Summary of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule From a Perspective Using Process Research Solutions Water System Data December 3, 2015

Transcription

1 P.O. Box 5593 Madison, WI Summary of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule From a Perspective Using Process Research Solutions Water System Data December 3, 2015 This is a summary of the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), part of the Primary Safe Drinking Water Regulations, as approved by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), a stakeholder group advising the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the scheduled review and re-writing of the regulation. This summary also includes a perspective gleaned from over a decade of water system data collection by Process Research Solutions, LLC of Madison, Wisconsin. The documents collected in this pdf file include: A letter from Process Research Solutions to the NDWAC LCR sub-committee A summary of NDWAC proposals The 2014 WQTC presentation explaining issues with the NDWAC sub-committee proposals The 2015 WQTC presentation describing research to determine if lead and copper can be controlled by accounting for the complexities of lead and copper release and without the use of phosphate NDWAC Final Report on the Lead and Copper Rule Drafting effective drinking water regulations is not an easy task. The NDWAC subcommittee has made a number of good recommendations for revising the LCR. Major issues arise with their recommendations solely from the definition of corrosivity of water. NDWAC has based the definition of corrosivity on a theoretical thermodynamic model of the role that carbonate chemistry plays in the electrochemical mechanism of metal release from surfaces into water called uniform corrosion. Data from Process Research Solutions investigations of municipal water distribution systems and private premise plumbing systems show that other mechanisms of metal release and transport are as significant or more significant than carbonate-based uniform corrosion chemistry. These mechanisms are:

2 1. Accumulation and transport of lead and copper on existing chemical scales from pipe walls in the water system. 2. Microbiologically influenced corrosion 3. Chloride and sulfate-based uniform corrosion chemistry When these mechanisms are considered, the LCR requirements must be changed or else many water systems will be sent down the wrong path to remediating lead and copper issues. We have already seen how these misunderstandings lead to major public health threats as exemplified by the 2002 Washington, DC and the 2015 Flint, Michigan lead compliance issues. We have an opportunity to prevent these threats in the future, if all mechanisms of lead and copper release are acknowledged in the revised Lead and Copper Rule. Abigail Cantor, P.E. of Process Research Solutions has participated since 2002 on a national level to contribute this understanding of lead and copper release. She was included on a 2002 EPA expert panel to explain the issues with the existing LCR and has been participating since that time on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Lead and Copper Rule Task Advisory Workgroup. While she has not had time to publish peer-reviewed papers using the water system data, she has spent time outside of her engineering projects to participate on these national committees, to almost annually present related information at the AWWA Water Quality and Technology Conference, to participate as a co-author of the AWWA M-58 Standard of Practice Manual on Internal Corrosion for both the 1 st and 2 nd editions, and to participate in or manage four Water Research Foundation research projects on the subject. The Process Research Solutions water system data have been summarized in all of these venues for over a decade. Nevertheless, the information has been ignored for the most part and the AWWA-sanctioned perspective of lead and copper release continues to be overly-simplistic. When the AWWA perspective is questioned, the response is: We can t introduce such complexities into a regulation. This attitude is reminiscent of an old Bazooka Joe bubble gum comic where one character is looking for his keys in one room when he knows that the keys were lost in an entirely different location. Why are you looking in this room then? asks Bazooka Joe. The light is better here, is the reply. (Evidently, this is a joke that has been featured in many comic strips and newspapers over the years as seen in the Mutt and Jeff comic below.

3 In addition, this joke has been used over and over as an allegory for biased scientific inquiry and logic -- It is time to revisit the definition of corrosivity of water and find a way to introduce these complexities effectively into the new LCR. The following documents explain the issue in more detail. The NDWAC proposal is included as the final document in this file.

4 P.O. Box 5593 Madison, WI June 4, 2015 Mr. Gary Burlingame, Laboratory Director Philadelphia Water Department Bureau of Laboratory Services 1500 East Hunting Park Avenue Philadelphia, PA Dear Gary, As we have discussed, proposals for copper in the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) are contrary to my observations of copper release in water distribution systems and premise plumbing. The data to which I refer include results from long-term monitoring with a standardized monitoring station apparatus similar to an AwwaRF pipe loop and other investigations in water distribution systems as well as investigations of premise plumbing water quality. The data come from numerous water systems over a time period of 2002 to present. I am in the process of writing articles on my methods and resultant data for peer review so that others can see this information. In the meantime, recommendations must be made by the NDWAC sub-committee on copper by the end of June. I am writing to encourage your committee to hold off on the copper aspect of the Rule until all factors can be considered. Otherwise, the Rule, as proposed for copper, is heading for a number of unintended consequences. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LCR I presented my general concerns in a 2014 Water Quality and Technology Conference (WQTC) presentation and have attached a copy to this letter. In the presentation, it is shown how the original Lead and Copper Rule, focusing on lead, was based on a theoretical lead carbonate solubility model. The model proved over time to be missing not only key components of lead solubility, but also ignored other significant mechanisms of lead release and transport. The current proposal for copper regulations is being based, once again, solely on a carbonate solubility model. When I compare 13 years of various water system data against that simple model, the model shows itself to not be predictive of copper release. Based on the experience with the lead issue, it is logical to assume that there are components missing from the model. My studies have identified some of the missing components. In the realm of copper solubility, the chemistries of chlorides and sulfates are missing; they form copper compounds that are many magnitudes more soluble than copper carbonates or oxides and can perpetuate uniform corrosion of copper. In addition, copper is highly susceptible to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC); this mechanism of corrosion should not continue to be ignored in water distribution systems, as it is a significant contributor to metals release. DETAILED COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LCR To discuss this topic in more detail, a diagram of the proposed Rule for copper regulations is attached to this letter. Refer to the numbered diagram as you read the corresponding numbered specifics below: Page 1 of 4

