid particulate matter build-up. However, if customers
only remove and clean the aerators prior to or during sample
collection, the sample results will not be representative of household
use, given residents are not cleaning or removing their aerators before
every use. The EPA proposes to prohibit the recommendation to remove
and/or clean the faucet aerator prior to or during the collection of
lead and copper tap samples.
    Based on current information, the EPA endorses best practices to
optimize the tap sampling protocol, so that sample results represent
the highest lead levels occurring at high risk locations. The EPA is
proposing to require tap samples be collected in wide-mouth bottles.
Wide-mouth bottles are advantageous for lead and copper tap samples
because they allow for a higher water flow rate compared to a narrow-
necked bottle. Collection of tap samples using a wide-mouth bottle is
more characteristic of faucet water flow when filling a glass of water,
therefore, water systems will be responsible for providing those
conducting sampling with wide-mouth, one-liter sample bottles.
    In summary, the EPA is proposing to prohibit the inclusion of pre-
stagnation flushing in all tap sampling protocols, thereby preventing
the systematic running of water from taps or faucets prior to beginning
the minimum 6-hour stagnation time needed for sample collection. The
EPA also proposes the prohibition of cleaning or removing of the faucet
aerator in the tap sampling protocol, and a requirement that tap
samples be collected in bottles with a wide-mouth configuration. The
inclusion of a pre-stagnation flushing step, cleaning or removal of the
faucet aerator, and/or using a narrow-necked bottle for collection, is
inconsistent with the purpose of lead tap sampling, which is to target
sites and collect tap samples in a manner the is likely to capture the
highest lead levels. The EPA is also proposing that all water systems
submit their sampling protocol to the State for approval prior to the
compliance date. In addition, the EPA is also requesting comment on
alternative changes to the sampling technique for sampling locations
with lead service lines in section VII of this notice.

H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring

    Under the current LCR, water systems that have CCT must monitor
water quality parameters (WQPs) to ensure effective CCT. WQP samples
must be collected at taps every six months and at entry points to the
distribution system every six months prior to CCT installation and
every two weeks thereafter.
1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization
    The EPA is proposing several revisions to the WQP monitoring
requirements of the current rule. Because the EPA is proposing to
eliminate calcium carbonate stabilization as a potential option for CCT
(see section III.B.3. of this notice), the WQPs associated directly
with this CCT option will also be removed. These include all parameters
related to calcium hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water
temperature). The remaining WQP monitoring requirements from the
current rule will be maintained. This change is due to recent evidence
demonstrating that calcium carbonate stabilization is ineffective at
preventing corrosion in lead and copper pipes (see section III.B.3.).
The EPA is proposing to remove the three WQPs related to calcium
hardness (calcium, conductivity, and water temperature) because the EPA
is proposing to no longer allow calcium carbonate stabilization as a
potential CCT option. In the current rule, after the water system
selects their CCT choice, the State designates OWQPs and the water
system must maintain these levels in the ranges determined by the
State. In this proposal, the EPA is prioritizing the most effective CCT
options and the associated WQPs. Thus, the less effective CCT option
currently available, calcium carbonate stabilization, is proposed to be
eliminated, together with the associated WQPs.
2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
    The EPA is proposing that additional WQP monitoring samples be
collected by water systems that have CCT and that have any individual
tap sample(s) with

lead results exceeding 15 [mu]g/L. The additional WQP monitoring is a
part of proposed revisions described under ``find-and-fix'' (see
section III.K. of this notice) and would require water systems to
collect follow-up lead tap samples at every sampling site that has an
individual lead sample greater than 15 [mu]g/L. This is proposed to be
completed within 30 days of obtaining results of the individual sample
greater than 15 [mu]g/L. The EPA is also proposing a WQP sample be
collected at a location on the same size water main located within a
half mile of the residence with the lead result greater than 15 [mu]g/
L. This WQP monitoring is proposed to be completed within five days of
receiving results of the individual lead sample greater than 15 [mu]g/
L. Water systems with existing distribution system WQP monitoring sites
that meet the main size/proximity requirements can conduct the sampling
at that location.
    The EPA is proposing that any water system which adds sites for the
purposes of WQP monitoring specified in this paragraph includes those
additional sites in future WQP monitoring. The follow-up WQP samples
will aid in determining whether OWQPs set by the State are being met by
the water system. If any of the WQPs are off-target, such as pH or
indicators of CCT, then the water system may be able to determine how
large the problem is, and if it includes the whole water system, a
specific area, or the sole residence with the lead action level
exceedance. The additional WQP sample taken will aid in the
determination of the potential cause of elevated levels of lead so that
appropriate actions can be carried out.
3. Review of Water Quality Parameters During Sanitary Surveys
    The EPA is proposing that both CCT and WQPs be assessed during
sanitary surveys for water systems with CCT. The EPA proposes that
States conduct a periodic review of WQP results and tap sampling
results to ensure the water system is maintaining the optimal CCT and
to assess if there should be modifications to the CCT to further reduce
lead and copper levels in tap samples.
4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Requirements
    In addition to the updates for WQP requirements previously
specified, the EPA is proposing several supplementary changes to the
current rule. First, water systems with CCT would continue collecting
one sample for each applicable WQP at each entry point in the
distribution system as required in the current rule with the added
requirement to do so no less frequently than once every two weeks.
Water systems with CCT need to continue bi-weekly monitoring to ensure
their treatment techniques are optimal for reducing lead and copper
corrosion.
    The EPA is also proposing revisions to the prerequisites that are
required for water systems to reduce the number of sites sampled and
the frequency of WQP sampling. In order to reduce the number of sites
used in water quality parameter monitoring, the current rule requires
the water system to maintain the range of water quality parameters for
two 6-month monitoring periods. The EPA is proposing that water systems
would also need to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level for
those two 6-month monitoring periods to be eligible for a reduction in
the number of sites for WQP sampling. In order for the water system to
reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters, under
the current rule, the water system must maintain the range of WQP
values for three consecutive years to reduce to annual monitoring.
Under the proposal, the water system would need to also meet the lead
90th percentile trigger level for those three consecutive years in
order to be eligible for yearly monitoring. Under the current rule, if
the water system meets the WQP requirements determined by the State and
the lead 90th percentile trigger level for three additional annual
monitoring periods, it may reduce its WQP monitoring frequency to once
every three years. The EPA is proposing that for every phase of
potential reduced WQP monitoring, the water system would also be
required to meet the lead 90th percentile trigger level in addition to
the current requirements. This would ensure that the required WQP
monitoring sites and frequency continue when water systems have a high
lead 90th percentile level. For a water system on reduced monitoring,
the use of grandfathered data may be used if collected in accordance
with the proposed revisions and its 90th percentile in either
grandfathered data or initial tap sampling is at or below the trigger
level.

I. Source Water Monitoring

    The current rule requires water systems to conduct source water
monitoring following an action level exceedance. Based on the results
of the source water monitoring, the State must decide whether it is
necessary for the water system to install source water treatment to
reduce lead and/or copper tap levels. Regardless of whether a State
decides that treatment is needed or not, the water system is still
required to conduct source water monitoring following the State
decision. The EPA is proposing to discontinue additional source water
monitoring requirements if (a) a water system has conducted source
water monitoring for prior lead and/or copper action level exceedance,
(b) the State has determined that source water treatment is not
required, and (c) a water system has not added any new water source(s).
    The EPA is proposing these changes to eliminate monitoring
requirements that are not necessary to protect public health. Lead and
copper are rarely found in the source water in significant quantities
(USEPA, 1988b), thus, where the State has decided that source water
treatment is not needed, the EPA is proposing to allow the State to
waive source water monitoring for any subsequent action level
exceedance under the conditions listed above and to eliminate the
regular monitoring currently required for source water lead and copper.

J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

    The EPA is proposing to require all CWSs to conduct targeted
sampling and public education at schools and child care facilities that
they serve. Currently the EPA does not require public water systems to
conduct sampling in schools and child care facilities because the
Agency established the voluntary 3T's program--Training, Testing and
Taking Action (3Ts) that was designed to assist states, schools, and
child care facilities with conducting their own testing program,
conducting outreach, and taking action to address elevated levels of
lead. The EPA is proposing these requirements because the Agency sees
an opportunity for water systems to assist schools and child care
facilities with sampling and testing for lead. Large buildings such as
schools can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels because,
even when served by a water system with well operated OCCT, may have
longer periods of stagnation due to complex premise plumbing systems
and inconsistent water use patterns. In such situations, there may not
be technical improvements that can be made to the OCCT, but risk can be
mitigated through public education and voluntary actions such as
replacement of premise plumbing. Water systems have developed the
technical capacity to do this work in operating their system and
complying with current drinking water standards.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing to expand the LCR sampling and
education requirements because students and

young children spend a large portion of their day in schools and child
care facilities. Lead in drinking water can be a significant
contributor to overall exposure to lead, particularly for infants whose
diet consists of liquids made with water, such as baby food, juice, or
formula. Young children and infants are particularly vulnerable to lead
because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower
exposure levels in children than in adults. In children, low levels of
exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral
nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired
hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells.
    Children spend on average over six hours per day at school (USDA
National Center for Education Statistics), with many spending more time
at on-site before- or after-school care or activities. Across the
country, about 100,000 schools participate in the national school lunch
program, serving daily lunch to 30 million students. Ninety thousand
schools serve breakfast to 14.6 million students every day (USDA). The
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which authorizes funding and
sets policy for USDA's child nutrition programs, requires schools
participating in federally funded meal programs to make water available
during meal periods at no cost to students (section 202 of HHFKA (42
U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)). The Act also mandates that child care facilities
provide free drinking water throughout the day (section 221 of HHFKA
(42 U.S.C. 1766(u)(2)). The EPA is proposing a new requirement for all
CWSs to provide public education on lead in drinking water and sample
for lead at schools and child care facilities within its distribution
system every five years. The intent of the requirement is to inform and
educate targeted CWS customers and users about risks from lead in
premise plumbing at schools and childcare facilities.
    The EPA is proposing new public education requirements for all CWSs
that provide water to schools and child care facilities. The CWS would
be required to provide information about the health risks and sources
of lead in drinking water, collect samples for lead at schools and
child care facilities within its distribution system, and share that
data with the facilities and health departments to raise awareness and
increase knowledge about the risks and likelihood of the presence of
lead in drinking water. Prior to conducting sampling in schools
(discussed in further detail in this section), the CWS would compile a
list of schools and child care facilities served by the water system.
The list would contain both customers and other users to ensure
inclusion of non-billed users. The CWS would then use that list to
communicate with the schools and child care facilities about the health
risks of lead and the specifics of the sampling program.
    Prior to conducting sampling, the CWS would send information to the
school and child care facilities to notify them of their plans to
perform sampling and to provide them with the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water Toolkit (EPA 815-B-18-007), or a subsequent guidance
issued by the EPA. A CWS's distribution of the 3Ts document would
initiate or contribute to active communication with child care
facilities and schools, who are critical customers that serve a
vulnerable population. The information in the 3Ts document provides
tools for the facility to consider using, including expanded sampling,
stakeholder communication, and remediation options.
    Under the proposal, a CWS would then be required to collect samples
from five drinking water outlets at each school and two drinking water
outlets at each child care facility served by the CWS. The CWS would be
expected to complete sampling at all schools and child care facilities
in its distribution system every five years. The samples would be first
draw after at least 8 hours but not more than 18 hours stagnation of
the building and be 250 ml in volume. The EPA is proposing this
sampling protocol to be consistent with recommended sampling protocols
under the EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit
(EPA815-B-18-007). These sampling protocols enable school and child
care facility officials to identify the outlets that may be sources of
lead (e.g., the fixture, interior plumbing). The smaller sample size is
more representative of the amount of water consumed per serving. The
results of the samples would not be used as part of the CWS's
calculation of the 90th percentile value in Sec.  141.80(c)(4) because
these samples are being collected in a manner to inform whether action
is needed at a specific school or child care facility and whether
corrosion control is effective system-wide. The CWS would be required
to provide each school and child care facility with the results of the
samples taken in that facility. The CWS would be required to provide
the sampling results as soon as practicable but no less than 30 days
after receipt of the results. The CWS would also be required to provide
the results for all samples collected in schools and child care
facilities to the drinking water primacy agency and local health
department where the school or child care facility is located.
    CWS sampling in schools and child care facilities would be part of
a targeted public education effort to educate CWS customers about risks
from lead in premise plumbing and the actions customers can take to
address sources of lead in their plumbing. Individual outlets, such as
water fountains, can leach lead even when a water system has optimized
corrosion control and/or has lead levels at or below the action level
in its tap sampling. School and child care facility sampling
contributes to increased public awareness of the potential for elevated
levels of lead in premise plumbing independent of a water system's 90th
percentile value.
    The CWS would not be required under this proposed rule for taking
any remedial action at the school or child care facility following the
sampling and notification requirements of this proposal. The managers
of these facilities have the established lines of communication with
the occupants of these buildings (and their parents or guardians) and
have control over the plumbing materials that may need to be addressed.
The school or child care facility would be able to use the 3T's
guidance and make decisions about communication of the sampling results
to the parents and occupants of the facility and as well as any follow-
up remedial actions.
    Some State and local agencies have drinking water testing
requirements for lead in schools and child care facilities. In this
proposal, the EPA is including an opportunity for a State or primacy
agency to waive school and child care facility sampling for individual
CWSs to avoid duplication of effort. If a State has in place a program
that requires CWSs to sample at all schools and child care facilities,
or a program requiring schools and child care facilities to collect
samples themselves, that is at least as stringent as the proposed LCR
requirements, the State may use that program in lieu of the proposed
requirement. If a State or other program is limited to a subset of
schools and child care facilities as defined in this proposal, then the
State may consider the requirement for individual CWSs whose customers
or users are already included in the State or other program as being
met. For example, if a State has a required program for testing lead in
drinking water in public schools but not in other types of schools or
in child care facilities, then a CWS serving only public schools can
receive a waiver. If that CWS serves public and non-public schools,
then the CWS would be required to notify and conduct testing at

the non-public schools and child care facilities and could receive a
partial waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is not responsible for
notifying and testing public schools. With a partial waiver, the CWS
would be required to test at schools or child care facilities that are
not otherwise covered by a program that requires testing and is at
least as stringent as this proposal.
    In section VII of this notice, the EPA is requesting comment on an
alternative to the proposed requirements for public education and
sampling at schools and child care facilities described in this
section.