5 1. The proposed Rule begins with a definition of water that is not aggressive to copper. As stated in the WQTC presentation, this is overly simplistic and there are many observations to negate the definition. The definition is a false premise upon which the subsequent regulations are based. 2. The proposed Rule encourages public water systems (PWSs) to assume copper release based on the false premise. Therefore, using this definition, some PWSs, thinking that they do not have aggressive water, will be ignoring elevated copper issues. 3. The proposed Rule encourages PWSs to change the alkalinity and/or ph of the water to fit the false premise. Some unintended consequences of this are as follows: a. These PWSs may now find themselves, as stated in No. 2, ignoring elevated copper issues. b. A small increase in ph in high alkalinity water can cause excessive precipitation of calcium carbonate that clogs up meters and valves around the distribution system. This is because these high alkalinity waters typically are accompanied by high calcium and magnesium concentrations. (Data are available to demonstrate what happens to a distribution system when this precarious balance of water quality parameters is altered.) c. An increase in ph towards and above 8 in water systems using the disinfectant, free chlorine, lowers the ability of the disinfection to fight against excessive microbiological growth. This can lead to MIC of copper and, therefore, higher copper levels in more locations in the distribution system. 4. The proposed Rule gives PWSs with alkalinity and ph combinations defined as aggressive by EPA an option to sample in new copper plumbing systems to prove that the water characteristics are not aggressive and do not need to be altered. This puts the onus on these PWSs to spend time and money to prove that a false premise is false. (The PWSs most affected by this are groundwater systems in locations such as Wisconsin and Minnesota.) 5. The proposed Rule does acknowledge that MIC might be found in some houses sampled. The Rule invalidates such a regulatory sample and has a new house selected for sampling. This assumes that MIC is not prevalent in new houses; however, I have found that it is prevalent because modern plumbing design has many features that increase residence time of water in premise plumbing and encourages excessive growth of microorganisms which leads to MIC and elevated copper concentrations. Details are described in the booklet, What s Bugging Your Pipes. In addition, an investigator must properly determine if MIC is occurring. For example, the adenosine triphosphate test (ATP) should be run on stagnation samples along with metals scans in both cold and hot water systems. Some researchers are using qpcr analyses to quantify microbiological populations, but this only quantifies a subset of bacteria. The ATP test quantifies all microorganisms (except viruses). 6. The proposed Rule also allows the use of a copper pipe loop-type apparatus for determining copper release in lieu of residential sampling. This option also puts the onus on certain PWSs to spend time and money to prove that a false premise is false. In addition, the Rule does not consider that MIC might also occur in the apparatus. Based on past pipe loop-type data, it certainly does occur; microbiological populations must also be measured in these studies as well as in residential sampling. This omission exemplifies the problem with the AWWA copper corrosion literature. That is, the microbiological factor has not been measured and it is unknown to what degree many past investigations and experiments were actually influenced by MIC versus purely chemical interactions. 7. Water may be proven to elevate levels of copper release, but it is just as important to determine time of passivation. In pipe-loop type studies, every copper test chamber/pipe loop acts as new copper piping as has been corroborated by actual analyses of chemical compounds that have developed on the copper surfaces. Copper is released at higher levels at first but a noticeable drop to a relatively steady state of copper occurs. In most systems, this passivation occurs within four to six weeks. In some systems, it is longer but just by a matter of months and not years. When copper becomes elevated after the establishment of steady state, it is typically because of other reasons outside of carbonate and oxide film passivation. Page 2 of 4

6 8. The proposed Rule suggests the prohibition of copper piping in cases where water is considered aggressive. Based on this discussion, there is question as to whether or not the water is actually aggressive and, if it is, whether the real cause of the copper release has been determined. Therefore, eliminating copper piping is a dramatic choice in solving copper issues. It would be better to try to solve the MIC issues and the elevated chloride and sulfate issues rather than eliminate such a well understood and useful material. Pushing water systems to materials that we do not know as much about, such as plastics, is not a proper solution to this problem. Copper is not like lead where there should be no exposure to humans at all. If one understands the nature of copper release, it is possible to control the release at low health-risk levels. 9. The proposed Rule also allows the regulatory authority to require the addition of phosphate as a copper corrosion control method in waters considered aggressive. Again, based on this Rule, it will be questionable as to whether the water is actually aggressive or whether the real cause of the copper release has been determined. Some unintended consequences of misapplication of this chemical is that the addition of phosphorus, which is a nutrient for microorganisms, can push some PWSs into a situation of excessive growth of microorganisms leading to MIC and elevated copper levels. For all PWSs using a phosphate corrosion control chemical, there are environmental repercussions at the wastewater treatment plant with phosphorus discharge and for any drinking water running directly to natural bodies of water. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL The big question is: how should the regulation on copper be written? At this point in time, it is not technically possible to state parameters that deem water aggressive or non-aggressive to copper. There are four steps that could be taken at this time: 1. Set up a lab experiment using synthetic water to measure copper release under completely sterile conditions so that microbiological interactions are eliminated. Chemical factors to vary should be alkalinity, ph, chloride and sulfate. A time factor for passivation should also be included. Questions to investigate are: a. At what minimum ph does copper release at elevated concentrations (>1300 ug/l) for each alkalinity level? b. Do the combinations of alkalinity and ph produce the predicted copper release from the EPA copper solubility model? If so, further experimentation needs to be done to create the water chemistry of high alkalinity, lower ph groundwater to determine if other chemical factors in the water prevent the predicted elevated copper release, as has been observed. c. How does a decreasing ratio of alkalinity to chloride concentration affect copper release? d. How does a decreasing ratio of alkalinity to sulfate concentration affect copper release? 2. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers understand and are encouraged to monitor and control the biostability of the water. Biostability is the balance of factors in a water system that encourage the growth of microorganisms balanced against factors that discourage their growth. Factors that encourage growth are nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon nutrients in the water and also high water age/residence time. Factors that discourage growth are disinfection, biofilm cleaning, nutrient control, and system and tank operation to lower water age. Water Research Foundation is currently publishing biostability research reports. 3. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers and the public understand the repercussions of the choices that are made in modern plumbing design. See What s Bugging Your Pipes for details of modern plumbing design that increase residence time in plumbing systems resulting in elevated copper and other metals in the drinking water. Also, address the role that long construction times can have on creating the environment for excessive microbiological growth, MIC, and elevated copper concentrations also discussed in the What s Bugging Your Pipes booklet. This is to say that informed property owners can make better choices of plumbing features to lower the risk of MIC. Page 3 of 4

7 4. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers and the public understand that road salt is increasing chloride levels in sources of drinking water. Many communities have already taken action to use road salt in a more efficient manner to lower the chloride levels in surrounding waters. It is important for people to realize that the increased chloride concentration in the drinking water can lead to increased copper release in the water system. (This is what several monitoring projects have revealed.) PREDICTED UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CURRENT PROPOSED LCR The current proposed copper regulation could have the following unintended consequences: Some PWSs, thinking that they have non-aggressive water per the EPA s definition, will overlook elevated copper issues. Some PWSs will adjust their ph per EPA s definition of non-aggressive water and experience excessive precipitation of calcium carbonate, clogging meters and valves in the distribution system. Some PWSs will adjust their ph per EPA s definition of non-aggressive water and lower the effectiveness of their free chlorine disinfection increasing the risk of excessive microbiological growth, MIC, and resultant elevated copper concentrations. Many PWSs with high alkalinity (typically groundwater systems in locations such as Wisconsin and Minnesota) will be forced to spend time and money to prove that the EPA s definition of non-aggressive water, observed to be a false premise, is false. Residential sampling results might be misinterpreted as chemically-aggressive water if the building plumbing is not properly investigated for MIC. Copper pipe loops studies might misinterpret results as chemically-aggressive water if microbiological factors are not measured and considered throughout the study. Copper materials could be erroneously banned from water systems and materials with less of a foundation of knowledge could be used instead, pushing water quality issues into unknown territories. Phosphate corrosion control chemicals could be erroneously used in water systems where they could, in some PWSs, encourage the excessive growth of microorganisms, MIC, and resultant increased copper concentrations. More water systems will erroneously be required to add a phosphate corrosion control chemical which will place more pressure on wastewater treatment plants to remove the phosphorus before discharge and also contribute more phosphorus to natural water when drinking water flows directly to the environment. Given the observations described in this letter and based on existing data, the NDWAC LCR committee should revisit the copper issue and prevent the current proposed regulation from being released. Sincerely, Process Research Solutions, LLC Abigail F. Cantor, P.E. Chemical Engineer Page 4 of 4