K. Find-and-Fix

    The EPA is proposing an additional requirement to the current LCR,
known as ``find-and-fix'' when an individual tap sample exceeds 15
[mu]g/L. Under the current rule, up to 10 percent of lead tap samples
used to calculate the 90th percentile may exceed the lead action level.
However, if the water system's 90th percentile does not exceed the lead
action level, the only action required by a water system is to provide
the tap sample results to the consumer within 30 days of receiving the
result. A ``find-and-fix'' approach requires water systems to perform
additional actions (as described in this section); when an individual
tap sample exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, water systems are required to identify
and remediate the source of the elevated lead at the tap sample site.
Also, as part of the proposed public education requirements (described
in section III.F of this notice), water systems would be required to
provide notification to affected consumers within 24 hours. This
proposed change will improve consumer awareness and provide information
necessary to take actions to limit exposure to lead in drinking water.
    Under this proposal, the ``find-and-fix'' approach would require
the water systems to collect a follow-up sample for each tap sample
site that exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. The follow-up tap sample must be
collected within 30 days of receiving the tap sample result. These
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead levels
based on the characteristics of the site. The results of the ``find-
and-fix'' follow-up samples would be submitted to the State but would
not be included in the 90th percentile calculation. If the water system
is unable to collect a follow-up sample at a site, the water system
would have to provide documentation to the State for why it was unable
to collect a follow-up sample. The water system must provide the
follow-up tap sample results to consumers within 30 days of receiving
the result (consistent with the current rule), unless that follow-up
sample also exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, in which case, the EPA proposes the
water system must notify the consumer within 24 hours of learning of
the result. Water systems should anticipate the requirement that
customers must be notified within 24-hours of results for many of the
``find-and-fix'' follow-up samples. Any water system that is unable to
regain access to the same site to collect a follow-up tap sample may
decide to sample at another site within close proximity of the original
site and with similar structural characteristics.
    As described in section III.H of this notice, the EPA is proposing
that water systems with CCT that have an individual tap sample that
exceeds the lead action level, would be required to collect an
additional WQP sample within five days of obtaining the lead tap sample
result. For a CWS, this WQP sample must be collected from a site in the
same water pressure zone, on the same size or smaller water main within
0.5 miles of the residence with the tap sample exceeding the lead
action level. Water systems with an existing WQP site that meets these
criteria would be able to sample at that location. Since WQP sites are
more accessible sites and do not require coordination with customers,
this sample can be collected in a shorter timeframe. It is also
important to try to sample close to when the lead tap sample with the
high results was collected so that the water quality will more closely
match the conditions at the site that exceeded 15 [micro]g/L. The
follow-up tap sample collected for lead can help the water system
determine the potential source of lead contamination (e.g., premise
plumbing, LSL) and the WQP sample required for water systems with CCT
will help determine if CCT is optimized, if additional WQP sites are
needed, and/or WQPs set by the State are being met. Such steps will
help identify the source of the elevated lead to initiate appropriate
mitigation. Where the water system is unable to identify and/or
mitigate the risk, it must submit a justification to the State.
    Under this proposal, the water system would be required to
determine if problems with the CCT are leading to elevated levels of
lead in the tap samples and then implement a mitigation strategy if
necessary. In addition to the follow-up tap sample and the WQP
sampling, the water system can review distribution system operations or
other factors to determine the cause of elevated lead level. CCT
adjustment may not be necessary to address every exceedance. Water
systems shall note the cause of the elevated lead level if known in
their recommendation to the State.
    Mitigation strategies could include a water system-wide adjustment
to CCT, flushing portions of the distribution system, or other
strategies to improve water quality management to reduce lead levels.
Under this proposal, water systems would be required to recommend a
solution to the State for approval within six months of the end of the
monitoring period in which the site(s) first exceeded 15 [mu]g/L and
the State would have six months to approve the recommendation. If the
water system does not have CCT and recommends installation of it, the
system would be required to follow the proposed schedule in Sec.
141.81(e). A water system with CCT that recommends re-optimization of
CCT would be required to follow the steps in accordance with Sec.
141.81(d).
    A water system may identify a fix that is out of its control. For
example, if the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet
owned by the customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the
faucet, the water system would provide documentation to the State under
this proposal. All other fixes recommended by a water system would be
implemented on a schedule specified by the State.

L. Reporting and Recordkeeping

    The EPA is proposing changes to water system reporting requirements
in conjunction with corresponding changes to the regulatory
requirements being proposed by the EPA in this rulemaking. These
changes in reporting requirements will help inform State decision-
making and improve implementation and oversight.
1. Reporting Requirements for Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper and for
Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
    In addition to the proposed tap sample revisions, as described in
section III.G.3 of this notice, a water system would also be required
to submit for State approval its tap sampling protocol that is provided
to residents or other individuals who are conducting the tap sampling,
to ensure that the sampling protocol does not include pre-stagnation
flushing, instructions to clean or remove the aerator, or use narrow-
mouth sample collection bottles. Under this proposal, water systems
would also need to provide annual certification to the State that the
approved sampling protocol has not been modified.

    Additionally, calcium results would no longer be subject to
reporting requirements because under the proposed rule, calcium would
no longer be a CCT option or regulated WQP.
2. Lead Service Line Inventory and Replacement Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing to incorporate new reporting requirements in
conjunction with the proposed revisions to the LSLR requirements in
Sec.  141.84. Under this proposal, by the rule's compliance date, the
water system would have to submit an inventory of LSLs and service
lines of unknown material to the State and would have to annually
thereafter submit an updated inventory that reflects LSLs replaced and
service lines of unknown material that have been evaluated in the
distribution system.
3. Lead Trigger Level Notification Requirements
    The EPA proposes that any water system that has LSLs with 90th
percentile tap sampling data that exceed the lead trigger level would
annually certify to the State that it conducted notification in
accordance with proposed LSL customer notification provisions. The
notification would ensure that these consumers were properly alerted
about the trigger level exceedance, potential risks of lead in drinking
water, and informed about the water system's goal-based LSLR program.
4. Reporting Requirements for School and Child Care Public Education
and Sampling
    The EPA is proposing to incorporate the following reporting
requirements:
     A CWS would have to certify that it has completed the
notification and sampling requirements (proposed in section III.J. of
this notice) at a minimum of 20 percent of schools and child care
facilities served by the water system. The certification would include
the number of schools and child care facilities served by the water
system, the number of schools and child care facilities sampled in the
calendar year, and the number of schools and child care facilities that
have refused sampling.
     A CWS would have to certify that individual sampling
results were shared with the respective school and child care facility,
and that all results were shared with local or State health
departments. The proposed certification would include information
identifying the number of attempts to gain entry for sampling that were
declined by a customer.
     If a CWS does not serve any school or licensed child care
facilities, the water system would have to annually certify to the
State that it made a good faith effort to identify schools and child
care facilities in accordance with proposed requirements in Sec.
141.92 and confirm that no schools or child care facilities are served
by the water system. The good faith effort could include reviewing
customer records and requesting lists of schools and child care
facilities from the State or other licensing agency.
     Certification would be sent to the State by July 1 of each
year for the previous calendar year's activity.
5. What are the State record keeping requirements?
    The EPA is proposing to require the State to retain all record
keeping requirements from the current LCR as well as to add new
requirements related to corrosion control treatment (CCT) and lead
service line inventory (LSL) and replacement. The EPA proposes to
require the State to maintain a record of all public water systems LSL
inventories, as well as annual updates to their inventories as LSLs are
verified and replaced over time. This information is necessary for the
State to calculate goal and mandatory LSLR rates, as well as verify
correct tap sample site selection tiering. The proposal would also
require the State to maintain records on changes to source water or
treatment, as these changes could affect the optimized corrosion
control treatment approved by the State. The State would also be
required to maintain records regarding ``find-and-fix,'' specifically
where a problem was identified, and the action taken to address it.
States would review and maintain these records to ensure compliance
with find-and-fix requirements, to evaluate if appropriate actions were
taken by the water system, and if additional follow up is necessary by
the water system. When no remedial action was taken, the State would
need to keep a record of the decision for no action. For example, if
the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet owned by the
customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the faucet, the
State would maintain a record of that decision by the customer as
justification for no remedial action taken to address a high lead
sample result. Finally, under this proposal, the State would be
required to maintain records of the compliance alternative the State
has approved for the non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS)
and small community water systems (CWSs). This information would allow
the State to track water systems' progress with corrosion control
treatment, complete lead service line replacement, use of point-of-use
(POU) devices, and replacement of leaded premise plumbing.
6. What are the State reporting requirements?
    In addition to the reporting requirements in the current rule, the
EPA is proposing that the State report several additional data elements
to the EPA. The State would be required to report the OCCT status of
all water systems, including the parameters that define the
optimization (for example, orthophosphate residual or target pH and
alkalinity values). While 90th percentile lead levels at or below the
lead action level are not currently required to be reported by States
for small water systems, the EPA is proposing that all water systems
regardless of size and or lead levels report their lead 90th percentile
value. The EPA has found that many States already voluntarily report
90th percentile lead values for all systems to the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS). The EPA also proposes that States report
the current number of LSLs at every water system. National information
about the numbers of LSLs in public water systems will support the EPA
and other Federal agencies in targeting programs to reduce lead
exposure, such as the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
Act (United States, 2016) and America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA,
2018).

IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

A. Consumer Confidence Report

    In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among
other things, this amendment added a provision requiring that all
community water systems deliver to their customers a brief water
quality report annually called a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). CCRs
summarize information water systems collect to comply with regulations.
The CCR includes information on source water, the levels of any
detected contaminants, compliance with drinking water rules (including
monitoring requirements), and some educational language, including a
mandatory health effects statement regarding lead.
    As recommended by the NDWAC (see section VIII.L.2 of this notice),
the EPA consulted with risk communication experts to revise the
mandatory health effects language in the Consumer

Confidence Report (CCR). To improve clarity, the EPA is proposing to
require Community Water Systems (CWSs) to include a revised mandatory
health effects statement that would inform consumers that lead is
harmful for all age groups and to include a mandatory statement about
lead service lines (LSLs) (e.g., their presence and how to replace
them) for water systems with LSLs. The proposed mandatory statement is
below.

    Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could
have decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning
and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant
increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become
pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is
released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who
drink water containing lead have increased risks of heart disease,
high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.

    To increase transparency and improve public access to information,
the EPA is also proposing to require CWS to report the range of lead
tap sample results in addition to the currently required 90th
percentile and the number of samples that are greater than the lead
action level for each monitoring period. Reporting the range of tap
sample lead levels would allow consumers to understand how high tap
sample levels were at individual sites.

B. Public Notification

    The Public Notification Rule (PN) is part of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The rule ensures that consumers will know if there is a
problem with their drinking water. These notices alert consumers if
there is risk to public health. They also notify customers: If the
water does not meet drinking water standards; if the water system fails
to test its water; if the system has been granted a variance (use of
less costly technology); or if the system has been granted an exemption
(more time to comply with a new regulation). In 2000, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) revised the existing Public Notification Rule.
The revisions matched the form, manner, and timing of the notices to
the relative risk to human health. The revised rule makes notification
easier and more effective for both water systems and their customers.
    In 2016, section 2106 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act (WIIN Act) amended section 1414 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) to, among other things, require water systems to
provide ``Notice that the public water system exceeded the lead action
level under section 141.80(c) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(or a prescribed level of lead that the Administrator establishes for
public education or notification in a successor regulation promulgated
pursuant to section 1412 of the SDWA).'' The Act also provided that
notice of violations or exceedances ``with potential to have serious
adverse effects on human,'' which are types of violations and
exceedances currently categorized as ``Tier 1'' under the current
public notification rules (see Table 2 to Sec.  141.201), must ``be
distributed as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours, after
the public water system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' The
WIIN Act also requires that such notifications ``be provided to the
Administrator and the head of the State agency that has primary
enforcement responsibility under section 1413 of the SDWA, as
applicable, as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after
the public water system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' The
EPA is proposing to incorporate these requirements for CWSs and non-
transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) with a lead action
level exceedance as part of proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule incorporates the amendments
to section 1414 of the SDWA in the 40 CFR 141 subpart Q-Public
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (and as necessary into any
provisions cross-referenced therein) and adds exceedances of the lead
action level under Sec.  141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 violations
subject to the new 24-hour notice requirements discussed above. The EPA
proposes to categorize lead action level exceedances as Tier 1 based on
the conclusion that such exceedances ``have the potential to have
serious adverse health effects on human health as a result of short-
term exposure''. Since exposure to lead can result in serious health
effects, the EPA is proposing a lead AL exceedance result in Tier 1
public notification because the Agency cannot define the subset of lead
AL exceedances that could result in serious adverse health effects due
to short-term exposure, therefore the EPA proposes that a lead AL
exceedance would require Tier 1, 24 hour notification. In addition, the
EPA proposes to update the mandatory health effects statement as
follows to be consistent with the proposed CCR revisions:

    Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could
have decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning
and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant
increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become
pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is
released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who
drink water containing lead have increased risk of heart disease,
high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.

C. Definitions

    The EPA is proposing new and revised definitions to clarify new and
updated terminology in this proposed rule in Sec.  141.2. Definitions
for ``aerator,'' ``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,''
``tap sampling protocol,'' ``monitoring period,'' and ``sampling
period'' are added to correspond with proposed rule changes regarding
tap sampling methodology and the monitoring period. In addition, the
population size criterion have changed for the definitions of small and
medium-size water systems to reflect the 1996 changes to SDWA for
small-system flexibility.
    Definitions have been added to ensure readers understand the
criteria that identify a ``child care facility,'' and a ``school,''
related to additional sampling requirements for CWSs. In addition, new
definitions for ``trigger level,'' ``find-and-fix,'' and ``consumer''
have also been added because ``trigger level'' and ``find-and-fix'' are
new requirements for this proposal, while ``consumer'' refers to a
defined group impacted by the rule proposal. Further, in this proposal,
terms related to lead service lines, such as ``galvanized service
line,'' ``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector,'' ``potholing,''
``hydrovacing,'' and ``trenching'' have been defined as these are
processes or objects associated with the lead service line replacement
requirements of the rule proposal. Also, to ensure appropriate
implementation of this rule definitions for ``pitcher filter'' and
``point of use (POU) device'' are proposed because they relate to
compliance alternatives for small community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems in this proposal. Finally,
analytical definitions for a ``method detection limit'' (MDL) and a
``practical quantitation level'' (PQL)'' have been provided to better
explain analytical methods in the current and proposed rule.

V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement

    The NDWAC recommended that the EPA create an on-line portal for

guidance, templates and other tools to support implementation of the
final LCRR by water systems and States. The EPA provides all applicable
guidance and tools on CCT, PE, and other aspects of the rule on the
Agency website at https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/water-system-implementation-resources to support implementation of the current LCR
and will continue to rely on the website to implement any revisions
finalized as a result of this proposed rule. The Lead Action Plan has
an objective to ``[c]reate an online portal to enhance, consolidate and
streamline federal-wide communication to the public. Links will direct
the public to the EPA and other Federal Agencies specific information.
The EPA would utilize this mechanism to promote broader access to the
EPA website for new and revised guidance and tools to support the LCRR.
    The EPA is proposing requirements that would improve oversight and
enforcement of the LCRR. For example, the GAO in its report ``Drinking
Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's
Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule'', recommended the EPA should
require states to report available information about lead pipes to the
EPA's SDWIS (or a future redesign) database and should require states
to report all 90th percentile sample results for small water systems
(GAO-17-424, 2017).