8 Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Requirements for Copper Initially for all PWS For any PWS making a long-term change or adding a new water source 1 EPA Definition of Water Not Aggressive to Copper Alkalinity <35; ph > <= Alkalinity <=100; ph > <= Alkalinity <=150; ph > <= Alkalinity <=250; ph >8.0 Choose one of the following actions to demonstrate that the water is not aggressive to copper: Collect alkalinity and ph data from around the distribution 2 system Change ph and/or alkalinity to fit EPA definition of water not aggressive to copper 3 4 Perform copper sampling in houses < 2years old with new copper plumbing Conduct pipe loop-type study using new copper 6 5 No Does ph and alkalinity fall into EPA definition? Is microbiologically influenced corrosion a factor? No Copper not elevated over 1300 ug/l? No 7 Water considered aggressive. Yes Yes Sample is invalid. Select another house. Yes Public education required. 8 Possibly prohibit copper piping. Water considered non-aggressive. Choose one of the following actions: EPA to determine if PO4 is to be added. 9 Monitor alkalinity and ph and maintain per EPA definition Routinely perform copper sampling in houses < 2years old with new copper plumbing This diagram accompanies a letter from Process Research Solutions, LLC to Gary Burlingame of the Philadelphia Water Department regarding the proposed copper regulations.

9 Memo Government Affairs Office 1300 Eye Street NW Suite 701 W Washington, DC T F WUC Briefing Paper on Long Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule Action Requested: Provide reaction to the emerging recommendations of the NDWAC working group on the Long Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, and direction to staff. Background: The NDWAC Long Term-Lead and Copper Rule Working Group will hold its final meeting in June and will forward its recommendations to the full NDWAC soon thereafter. The full NDWAC will likely review these recommendations at its fall meeting, and then forward the recommendations to EPA. We expect that EPA will take some to digest these recommendations and translate them into a proposed regulation, so revisions to the LCR will likely be formally proposed in late 2016 or in early The Working Group process does not constitute a negotiated rulemaking, but we expect EPA to follow the recommendations, and particularly if they can be characterized as a broad-based consensus agreement. Given the range of possibilities that have been discussed at the Working Group meetings, it may be challenging to reach a broad-based consensus on several critical issues. The purpose of this memo and subsequent WUC discussion is to: 1. Provide the Council with an understanding of the balance struck between the competing interests represented in the NDWAC Working Group and the possibilities that could be incorporated into future EPA rule-making, with emphasis on the components of the Working Group report that are most uncertain at this time. 2. Determine if, in the Council s view, AWWA will be able to support the broad framework and key elements of the Working Group recommendations, given what we see likely to emerge. If not, determine which elements of the emerging NDWAC report are most troubling. We will have a copy of the draft Working Group report in late May suitable to circulate to the WUC but we are a point now where it would be helpful to be able to articulate to EPA and utilities representatives in the NDWAC process a sense of the Council on the balance struck among the core elements of the recommendations. Because lead is an emotional topic for many, we can expect that this report will receive considerable attention in the trade press and the media more broadly. The report and the Working Group participants use language that when taken out of context will likely alarm our members. For example a recent Inside EPA article emphasizes a recommendation that water systems notify the local health department when lead levels in a sample are above a threshold value. The threshold remains to be developed but is likely to be greater than 50 µg/l. There

10 are systems like New York City that already have such a protocol as a means of getting public health professionals rather than the water utility engaged in household lead exposure management, yet as presented the article could be disturbing to a utility manager and misunderstood by local activists. In a similar vein, there are members of the Working Group and related public who are likely to re-interpret what the report says toward their own aims. As the NDWAC recommendations are finalized we can anticipate a communications challenge for AWWA.

11 Summary of Draft Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council The NDWAC LT-LCR Working Group has its final meeting in June and will forward its recommendations to the full NDWAC soon thereafter. The Working Group process does not constitute a negotiated rulemaking, but we expect EPA to follow the recommendations to the extent they can be characterized as a broad-based consensus agreement. The following is a summary of the major elements of the Working Group report, how the Working Group recommendations relate to policy concerns identified by the Water Utility Council, and constraints that warrant consideration in evaluating the Working Group recommendations. In reviewing the Working Group recommendations it is useful to keep in mind the framework that EPA had in mind prior to this process. EPA wanted to: 1. Continue mandatory in-home tap sampling for lead and copper. 2. Shift in-home lead monitoring to only highest possible risk locations such as limiting sample to only homes with lead service line in communities with such lines. 3. Revise the sampling protocol to draw water from inside the lead service line. 4. Expand in-home compliance sampling for all systems by requiring new program targeting copper release at homes with new copper piping. 5. Prohibit all partial lead service line replacements, creating problems for infrastructure maintenance. 6. Require full lead service line replacements regardless of ownership. In combination the above changes would place utilities in a difficult position regarding lead service lines and more systems would be triggered into immediate public education, revision of corrosion control treatment, and lead service line replacement. Analysis conducted for AWWA by Arcadis illustrated that changing the sampling protocol could lead to 67 83% of community water systems revisiting their corrosion control practice (WITAF 303). The Working Group decided that working through the current LCR framework was unproductive. And, in contrast to the current approach, the Working Group recommendations reflect: 1. A shift from sampling for lead to public education that is strong enough to get customers to take action on their own or in cooperation with their water utility. 2. A shift from staying with an LCR forever to working towards a day when it will no longer be needed for lead control. 3. A shift towards a more national communication via a national clearinghouse (which could have impacts on future regulatory agendas), with education and empowerment of systems and customers to get the lead out. 4. A clearer reality of how lead control actually works that will be easier to communicate to the public and easier to talk about in general. Some of the underlying concerns that shaped the Working Group approach included: 1