A. What are the requirements for primacy?

    This section describes the regulations and other procedures and
policies that States must adopt, or have in place, to implement the
proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), while continuing to meet all other
conditions of primacy in 40 CFR part 142. Section 1413 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes requirements that primacy
entities (States or Indian Tribes) must meet to maintain primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy) for its public water systems.
These include: (1) Adopting drinking water regulations that are no less
stringent than Federal national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs) in effect under sections 1412(a) and 1412(b) of the Act, (2)
adopting and implementing adequate procedures for enforcement, (3)
keeping records and making reports available on activities that the EPA
requires by regulation, (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if
allowed by the State) under conditions no less stringent than allowed
by SDWA sections 1415 and 1416, and (5) adopting and being capable of
implementing an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking water
under emergency situations.
    40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific program implementation
requirements for States to obtain primacy for the Public Water Supply
Supervision Program, as authorized under section 1413 of the SDWA. To
continue to implement the LCR, States would be required to adopt
revisions at least as stringent as the proposed provisions in 40 CFR
Subpart I--Control of Lead and Copper; Sec. Sec.  141.153 and 141.154;
Sec. Sec.  141.201 and 202; Appendix A to Subpart O ([Consumer
Confidence Report] Regulated contaminants); Appendix A to Subpart Q
(NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice; and
Appendix B to Subpart Q (Standard Health Effects Language for Public
Notification). Under Sec.  142.12(b), all primacy agencies would be
required to submit a revised program to the EPA for approval within two
years of promulgation of any final LCR revisions, or States may be able
to request an extension of up to two years in certain circumstances.

B. What are the special primacy requirements?

    The EPA is proposing to retain the existing special primacy
requirements as well as to establish additional requirements. Regarding
LSL inventories, States would be required to provide a description of
acceptable methods for verifying service line material under this
proposal. Verification methods could include consultation of existing
records or the physical examination of the service line. The State
would also be required to submit the criteria it would use for
determining a water system's goal-based rate for the system's LSLR,
which a water system must implement after a lead trigger level
exceedance. The State would be required to describe how it would
determine a feasible goal-based rate, which would reduce lead exposure.
States could consider several relevant factors, including but not
limited to the percentage of LSLs as well as the financial
circumstances of the water system and its customers.
    The EPA also proposes special primacy requirements regarding
testing at schools for lead in drinking water. The EPA is aware of
several States that have instituted their own lead in drinking water
testing programs in schools. If the State has an existing testing
program at schools and child care facilities, the State would be
required to demonstrate that their program is at least as stringent as
the testing program proposed by the EPA.
    Under this proposal, the State would also need to demonstrate how
it will verify compliance with ``find-and-fix'' requirements. For
example, the State would need to determine the acceptability of the
water system's corrective actions and timeliness of the corrective
action implementation. Finally, the State would need to describe the
approach it would take in reviewing any change in source water or
treatment at a water system. Such a change could impact the optimized
corrosion control treatment as well as have an impact on other national
primary drinking water regulations.

VI. Economic Analysis

    This section summarizes the Economic Analysis (EA) supporting
document (USEPA, 2019a) for the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
revisions, which is written in compliance with section
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). This section of the Act states that when proposing a national
primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) that includes a treatment
technique, the Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on
an analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to
be experienced as the result of compliance with the treatment technique
and alternative treatment techniques that are being considered, taking
into account, as appropriate, the factors required under section
1412(b)(3)(C)(i). Clause (i) lists the analytical elements required in
a Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) which is applicable
to a NPDWR that includes a maximum contaminant level. The prescribed
HRRCA elements include: (1) Quantifiable and non-quantifiable health
risk reduction benefits; (2) quantifiable and non-quantifiable health
risk reduction benefits from reductions in co-occurring contaminants;
(3) quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs that are likely to occur
solely as a result of compliance; (4) incremental costs and benefits of
rule options; (5) effects of the contaminant on the general population
and sensitive subpopulations including infants, children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and individuals with a history of serious illness;
(6) any increased health risks that may occur as a result of
compliance, including risks associated with co-occurring contaminants;
and (7) other relevant factors such as uncertainties in the analysis
and factors with respect to the degree and nature of the risk.
    Costs discussed in this section are presented as annualized present
values

in 2016 dollars, which is consistent with the timeframe for the EPA's
water system characteristic data used in the analysis. The EPA
estimated the year or years in which all costs occur over a 35-year
time period. Thirty-five years was selected to capture costs associated
with rule implementation as well as water systems installing and
operating corrosion control treatment and implementing lead service
line replacement (LSLR) programs. The EPA then determined the present
value of these costs using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
    Benefits, in terms of health risk reduction for the proposed LCR
revisions are characterized by the activities performed by water
systems, which are expected to reduce risk to the public from exposure
to lead and copper in drinking water at the tap. The EPA quantifies and
monetizes some of this health risk reduction from lead exposure by
estimating the decrease in lead exposure resulting to children from 0
to 7 years of age from the installation and re-optimization of
corrosion control treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the implementation of
point-of-use (POU) filter devices.

A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize the
Sample Universe

    The entities potentially affected by the proposed LCR revisions are
public water systems (PWSs) that are classified as either community
water systems (CWSs) or non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs). These water systems can be publicly or privately owned. In
the economic analysis modeling performed in support of this proposal,
the EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in the Safe
Drinking Water Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) as its
foundational data set.
    The EPA used a variety of data sources to develop the drinking
water industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 6-
1 lists the major data sources, describes the data used from each
source, and explains how it was used in the EA. Additional detailed
descriptions of these data sources and how they were used in the
characterization of baseline industry conditions can be found in
Chapter 4 of the EA.

     Exhibit 6-1--Data Sources Used To Develop the Baseline Industry
                            Characterization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Data source             Baseline data derived from the source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016    Public water system inventory,
 ``frozen'' dataset \1\.        including population served, number of
                                service connections, source water type,
                                and water system type. Also used to
                                identify water systems that are schools
                                and child care facilities.
                                Status of CCT, including
                                identification of water systems with CCT
                                and the proportion of water systems
                                serving <=50,000 people that installed
                                CCT in response to the current LCR.
                                Analysis of lead 90th percentile
                                concentrations to identify water systems
                                at or below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
                                above the TL, and above the AL of 15
                                [micro]g/L at the start of the proposed
                                rule implementation by water system
                                size, water system type, source water
                                type, and CCT status.\2\
                                The proportion of water systems
                                that are on various reduced monitoring
                                schedules for lead and copper tap and
                                WQP monitoring.
                                The frequency of source and
                                treatment changes and those source
                                changes that can result in additional
                                source water monitoring.
                                Length of time that water
                                systems replace LSLs if required under
                                the current LCR.
2006 CWSS....................   Number of distribution system
                                entry points per system.
                                PWS labor rates.
Geometries and                  Design and average daily flow
 Characteristics of Public      per water system.
 Water Systems (USEPA, 2000).
1988 AWWA Lead Information      LSL inventory, including the
 Survey.                        number of water systems with LSLs, and
                                the average number of LSLs per water
                                system, as reported in the 1991 LCR RIA
                                (Weston and EES, 1990).
2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of   LSL inventory, including the
 Lead Service Line Occurrence   number of water systems with LSLs and
 (as summarized in Cornwell     the average number of LSLs per water
 et al., 2016).                 system.
Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking   Individual lead tap sampling
 Water Standards.               results used to estimate percent of
                                samples above 15 [micro]g/L.
                                Baseline distribution of pH for
                                various CCT conditions.
                                Baseline orthophosphate dose for
                                CCT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association;
  CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System
  Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LSL = lead service line; RIA =
  regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water
  Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water
  quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection
  Agency.
Note:
\1\ Contains information reported through June 30, 2016.
\2\ As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Proposed
  Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a), a system's lead 90th
  percentile level is a key factor in determining a system's
  requirements under the current rule and proposed LCR.