12 1. Recognizing that full lead service line replacement is a shared responsibility involving both the water system and its customers. 2. Accepting that it was not possible to demonstrate that changing the current LCR in-home sampling protocol would lead to risk reduction in waters systems that could further optimize corrosion control. 3. Acknowledging that additional in-home sampling for lead and copper would exacerbate an already problematic task for community water systems without a clear benefit. 4. Accepting that requiring greater phosphate addition for corrosion control is at odds with Clean Water Act goals for nutrient reduction in a growing number of surface waters. Consequently, the emerging Workgroup report is based upon the following major elements: 1. Systems that have three consecutive monitoring periods complying with the lead and copper action levels can stop in-home compliance monitoring but must continue to monitor water quality parameters to sustain corrosion control treatment or water quality conditions favorable to lead control. 2. All systems must pursue the high-level goal of replacing all lead service lines (entire service line) in their service area by 2050 without penalty if customers do not replace their portion. System outreach would continue to encourage customer action until all lead service lines are completely replaced. 3. All systems with leaded plumbing components must enhance their public education and those with lead service lines must conduct additional public outreach, specifically focusing on households with lead service lines. 4. All systems must either maintain water quality that is not aggressive to copper or conduct public outreach to customers with new copper or to all customers. These four elements reflect the Work Group s policy priorities by: 1. Providing an incentive to promote additional risk reduction and eliminating the need to restructure in-home compliance sampling around a more challenging to implement sampling protocol. 2. Removing disincentives to lead service line replacement and shifting lead service line replacement to planned capital improvements rather than current LCR triggeredreplacement framework. 3. Ensuring that customers with LSLs receive information to encourage their participation in full lead service line replacement. 4. Driving additional focus on copper corrosion without mandating corrosion control for all systems that have water that tends to be corrosive to copper. The Working Group s recommendations would significantly change the current paradigm under which community water systems manage lead, but there is also recognition that it is necessary to build on the more than two decades of LCR implementation. Therefore, the recommendations continue to rely upon the current rule construct: 2

13 1. Corrosion control treatment remains essential to compliance. 2. Changes in source water and treatment require evaluation. 3. Active distribution system maintenance underpins reliable compliance. Positive and negative aspects of the topics addressed within the Working Group s recommendations are identified in the following table. Topic Positive Negative Lead service lines Retains key tenant of shared responsibility with customer for service line replacement Assures greater transparency with public about shared responsibility Raises awareness of lead service lines in all communities [could be perceived as pos. or neg.] Establishes a point in time by which every utility will aim to remove all lead service lines regardless of ownership Necessitates an inventory of service line material for which states might set an unrealistic standard of care for documentation Current state of science could lead USEPA or individual states to require provision of filters associated with construction How states judge system s best efforts to promote full lead service line replacement is unknown In home sampling Water quality parameter monitoring (at frequency and locations akin to DBP monitoring) Customer requested samples replaces compliance in home monitoring for lead Samples will not be limited to an infrequent, short window of required monitoring Monitoring will capture data from a cross section of housing types and building ages Eliminates debate over science supporting current or revised sampling protocol Does not presume current WQPs should be made more stringent at any or all systems. WQPs are under utility control and readily monitored. Water quality parameters are traceable to corrosion control treatment and independent of home plumbing. Aids systems to manage corrosion control practice over time (control 3 Customer requested samples will be less uniform but would still inform utility and state action Customer requested samples complicates transparent communication of observed levels to public Requiring a minimum number of customer samples could become a new burden over time Increases number and frequency of sampling for WQPs meaning additional work for many systems Expands WQP monitoring to small systems that do not currently monitor under LCR. Will create need for more operator training Selection of appropriate WQPs and acceptable ranges will be burden for states (particularly small systems)

14 Topic Positive Negative charting) Will provide a stronger database on water quality and will provide useful information to customers and systems Does not require extensive new in home sampling system for copper Systems with water that is not corrosive to copper do not have to take additional actions. control for copper. Managing copper corrosion Optimized corrosion control treatment Lead Household Action Level Public outreach Does not re define optimized corrosion control Rule structure will provide for stepwise evaluation of corrosion control. Commits USEPA to revising and updating corrosion control guidance based on the state of the science. Lead concentration in drinking water to motivate customer action Transfers these cases to local public health for their appropriate action; eliminating criticism that CWS does care about high values Replaces MCLG of zero as level of concern system communicates to customers Recognizes that PWS is not the key player in individual household risk reduction USEPA charged with developing a website to assist utilities provide sound and consistent information to the public on risks associated with lead Systems with water that is likely to be corrosive to copper must demonstrate that water is not aggressive, provide ongoing outreach to customers, or implement corrosion States have opportunity over time to require more stringent corrosion control operating envelope based on WQP monitoring data. More active WQP monitoring in distribution system may affect distribution system O&M priorities Some systems will add or modify corrosion control to manage copper where it was not previously identified as a concern USEPA could use very conservative assumptions to arrive at a concentration that is difficult for utilities to implement State interpretation of documentation requirements for additional communication with customers in advance of construction affecting lead service lines, website content about lead, and communication about copper risk, especially to new customers 4

15 The corrosion control framework builds on research prepared through the Water Industry Technical Action Fund and Water Research Foundation projects. The public outreach components are consistent with the guide that AWWA distributed to utility members in As with any prospective policy change, the details of the actual rule language EPA develops and how states implement the rule will be very important. The final report from the Working Group will be submitted to the NDWAC. There is some (but considered small) possibility that the NDWAC will change the recommendations prior to submittal to the EPA Administrator. At present, EPA is signaling that the current report is moving in a direction that the Agency is willing to pursue. There are several outstanding issues where the Working Group recommendations leave open the possibility of the Agency adding additional requirements: 1. Provision of filters to mitigate risk associated with lead service line replacement (or possibly just partial replacements). The current draft text emphasizes provision of information about flushing and filters in information provided on a national clearinghouse website. 2. Enforceable metrics for full lead service line replacement programs. WITAF funded research also points to significant impacts from this proposed framework: 1. Many water systems do not understand the extent or location of lead service lines in their service area. Lack of a sound inventory will extend and complicate proposed lead service line replacement requirements. 2. A significant number of water systems have finished water that based on ph, alkalinity, and current corrosion control treatment, will be classified as corrosive to copper. In some of the Midwest and much of the western U.S. more than 50% of community water systems could be initially placed in the corrosive to copper bin for further evaluation / action. 5

16 1

17 For many people involved with municipal drinking water systems, the Lead and Copper Rule has been frustrating to work with. For lead, the Rule was based on a theoretical model that did not necessarily match the realities of actual water systems. Now, it appears that the new focus on copper as the Rule is re written will be based on a similar theoretical model that ignores some critical realties. This situation will, ironically, push many water systems out of compliance with the new Lead and Copper Rule and leave them with higher copper concentrations. But, let s explore this. In this presentation, we will take a journey back through our experiences with lead release and explore where theory diverged from reality. Then, we will look at the theory upon which the new copper rule would be based and note observations that have already been made where the theory, once again, diverges from reality. 2

18 This is an exercise in comparing scientific theory to empirical data and is a very healthy exercise for scientific progress. For internal corrosion in drinking water systems, we start with a model of lead and copper carbonate compound solubility that is the essential foundation of our understanding of metal corrosion in water systems. Then, we compare those predictions to empirical observations in actual drinking water systems to determine how the theoretical models can be improved with these observations. Please note that the metal solubility models that I will be referring to have been developed by colleagues who have contributed greatly to the field of drinking water. There is no disrespect meant in this discussion. We must keep our eyes and minds open to this empirical input and hone our scientific predictive models of metals release. 3