B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model

    Under the regulatory provisions of the proposed rule, PWSs will
face different compliance scenarios depending on the size, the type of
water system, the presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion controls. In
addition, PWSs will also face different unit costs based on water
system size, type, and number of entry points (e.g., labor rates and
CCT capital, and operations and maintenance (O&M) unit costs). PWSs
have a great deal of inherent variability across the water system
characteristics that dictate both compliance activities and cost.
    Because of this variability, to accurately estimate the national
level compliance costs (and benefits) of the proposed LCR revisions, as
well as describe how compliance costs are expected to vary across types
of PWSs, the cost-benefits model creates a sample of representative
``model PWSs'' by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/
Fed with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at
the PWS category level. In some cases, the categorical data are simple
point estimates. In this case, every model PWS in a category is
assigned the same value. In other cases, where more robust data
representing system variability are available the

category-level data includes a distribution of potential values. In the
case of distributional information, the model assigns each model PWS a
value sampled from the distribution, in order to characterize the
variability in this input across PWSs. The model follows each model PWS
in the sample through each year of analysis--determining how the PWS
will comply with each requirement of the proposed rule, estimating the
yearly compliance cost, and tracking the impact of the compliance
actions on drinking water lead concentrations. It also tracks how other
events, such as changing a water source or treatment affect the water
system's compliance requirements for the next year.
    The model's detailed output provides results for 36 PWS categories,
or strata. Each PWS reporting category is defined by the water system
type (CWS and NTNCWS), primary source water (ground and surface), and
size category (there are nine). This proposal presents summarized
national cost and benefit totals by regulatory categories. The detailed
output across the 36 PWS categories can be found in Appendix C of the
EA.
    In constructing the initial model PWS sample for the cost-benefit
analysis, the EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in
SDWIS/Fed. Also, from SDWIS/Fed, the EPA knows each water system's type
(CWS or NTNCWS); primary water source (surface water or groundwater);
population served; CCT status (yes/no); ownership (public or private);
and number of connections.
    The available LCR data limited the EPA's ability to quantify
uncertainty in the cost-benefit model. During the development of the
model, it became clear that not only were many of the inputs uncertain,
but for many LCR specific inputs, the EPA only has limited midpoint,
high, and low estimates available and does not have information on the
relative likelihood of the available estimates. This includes major
drivers of the cost of compliance including: The baseline number of
systems with LSLs and the percent of connections in those system that
are LSLs; the number of PWSs that will exceed the AL and/or TL under
the proposed revised tap sampling requirements; the cost of LSL
replacement; the cost of CCT; and the effectiveness of CCT in PWSs with
LSLs. Therefore, the EPA estimated proposed LCRR compliance costs under
low and high bracketing scenarios. These low and high cost scenarios
are defined by the assignment of low and high values for the set of
uncertain cost drivers listed above. Detailed descriptions of these
five uncertain variables and the derivation of their values under the
low and high cost scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>
of the EA (USEPA, 2019a). With the exception of the five uncertain
variables which define the difference between the low and high cost
scenarios the remaining baseline water system and compliance
characteristics are assigned to model PWSs, as described above, and
remain constant across the scenarios. This allows the EPA to define the
uncertainty characterized in the cost range provided by the low and
high scenarios and maintains consistency between the estimation of
costs for the current and proposed rules (e.g., percentage of lead tap
water samples that will be invalidated). Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA
describe in greater detail the baseline and major cost driving data
elements, their derivation, and the inherent sources of uncertainty in
the developed data elements. Section 5.2 and 5.3 of the EA discuss how
each data element is used in the estimation of costs and provides
examples and references to how these data were developed.
    Because PWS baseline characteristics are being assigned from
distributional source data to capture the variability across PWS
characteristics, the EPA needed to ensure that its sample size was
large enough that the results of the cost-benefit model were stable for
each of the 36 PWS categories. To insure stability in modeled results,
the EPA oversampled the SDWIS/Fed inventory to increase the number of
water systems in each PWS category. For every PWS category, the EPA set
the target minimum number of model PWSs to 5,000. To calculate the
total estimated costs for each PWS category, the model weights the
estimated per water system costs so that when summed the total cost is
appropriate for the actual number of water systems known to be in the
category.
    The exception to the assignment of water system characteristics
discussed above are the 21 very large water systems serving more than
one million people. Because of the small number of water systems in
this size category, the uniqueness of their system characteristics, and
the potential large cost for these systems to comply with the proposed
regulatory requirements, using the methods described above to assign
system attributes could result in substantial error in the estimation
of the national costs. Therefore, the EPA attempted to collect
information on very large water systems' CCT practices and chemical
doses, pH measurements and pH adjustment practices, number of LSLs,
service populations, and average annual flow rates for each entry point
to the distribution system. The EPA gathered this information from
publicly available data such as SDWIS/Fed facility-level data, Consumer
Confidence Reports, and water system websites. In addition, the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) provided additional data from
member water systems to fill in gaps. When facility-specific data was
available, the EPA used it to estimate compliance costs for the very
large water systems. If data was not available, the EPA assigned
baseline characteristics using the same process as previously
described. See Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.6 of the EA for a summary of
the data the EPA collected on these very large systems (USEPA, 2019a).
    The cost model estimates the incremental cost of the proposed LCR
revisions over a 35-year period. In accordance with the EPA's policy,
and based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
when calculating social costs and benefits, the EPA discounted future
costs (and benefits) under two alternative social discount rates, 3
percent and 7 percent.
    When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs and households, the
EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs, as
this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems
would incur over time. The EPA used data from the 2006 Community Water
System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of capital. The EPA
calculated the overall weighted average cost of capital (across all
funding sources and loan periods) for each size/ownership category,
weighted by the percentage of funding from each source. The cost of
capital for each CWS size category and ownership type is shown in
Exhibit 5-14 of the EA. Since similar cost of capital information is
not available for NTNCWS, the EPA used the CWS cost of capital when
calculating the annualized cost per NTNCWS. Total estimated cost of
capital may be greater than actual costs water systems bear when
complying with future regulatory revisions because financing support
for lead reduction efforts may be available from State and local
governments, EPA programs (e.g., the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF), the WIFIA Program, and the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 (WIIN Act) grant programs), and
other federal agencies (e.g., HUD's Community Development Block
Grants).
    The availability of funds from government sources, while
potentially reducing the cost to individual PWSs,