19 So, we will start our discussion with lead release into drinking water. This is a graph expressing a model of lead carbonate solubility. This model has been important to the internal corrosion field for many reasons. First, it made us realize that it is not just the process of metal corrosion that is important in drinking water; of great importance is the solubility of the compound formed with metal ions released from the pipe wall by corrosion. A less soluble compound will precipitate out of the water, possibly covering the pipe wall with film that will prevent the flow of electrons and ions between the water and the pipe. That is, it is the solubility of the corrosion by product compound that will control how fast further corrosion will occur. This graph also showed us that corrosivity of water in terms of uniform corrosion is dependent on the alkalinity and ph of the water. (In this presentation, I will use the word alkalinity interchangeably with dissolved inorganic carbon.) 4

20 But, over time as we all gained more experience in working with actual water systems, we realized that the lead solubility model was missing some things. First of all, it did not consider lead in the +4 oxidation state. In this state, lead loses 4 electrons in the corrosion process instead of 2. When that happens, an oxide of lead can form (plattnerite) that is highly insoluble and can greatly slow the corrosion process. As an example, we are all familiar with the Washington, DC story. Washington, DC changed their disinfection chemicals from chlorine to chloramine. Because chloramine is not as strong an oxidant as chlorine, the oxidation/reduction potential was lowered. This meant that the lead released in the corrosion process could no longer achieve the highly oxidized state needed to form the very insoluble lead oxide film. The existing protective film was lost; lead concentration in the drinking water jumped up. This surprised everyone since it was not predicted by the existing solubility model. That experience was a lesson that theoretical models should be used as guidance but not be assumed to comprehensively predict outcomes. This is just one example of missing components from the lead solubility model that had repercussions on decisions made for lead control in water systems. 5

21 Here is a second example of a water chemistry not addressed by the lead solubility model. This was reported in 2007 at a WQTC conference. Providence, RI, has water chemistry of very low alkalinity and very high ph. In 2005 based on predictions of the lead solubility model, the ph was lowered in order to lower lead concentration in the water. However, the lead concentration increased. Upon further investigation, it was found that the water system had a significant presence of a compound on its pipe walls not predicted by the lead solubility model. This compound has lower and lower solubility as ph approaches 13, that is, as the ph increases. When the ph was lowered to match the theoretical model predictions, the special lead compound re solubilized and increased the lead concentration in the water. In both of these examples, dependence on a theoretical lead solubility model led to incorrect decisions about lead control that were financially costly and increased the public s exposure to lead instead of decreasing it. 6

22 There is yet another factor in lead release that many researchers have observed. Iron, manganese, and aluminum scales have been found to adsorb and accumulate lead from the water as it passes by in minute quantities. Ultimately, this coarse scale crumbles and transports the attached high lead concentrations through the water and to the consumers taps. This is not something that can be represented in the lead solubility model. But, in many water systems, it is a more significant factor in explaining the presence of lead at consumers taps than aspects of corrosion itself. You can read about two such examples in Mike Schock s and my JAWWA paper published this summer. These were cases where the proper approach to lead control turned out to be removal of pipe scale by uni directional flushing. You can also read articles with similar messages in other publications by a number of other people. This is not an uncommon or exceptional finding. All of these researchers acknowledge the pervasiveness and significance that corroded cast iron water mains and corroded galvanized iron premise plumbing have in contributing iron particulates to premise plumbing where it subsequently captures and transports lead to the consumers taps. There are also many water systems where iron and manganese occur naturally in the water; they oxidize in the water system and form the coarse scales and particulates that can capture and transport lead. These are common scenarios for water systems which significantly affect the quantity of lead found at the consumers taps. 7

23 So, I have pointed out at least three missing items from the lead solubility model. Now, let s compare the lead solubility model predictions to a number of water systems that were monitored in a special consistent and comprehensive manner. First, we need to talk about that method of empirical data collection. We need to obtain data from water distribution systems. But how do you obtain the RIGHT data in the RIGHT LOCATIONS at the RIGHT TIMES? I have a method that I have been developing since I have written and made multiple WQTC presentations about this method starting in The developed method has been used since 2006 in 15 water systems around the United States. We don t have time to go back over the details but I will summarize some key points to orient you. The method consists of gathering specific water quality parameters that can describe 3 major categories of factors that influence the presence of lead and copper in drinking water. I don t have time to review the categories of factors and why I use them, but let s just leave it at the fact that I take a lot of data encompassing quite a number of water quality parameters. The method also includes a monitoring station, standardized in configuration and operation, so that lead and copper release trends can be characterized routinely and can be compared over time and over location in one water system and between water systems. 8

24 This is a photo of the standardized monitoring station, which has been referred to previously at WQTC as a pipe loop on steroids. There are two test chambers that hold metal plates. Any metal can be used in the test chambers, such as lead, copper, or brass. Many people have challenged me, as I have challenged myself, as to whether or not the data from the test chambers are truly representative of a water system s tendency to release into and transport metal through the water. At this point, I can tell you that the data indicate the monitoring station is representative of the water system s potential for lead and copper release. The data from the monitoring station gives you maximum metal transfer into the water when lead or copper plates are used and can even predict the LCR 90 th percentile lead and copper concentrations (that is, Lead and Copper Rule compliance) when brass plates are used. Better than that, the data trends can illuminate other important facts about how the water system metal responds to its water chemistry environment. In each water system that the PRS Monitoring Station has been used, its data have been compared to one or more other types of metals data residential first draw sampling, lead service line sampling, other pipe loops operating in the same system, and Lead and Copper Rule data. There is not time to present the proof of these statements to you but I hope to write up such a paper for peer review in the near future. 9

25 Now that the scientific model and the empirical data collection method have been described, let s look at theoretical lead concentration predictions versus empirical data from water systems. Here, we are looking at five water systems. Two of the water systems underwent major chemical changes, so they are described here as two separate scenarios. The lead solubility model predicts that increasing alkalinity (or dissolved inorganic carbon, aka DIC) produces increasing lead concentrations in the water. So, the water systems are listed by increasing DIC. Average DIC and ph are shown in this table along with the predicted lead concentration from the lead carbonate solubility model. 10

26 This graph shows lead data from a lead test chamber in a PRS Monitoring Station located in each water system. Data are taken bi weekly for a year to two years. The data are averaged and the average is shown on the graph as a red square. The range within which statistically 99% of the lead concentrations are expected to fall are shown above and below the average. So, you can see that some water systems have a tendency for a high variation of lead concentration and others have a tendency for a very low variation. Connected by a dashed line are lead concentrations predicted by the solubility model as alkalinity increases across the x axis. The empirical data show the lowest alkalinity water had the highest lead release in contrast with the solubility model s prediction. It also shows the highest alkalinity water had the lowest lead release, also in contrast with the lead solubility model. 11

27 Why is this? The empirical data are explained for each water system scenario as understood from studying over a year s data for each. The important point is that there are a number of factors that can occur in a water system that are not included in the lead solubility model. In addition, many factors that can increase lead levels in water can occur at the same time. 12

28 This list summarizes the reasons seen empirically for lead transfer into drinking water. The most important aspect is that there are a number of factors that are not included in the solubility model for lead. The number one reason for lead over the Action Level in the majority of water systems studied by this method and in other investigations that I have performed is interaction of lead with chemical scales on pipe walls. In addition, these other factors can be greatly more significant than the lead carbonate solubility factor. Happily, as I have mentioned, many others have measured for this interaction and found it also so that the new LCR will take it into account. So, from our experience with lead, we have learned that a solubility model based on carbonate compounds of lead was not enough to predict the presence of lead in drinking water distribution systems. Is this lesson being applied to the new focus on copper in the possible future Lead and Copper Rule? Unfortunately not. 13

29 Once again, the Rule is proposed to be based on a model based on carbonate solubility, this time for copper. Here is the model as it is proposed to be used in the new Lead and Copper Rule. 14

30 Here is a written description of what the model says as well as two other criteria that are proposed to trigger copper monitoring under the new LCR. We will discuss the chlorination and phosphate addition aspects in a moment. But, the other constraints are just a description of the area below the 1.3 mg/l copper release contour that we saw on the graph. As with the lead solubility model, perhaps there are components missing from the copper model. Let s see 15

31 As we did with lead, we have water systems in order of increasing alkalinity and the copper concentration predicted by the proposed LCR graph. 16

32 Once again, the empirical data show the lowest alkalinity water with the highest variation of copper release in contrast with the solubility model s prediction. It also shows the highest alkalinity water with the lowest copper release, also in contrast with the copper solubility model. I will briefly point out the data from the highest alkalinity at the right of the graph. Never are such high copper concentrations seen in that water system. Never. That suggests to me that there is something missing from this solubility model, just like Pb(IV) oxide was missing from the lead solubility graph. In addition, higher concentrations of copper do occur with new copper piping in all systems. I see this with the new copper plates installed into the PRS Monitoring Stations and also new copper pipes in pipe loop apparatuses. However, any elevated levels appear to resolve in four to eight weeks and reach a lower steady state. (That s a topic for another article I need to write with my data.) With the graph shown here, keep in mind that the copper solubility model is predicting the copper release when new copper surfaces are first exposed to water. As stated, the highest metal concentrations from the PRS Monitoring Stations and pipe loop apparatuses occur just after startup and can last for up to 8 weeks before a lower steady state value is seen. The data plotted here from the PRS Monitoring Stations is the average copper concentration measured over a year or more and not the initial copper concentrations at startup. Nevertheless, this begs further discussion of each comparison. For example, at 17

33 Water System No. 7, with the highest alkalinity, let s say that the copper concentrations are very high at first but within 8 weeks they are very low. Should a water utility alter the water chemistry of its system, given the expense and possible unintended side effects, when it has the natural ability to protect against high copper release within a short time period already? 17

34 As with the lead data, the empirical copper data are explained for each water system scenario as understood from studying over a year s data for each. It is seen that there are a number of factors that can occur in a water system that are not included in the copper solubility model and that several factors can occur at the same time. 18

35 This slide summarizes the reasons seen empirically for lead and copper transfer into drinking water. The most important aspect is that there are a number of factors that are not included in the solubility model for copper. In addition, these other factors can be greatly more significant than the carbonate solubility factor. The majority of municipal water systems AND premise plumbing investigations that I have performed point to microbiologically influenced corrosion as the most significant cause of copper release into the drinking water. I m not saying that the other factors are not there, including alkalinity and ph issues. But in the majority of cases, they are insignificant to the damage that microorganisms can do. 19

36 As I said, microbiologically influenced corrosion tops my list of observations as to why we see high copper in water distribution systems and premise plumbing. Why doesn t the rest of the literature concur with this? I don t know. We have many excellent articles on biofilms and microorganisms including excellent presentations on this topic at this WQTC We have corrosion researchers also researching biofilms and microbial communities. But few articles directly relate corrosion of copper and iron to MIC. There are exceptions with some nitrification articles. But, you need to realize that nitrifiers are just part of the community of microorganisms that can corrode metal. Corrosion researchers fail to routinely measure for the overall microbiological population in their experiments. They, perhaps, are overlooking this significant factor affecting copper levels by never measuring for any other factor but the alkalinity and ph relationship. 20

37 The common perception of copper corrosion is that uniform corrosion [and carbonate chemistry] is a primary cause of observed copper concentrations in excess of the Action Limit. In the light of continued empirical data that contrasts this perception, the body of literature on uniform corrosion and pitting corrosion of copper needs to be re evaluated. The phenomena uncovered in that literature is very real, but how significant and prevalent is it in comparison to some unmeasured factors, such as microbiologically influenced corrosion? 21

38 We need for people to measure the microbiological activity in their water system investigations and research projects. This is a possible influencing factor and if it is not measured, we can t tell if this factor was involved with creating the final copper concentrations in a study. Data from my investigations always measure for microbiological activity as we have the opportunity these days to measure for using the inexpensive and accessible ATP test. I often see the same trends in copper as I see in ATP. 22

39 I have investigated many large and small buildings with high copper concentrations in the water or pinhole leaks in copper pipes. I look for my three main categories of metal corrosion influences. Again, MIC predominates. In addition, with these methods, I can pinpoint the specific piping configurations and plumbing features that encourage the excessive growth of microorganisms which leads to MIC of copper. 23

40 If we want to lower copper levels in water systems, we must focus on and control the biostability of the water lower nutrient levels in water, lower water residence time in systems, provide adequate disinfection. Only after a water system has achieved biostability can uniform corrosion of copper can be assessed. 24

41 Let s sum up the information in this presentation by looking back at the proposed criteria for lowering copper concentrations in drinking water systems for the new LCR. The criteria proposed for requiring monitoring for copper would encourage water utility managers to alter the water chemistry. Everyone of these criteria can push a water system to excessive growth of microorganisms and subsequently to high copper concentrations and pinhole leaks in copper pipes. This is a disaster waiting to happen. 25

42 26

43 27

44 1

45 A current drinking water quality dilemma concerns the use of phosphate chemicals for control of lead and copper in drinking water. The drinking water regulations tell us to put the phosphate in for lead and copper corrosion control. The wastewater regulations tell us to take it out in order to protect natural bodies of water. 2