does not reduce the social cost of capital to society. See Chapters 4
and 5 of the EA for a discussion of uncertainties in the cost
estimates.
    The EPA projects that rule implementation activities will begin
immediately after rule promulgation. These activities will include one-
time PWS and State costs for staff to read the rule, become familiar
with its provisions, and develop training materials and train employees
on the new rule. States will also incur burden hours associated with
adopting the rule into State requirements, updating their LCR program
policies and practices, and modifying data record keeping systems. PWSs
will incur costs to comply with the lead service line materials
inventory requirements and develop an initial lead service line
replacement plan in years one through three of the analysis. The EPA
expects that water systems will begin complying with all other proposed
rule requirements three years after promulgation, or in year four of
the analysis.
    Some requirements of the proposed rule must be implemented by water
systems regardless of their water quality and tap sampling results
(e.g., CWS school and child care facilities sampling programs),
however, most of the major cost drivers are a function of a water
systems 90th percentile lead tap sample value. The 90th percentile
value, and if it exceeds the lead trigger level or action level,
dictates: The tap water sampling and water quality parameter (WQP)
monitoring schedules, the installation/re-optimization of CCT, ``find-
and-fix'' adjustments (triggered by single lead tap sample exceedances
of the 15 [mu]g/L action level, which has an increasing likelihood in
the model as 90th percentile tap sample results increase) to corrosion
control treatment, the installation of point-of-use filters at water
systems selecting this treatment option as part of the small water
system flexibilities of the proposed rule, the goal-based or mandatory
removal of lead service lines and water system and State administrative
costs. Because of uncertainty in the estimation of the 90th percentile
values the Agency developed low and high estimates for this cost
driving variable. The EPA used both the minimum and maximum 90th
percentile tap sample values from SDWIS/Fed over the period from 2007
to 2015, to assign a percentage of PWSs by size, and CCT and LSL status
to each of three groups, those at the trigger level (TL) or below,
those above the lead trigger but at or below the action level (AL), and
those above the lead action level. These assignments represent the
status of systems under the current rule. See Chapters 4 and 5 of the
EA for additional information.
    Because the tap sampling requirements under the proposed LCR
revisions call for 100% of lead tap samples to be taken from sites with
LSLs, for water systems with LSLs, the likelihood that a PWS would have
a lead 90th percentile greater than the TL or AL is higher under the
proposed rule compared to under the current LCR. The EPA used
information from Slabaugh et al. (2015) to develop two adjustment
factors, the lower being applied to the low cost scenario LSL system
90th percentile values and the greater factor being used to adjust the
high cost scenario 90th percentile values for LSL systems. The EPA then
reassigned the LSL system to the three 90th percentile value groups,
those without a TL or AL exceedance, those with a TL but not an AL
exceedance, and those with an AL exceedance. A detailed discussion of
the development of the 90th percentile value group placement, the
adjustment made for the LSL water systems given the proposed tap
sampling requirements, and the percentages of systems assigned to the
90th percentile value groups under both the current and proposed LCRR
for the low and high cost scenarios are found in Chapter 5, section
<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of the EA.
    Once water systems are assigned to the groupings based on their CCT
and LSL status, individual 90th percentile lead tap sample values are
assigned from the distribution of 90th percentile values within each
grouping.
    Several proposed regulatory compliance activities are assumed to
not affect a water system's 90th percentile value. These include, for
example, developing an inventory of LSLs, CWS sampling at schools and
child care facilities, and public education. In the model, the only
compliance activities that will change a water system's 90th percentile
lead tap sample are: Installation of CCT; re-optimization of existing
CCT; removal of LSLs; and a water system-wide ``find-and-fix'' activity
(assumed to be a system-wide increase in pH). In addition to these
proposed rule compliance activities, changing a water source or
treatment technology can also result in a change in a water system's
90th percentile tap sample value.
    Because a water system's 90th percentile value is so important to
determining regulatory requirements and cost under the proposed rule,
the cost model, under both the low and high cost scenarios, tracks each
water system's 90th percentile value over each annual time step in the
model. Based on the initial 90th percentile values, a number of
proposed rule compliance actions are triggered. With the implementation
of CCT, LSLR, and ``find-and-fix'' corrections, 90th percentile tap
sample values are expected to decrease. The model allows for future
increases in 90th percentile values as a result of changes in source
water and treatment. The likelihood of these events occuring have been
derived from SDWIS/Fed data (see Chapter 4 of the EA). When a change in
source or treatment occurs in a modeled year, a new 90th percentile
value is assigned to the water system. This value may be higher or
lower than the current value thus potentially triggering new corrective
actions. In the model, if a water system already has ``optimized'' CCT
in place, it is assumed that no additional action is needed and that
the current treatment is adequate, therefore the 90th percentile will
not change.

C. Cost Analysis

    This section summarizes the cost elements and estimates total cost
of compliance for the existing LCR, the proposed LCR revisions and the
incremental cost of the proposed rule, under both the low and high cost
scenarios, by the major regulatory components and discounted at 3 and 7
percent. These components include sampling costs, CCT costs, LSL
inventory and replacement costs, POU costs, public education and
outreach costs, and implementation and administrative costs for water
systems and States. This section also quantifies the potential increase
in phosphates that would result from the increased use of corrosion
inhibitors under the proposed rule, the resulting cost for treating to
remove the additional phosphates at downstream waste water treatment
plants that may be constrained by nutrient discharge limits, and
discusses the ecological impacts that may result from increased
phosphorus loads to surface waters.
1. Sampling Costs
    The proposed LCR revisions affect most of the LCR's sampling
requirements, including: Lead tap sample monitoring, lead WQP
monitoring, copper WQP monitoring, and source water monitoring. The
proposed rule also includes new requirements for CWS to sample at
schools and child care facilities within their distribution systems.
Only the copper tap sampling requirements of the current rule are not
impacted by the proposed regulatory changes and therefore do not appear
in the summarized sampling costs. Additional lead WQP monitoring and
lead tap

sampling that is specifically required by the current rule and proposed
revisions after the installation or re-optimization of corrosion
control treatment is accounted for in the CCT costs and not in the WQP
monitoring or tap sampling costs.
    Lead tap sampling site selection tiering requirements have been
strengthened under the proposed rule, increasing the cost to water
systems with lead service lines for the development of a tap sampling
pool that consists of all LSL sites. The other cost components of lead
tap sampling remain unchanged and generally include sample collection,
analysis, and reporting cost. The frequency of required lead tap
sampling will also increase based on lead tap sample 90th percentile
values.
    Both the lead and copper WQP monitoring cost totals represent
collection and lab analysis cost of samples both at entry points and
taps within the distribution system, as well as PWS reporting costs.
The schedules for conducting these activities at modeled water systems
are dependent on a water system's projected lead 90th percentile value,
the presence of CCT, and past sampling results.
    The proposed rule will require source water monitoring the first
time a PWS has an action level exceedance. This monitoring will not be
required again unless the water system has a change in source water.
    Sampling at schools and child care facilities represents totally
new requirements for CWSs under the proposed LCR revisions. Unlike the
other sampling requirements of the proposed rule, school and child care
facility sampling is not affected by a water system's 90th percentile
lead tap sample value. The proposed rule requires that all schools and
child care facilities must be sampled every five years (schools and
child care facilities may refuse the sampling, but the water system
must document this refusal to the State). This program's costs are
reported with sampling cost, but they also represent public education
costs and requirements of the proposed LCRR. The costs of complying
with the proposed rule include water systems: (1) Identifying schools
and child care facilities in their service area and preparing and
distributing an initial letter explaining the sampling program and the
3Ts Toolkit, (2) coordinating with the school or child care facility to
determine the sampling schedule and the logistics of collecting the
samples, (3) conducting a walkthrough at the school or child care
facility before the start of sampling, (4) sample collection from the
school or child care facility, (5) sample analysis, and (6) providing
sampling results to the school or child care facility, the State, and
the local or State health department.
    Exhibit 6-2 and 6-3 show the national annualized sampling costs for
both the low and high estimate scenarios, under the current LCR, the
proposed LCRR, and the incremental cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent,
respectively. Additional information on the estimation of sampling cost
can be found in the Chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the EA. An alternative
option to the school and child care facility sampling program can be
found in section VI.F of this notice and in Chapter 9 of the EA (USEPA,
2019a).