46 The Lead and Copper Rule is the drinking water regulation encouraging the use of phosphates because it focuses on the uniform corrosion of lead and copper materials in the piping system. Orthophosphate has been shown to be beneficial in slowing down uniform corrosion. Phosphates form protective barriers in combining with the dissolved metal as it is released from the pipe wall during the uniform corrosion process. 3

47 However, many of us have observed data contradictory to the predictions of the regulations in the release and transport of lead and copper in water distribution systems. We have observed that existing chemical scales on pipe walls can sorb, accumulate, and later transport lead and copper. Iron, manganese, and aluminum scales have been identified as common factors in transporting lead and copper to consumers taps. In the past two days at this year s WQTC there have been many excellent presentations on this topic. And there are some of us who always measure the microbiological factors as well as chemical factors in lead and copper investigations. We have observed the significant role that microorganisms play in corrosion chemistry, specifically when it comes to iron and copper corrosion and, possibly, directly or indirectly for lead. With these observations come many questions as to how these other mechanisms of lead and copper release interact with phosphate. 4

48 Can phosphate stop the effect of chemical scales? Can it stop the sorption of lead and copper, accumulation of the metals on the existing scales, and the final crumbling of the scales with transport of lead and copper to the consumer? Can a protective phosphate barrier even form when existing chemical scales on pipe walls? The photo is from a system that uses phosphate as a lead corrosion control agent. But the photo shows a coarse aluminum scale with a lead phosphate compound trapped in it like an insect in a spider web. When the aluminum scale crumbles, the lead phosphate solids can be transported by the water to the consumers taps. This is just an example from one water system. In general, does the phosphate really protect the public s health when existing chemical scales are involved? 5

49 Phosphorus can be a major nutrient for microorganisms. When does phosphate become the tipping point for excess growth and microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC)? How does phosphate interact with biofilms? Can phosphate deter MIC under certain conditions? To what degree is public health protected when phosphate is added to a system with a high potential for microbiological growth? 6

50 We have just posed so many questions that it would take many years to find the answers. What if we first studied some water systems to see if we could lower lead and copper concentrations by cleaning a water distribution system and by achieving biologically stable water? This is one of the main goals of Water Research Foundation Project 4586, which is also supported by an additional grant from the Water Environment Research Foundation. 7

51 If we are able to lower lead and copper concentrations in this way, can we then lower or eliminate phosphate dosage? 8

52 Finally, if we can lower the phosphate dosages or even eliminate them, what are the financial and environmental benefits? 9

53 To answer these questions, the scope of the project encompasses 5 steps as shown on the slide. 10

54 We have 12 water systems contributing data to varying degrees. The water utilities are designated by letters A through L. The systems can be grouped in various ways: Lake Michigan water versus groundwater Lead service lines in the system versus copper service lines only Use of phosphate versus no use of phosphate Systems that are using or have used a special distribution system monitoring station for gathering of consistent and comprehensive data Systems that have performed residential profile sampling of lead and copper Systems that are using a biofilm removing chemical to clean up the pipes and help achieve biostability Systems that will be weaned off of phosphate 11

55 The scope includes the collection of quite a lot of data and information from each water system. The data can be divided into 5 categories mirroring the project scope. I tried to lay out this presentation to describe all of this data to you. But there is no time to do this. In order to study these systems, I am using every tool of monitoring that I have developed for both distribution system and premise plumbing investigations. I literally am using everthing INCLUDING the kitchen sink. So, to make a long story short, I will describe some of the methods used to study these systems and then give you a glimpse of some of the data already collected. We don t finish gathering data until January and even then, three systems will continue monitoring until summer. So, comprehensive data analysis has not begun. 12

56 Keep in mind that we need methods to routinely observe operating water systems so that the initial state of each system can be compared to how the system looks during cleaning and then after. As I said, I don t have time right now to explain all of this to you. So, let me give you an overview of how I deal with all of this data. 13

57 One of my main tools is Shewhart control charts. I began using these charts around 2009 and introduced them publically for application to drinking water quality data in Water Research Foundation Report 4286, Distribution System Water Quality Control Demonstration (2012). Every water quality parameter is plotted over time on a Shewhart control chart. The control chart provides guidelines behind the time series data for each water quality parameter and gives us a set of probability based rules to determine when trends of the data in one time period are distinctly different from other time periods. 14

58 There are so many control charts in this project to examine for trends that I have written a computer program to examine each graph and summarize every time a new trend is occurring for every parameter. In this way, I can summarize on what days new trends of various parameters occurred. On this slide, 9/3 and 8/20 are two days noted for trend changes in this water system. I discuss these dates with the water utility manager to determine what operational changes might have occurred on those days. With this, we begin to paint a picture of the influence of certain system operations on water quality and specifically on lead and copper release. 15

59 In addition, the data, especially the monitoring station data where multiple parameters are taken at the same site on the same day, are convenient for looking at possible correlations between factors. Since there are so many data points from the stations, I have written a computer program to organize the data and then to run the correlation function provided by Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The correlation function calculates a +1 for two parameters that are trending exactly the same way an increase of one parameter is always seen when a second parameter is increasing. A correlation of 1 shows that an increase of one parameter is always seen when a second parameter is decreasing. Correlation factors between 1 and 1 are the various probabilities of proportional or inverse trends. Note that this does not prove causation, it just shows similar trends. An example of these correlations will be shown later in this presentation. 16

60 Here is one way that the control charts are used. A very inexpensive but powerful source of data comes from the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) sites that have been selected around the distribution system for regulatory reasons. Many water systems must measure the concentration of disinfection at these sites. If disinfection is low, it is being used up by either interaction with chemical debris or by interaction with microorganisms. Therefore, disinfection concentration is an indicator of water system cleanliness and biostability. By plotting the disinfection concentration over time for each TCR sampling site, a water quality picture can be painted and it can be seen how the water quality changes over location in the distribution system and over time. 17

61 If other water quality parameters are taken at the TCR sites during regulatory visits, an even more detailed picture can be painted of water quality. At the very least, just taking turbidity measurements at each site and plotting them for each site over time is very informative. High turbidity indicates particulates in the water which can be from disturbed chemical scales or from entrained microbiological populations. With both the disinfection and turbidity data at TCR sites, one begins to understand the cleanliness and biostability of the water system over location and over time. 18

62 Here is a look at the residential sampling performed in this project. Water distribution systems are quite complex and there can be quite a lot of localized phenomena. While we can t know exactly how prevalent any phenomenon related to lead and copper release actually is, we can at least take some snapshots of what is happening in a system. Taking successive liters of stagnating water in a house so that the complete volume of water from the kitchen tap to the water main is captured in liter segments is an excellent way to take a snapshot of lead and copper release in a water system. All 5 of the Project 4586 surface water systems are performing profile sampling on two residences in each system. Some of the cost of this sampling has been carried directly by the participating utilities. But, we also want to thank the US EPA Region 5 for taking on the cost of analyzing these samples for two rounds of sampling. 19