                                           Exhibit 6.2--National Annualized Sampling Costs at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low cost estimate                               High cost estimate
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental      Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring...........................     $33,803,000     $37,672,000      $3,869,000      $33,780,000     $42,944,000      $9,164,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring...............       7,396,000       7,536,000         140,000        8,823,000       9,274,000         451,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring.............         163,000         179,000          16,000          158,000         178,000          20,000
Source Water Monitoring................................          15,000           4,321         -10,679           47,000          17,000         -30,000
School Sampling........................................               0      28,540,000      28,540,000                0      28,540,000      28,540,000
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Sampling Costs........................      41,376,000      73,931,000      32,555,000       42,809,000      80,955,000      38,146,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring...........................      32,736,000      36,959,000       4,223,000       32,718,000      43,977,000      11,259,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring...............       7,156,000       7,242,000          86,000        9,106,000       9,583,000         477,000
Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring.............         156,000         170,000          14,000          151,000         170,000          19,000
Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring...............       7,156,000       7,242,000          86,000        9,106,000       9,583,000         477,000
Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring...........................      32,736,000      36,959,000       4,223,000       32,718,000      43,977,000      11,259,000
Source Water Monitoring................................          17,000           5,496         -11,504           64,000          25,000         -39,000
School Sampling........................................               0      27,520,000      27,520,000                0      27,520,000      27,520,000
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Sampling Costs........................      40,064,000      71,897,000      31,833,000       42,039,000      81,276,000      39,237,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs
    Under the proposed LCRR, drinking water systems may be required to
install CCT, re-optimize their existing CCT, or perform a ``find-and-
fix'' adjustment to their CCT based on their current level of CCT in
place, if their lead tap sample 90th percentile exceeds the trigger
level or action level, and/or individual lead tap samples exceed 15
[mu]g/L. In the cost model, a 90th percentile lead tap sample
exceedance can be triggered by a change in water system source water or
treatment technology. Small CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all
NTNCWSs may also elect to conduct LSLR or implement POU filters as part
of the regulatory flexibilities proposed in the LCRR. See section III.E
of this notice for additional information on the compliance
alternatives available to small CWSs and NTNCWSs, and section VI.C.4
for a discussion of the modeling and a summary of the number of systems
selecting each alternative compliance option.
    The capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for water
systems installing or optimizing CCT are based on the assumption that
water systems will obtain the finished water characteristics of 3.2 mg/
L of orthophosphate and pH at or above 7.2 (for water systems with
starting pH values less than 8.2). For those water systems assigned
higher initial pH values in the model, between 8.2 and 9.2, the EPA
assumed the CCT optimization would require adjusting pH to meet or
exceed 9.2 (no orthophosphate addition would be needed). The
distributions of water system starting values for orthophosphate and
pH, used in the cost model, are both drawn from SDWIS and

Six-Year Review ICR data (see Chapter 4, section 4.3.6 of the EA).
    All capital cost equations are a function of design flow, and all
O&M costs are a function of average daily flow. Since CCT is conducted
at the water system's entry points (EPs), the cost model calculates the
design flow and average daily flow of each EP. The cost model uses two
different sets of unit cost functions representing the low and high
capital cost scenarios developed in the engineering Work Breakdown
Structure models for CCT (Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5 and Appendix A,
Section 1 of the EA). Using these bracketing capital cost values is
designed to characterize uncertainty in the cost model estimates and
when combined with O&M costs and EP flow values, are used to calculate
the low and high CCT cost estimates per model PWS. Note that
optimization O&M costs are obtained through an incremental cost
assessment. The cost model calculated the O&M existing cost and
subtracts them from the optimized O&M cost to obtain the incremental
re-optimization costs.
    In the cost model, water systems are assumed to always install and
optimize their CCT, to the standards described above, before making any
adjustment to CCT as a result of being triggered into the ``find-and-
fix'' requirements of the proposed rule. If a water system is required
to implement ``find-and-fix,'' one of two things are assumed to occur
at a single-entry point: A water system that has orthophosphate dosing
and the pH target of 7.2 or greater will increase pH to 7.5, or a water
system that previously optimized to a pH value of 9.2 will increase pH
to 9.4. If ``find-and-fix'' is triggered again after an adjustment at a
single EP, a water system is assumed to adjust all EPs to the new
target pHs of 7.5 or 9.4, depending on the current treatment in place.
    Using O&M cost functions estimated for the ``find-and-fix'', see
Appendix A of the EA, the cost model first calculates the total annual
O&M cost for treating to the ``find-and-fix'' standards previously
listed as if no CCT was installed, then subtracts the PWS's current CCT
annual O&M cost from the new ``find-and-fix'' annual O&M cost, to
derive the share of the PWS's annual CCT O&M costs attributable to
``find-and-fix'' actions. The model also calculates the capital cost to
retrofit the CCT water system for additional pH adjustment under both
the low and high cost model scenarios. If a water system is triggered
into a second round of ``find-and-fix'' CCT adjustment, the 7.5 or 9.4
pH requirements will be applied to all entry points. Individual entry
point costs are summed to obtain total water system costs under the low
and high model runs.
    In addition to the capital and O&M cost of CCT installation, re-
optimization, or ``find-and-fix,'' water systems will also face several
ancillary costs associated with changes in CCT status. Before the
installation or re-optimization of CCT at a water system, a CCT study
would need to be conducted or revised and the water system would
consult with the State on the proposed changes to CCT (these costs also
apply to water systems undergoing source water or treatment changes).
After the change in CCT, a water system would conduct follow-up tap
sampling, WQP monitoring at entry points and at taps in the
distribution system, report the results of the initial post CCT change
findings to the State, and review WQP data with the State on an ongoing
basis as part of the water system's sanitary surveys.
    Water systems with individual lead tap samples over 15 [mu]g/L
must: Collect and analyze a follow-up tap sample from the location that
exceeded the 15 [mu]g/L value, coordinate with the State on the
location for a follow-up WQP sample in proximity to the location that
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L, collect and analyze the WQP sample, and review
with the State the collected data to determine ``find-and-fix'' CCT
required changes.
    Exhibits 6-4 and 6-5 show the range of estimated national costs for
CCT under the current LCR, the proposed LCR revisions, and the
incremental cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. Note
that a range of CCT capital costs are used in this assessment but the
total range in Exhibits 6-4 and 6-5 is impacted by all five of the
uncertain variables which enter the model as low and high estimates.
See Section VI.B of this notice and Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
EA, for additional information on the variables that define the low and
high cost scenarios. The CCT Operation and Maintenance (Existing)
category in these exhibits are the EPA's estimate of the ongoing cost
of operating corrosion control at PWS where CCT was in place at the
beginning of the period of analysis. Additional information on the
estimation of CCT costs can be found in Chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the
EA.

                                 Exhibit 6-4--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low cost estimate                               High cost estimate
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental      Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Installation.......................................     $13,364,000      $6,847,000     $-6,517,000      $38,857,000     $16,566,000    $-22,291,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities..................       1,360,000       1,440,000          80,000        1,506,000       1,986,000         480,000
CCT Optimization.......................................           5,106      11,287,000      11,281,894          163,000      44,199,000      44,036,000
CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing)..............     313,830,000     313,830,000               0      314,091,000     314,091,000               0
CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities..................          10,000         327,000         317,000          132,000         722,000         590,000
Find and Fix Installation..............................               0      12,912,000      12,912,000                0      47,837,000      47,837,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities......................               0       5,234,000       5,234,000                0       6,465,000       6,465,000
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs....     328,569,000     351,877,000      23,308,000      354,750,000     431,866,000      77,116,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Exhibit 6-5--National Annualized Corrosion Control Technology Costs at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low cost estimate                               High cost estimate
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental      Current LCR    Proposed LCRR    Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT Installation.......................................     $11,687,000      $5,938,000     $-5,749,000      $37,547,000     $15,739,000    $-21,808,000
CCT Installation Ancillary Activities..................       1,312,000       1,405,000          93,000        1,496,000       2,155,000         659,000
CCT Optimization.......................................           8,474       9,515,000       9,506,526          268,000      44,128,000      43,860,000

CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing)..............     299,344,000     299,344,000               0      299,593,000     299,593,000               0
CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities..................          13,000         328,000         315,000          172,000         846,000         674,000
Find and Fix Installation..............................               0      10,655,000      10,655,000                0      45,834,000      45,834,000
Find and Fix Ancillary Activities......................               0       5,123,000       5,123,000                0       6,672,000       6,672,000
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------