63 Here is profile sampling from one residence in the Utility B system. Utility B does not use phosphates. This lead service line can produce lead levels up to 60 ug/l. 20

64 While a second residence with a lead service line in this same water system produces a maximum of 11 ug/l. (UDF = uni directional flushing of water mains) 21

65 Here is a lead service line residence s profile from Utility A. Utility A does use phosphate and is considered in compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. This service line can produce a maximum of 30 ug/l total lead. So, what we are seeing is that residences in both phosphate dosing and non phosphate dosing water systems can experience higher lead concentrations at times. 22

66 Data from residences are so variable based on different conditions at each sampling site. For this reason, it is good to use a monitoring station with a set configuration and water flow and usage. In Project 4586, we have 8 water systems currently using the station that I developed, the PRS Monitoring Station. Two more water systems that have used the PRS Monitoring Station in the past are also participating in this study. This is providing the project with quite a lot of comprehensive and consistent water quality data that can be compared from system to system. The data will also be compared with the other data the residential profile sampling, the Lead and Copper Rule compliance sampling, etc. Briefly, the PRS Monitoring Station produces data similar to Water Research Foundation pipe loop apparatuses. Instead of pipes used for testing in the apparatus, there are test chambers of metal plates. The surface area of the metal plates to volume of water in the test chamber is similar to the same ratio in a 1 ¾ inch diameter pipe. As a bonus for using the PRS Monitoring Station, at the end of our monitoring period, we will analyze the chemical scales and the biofilms that have built up on the metal plates. Along with the data we ve taken on the water that has stagnated in the test chambers, we are able to see the dynamics of scales and films on the metal surfaces and the exchange between the surface scales and the water. We will be able to see how this differs chemically and microbiologically for the two types of metal surfaces. 23

67 Here are some example lead and copper graphs from one PRS Monitoring Station in a surface water system that uses phosphate (Utility A). The lead test chamber shows us that about 50% of the lead release in this water system can come from particulate lead. The copper test chamber shows us that the majority of copper release in this system is in the dissolved form. Note that lead concentrations from a PRS Monitoring Station test chamber are high compared to what we would hope to see in a building. This is because the scales on the metal plates are young. We cannot create the complexity of 100 year old scales as seen in existing lead pipes. However, the test chambers give us relative responses of lead release to water quality changes which is important in providing the status of lead release as often as the test chamber is sampled (every two weeks in this project). Also note that the profile sampling of one residence in this same water system (Utility A) from a previous slide released 30 ug/l of lead under one system condition, so it is not off base to have the PRS Monitoring Station lead test chamber indicate lead releases from 50 to 100 ug/l are possible. Think of the test chambers as representing the worst case scenarios of metals release. The copper test chambers produce concentrations more typically measured in buildings; it is the nature of the copper scales that the younger scales of the test chambers can produce similar results as the older scales in the water system piping. Also note that there are many water quality parameters being measured at the same time. We don t have time to discuss all this information right now. I just want to show you how the test chambers give us a history of lead and copper response to water quality in a 24

68 system as it changes over time. 24

69 Here is the lead test chamber lead release history. At the beginning of a monitoring station setup, there is high lead release as we wait for scales and films to develop on the surface of the plates. In fact, I don t typically take metals data until the fifth week of monitoring station operation as I wait for the lead to reach a steady state level. In this case, the lead reached a steady state by the 6 th week. By the 13 th week, factors changed in the water system so that the lead went to yet a lower steady state level. 25

70 The previous graph was of total lead. This graph shows the dissolved lead fraction of that total lead. It is about 50% of the total lead and, in this case, it follows a similar pattern as the total lead. 26

71 Here is the total copper from the copper test chamber in the same system. It also started at a higher level of fluctuation and then dropped to a lower level. 27

72 The dissolved fraction shows that almost all of the copper is in dissolved form and not particulate form. 28

73 Here is an example of the correlation function summary. It shows that, with the data from Utility A, both total and dissolved copper concentrations in the copper test chamber trended in the same direction in a high correlation. We saw that on the previous slides of total copper history and dissolved copper history from the copper test chamber. In a little lower correlation, dissolved copper from the copper test chamber trended in the same direction as sulfate concentration entering the test chamber. This makes sense since copper sulfate is highly soluble. 29

74 As an example of inverse correlations, when Total Chlorine concentration of the water flowing into the test chambers went down, dissolved organic carbon concentration in the influent water increased. When Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) of the water flowing into the test chambers went down, Total Lead concentration in the lead test chamber increased. 30

75 Many of the water systems in this project are performing water main flushing to clean the water system as the PRS Monitoring Station stands watch. Each water main cleaning program is being evaluated in effectiveness by looking at initial and final turbidity data as well as other data to determine the extent to which the pipes were cleaned. 31

76 Four of the water systems are small campuses where the water system owner also owns all of the buildings. I have a method of evaluating building plumbing and for cleaning building plumbing so that chemical scales are removed and biostability is achieved. This is being used and data taken in those water systems and will be reported in the project report. 32

77 All four of the small campus water systems in this project have a similar issue. The wells that are the source of the water have not been properly maintained in terms of routine inspections, rehabilitation, and cleaning. The wells have a high degree of microbiological growth and metals corrosion of the casing as well as breaches where poor quality water is entering the well. The distribution system water quality issues start here. These water systems have a history of distribution system high microbiological populations, high lead, high copper, and pinhole leaks in copper pipe. In all of these systems, efforts have recently been made to improve the water source less iron, manganese and microorganisms entering the distribution system. But, the existing biofilms still must be removed. To do this, I am using a biofilm removing chemical. The chemical breaks up the biofilm on pipe walls throughout the system which releases the biofilm material as well as chemical debris that was intertwined with the biofilm. This is an NSF approved chemical for potable water. The manufacturer advises that the dosage for cleaning a distribution system can go up to 40 ppm. I start at 0.5 ppm and watch the turbidity in buildings (both hot and cold water) around the campuses as well as at the PRS Monitoring Station. The dosage is not raised until the turbidity levels are stable. One system that has been successfully cleaned proceeded carefully up to 4 ppm in this way. The other 3 systems are soon moving to 2 ppm. Flushing of building plumbing and water mains accompanies the use of this chemical. The 33

78 pipe wall debris has to go somewhere, so we release it slowly and get it out of the system with flushing. The next slide shows the tracking of turbidity throughout the campus and the increase of the biofilm removing chemical over time. 33

79 The black dots represent the dose of the biofilm removing chemical. That other data is a compilation of turbidity at 3 to 5 locations in each campus building and the turbidity at the PRS Monitoring Station. The turbidity around campus after a year of chemical dosing and flushing is less than 1 NTU. 34

80 Here s yet another category of data for this project. It relates to the biostability of the water. The stated goals for the project is to see how not only cleaning affects the lead and copper release but also the how achieving biostability affects the lead and copper release. Data tracked to assess biostability are nutrient concentrations, disinfection concentrations, oxidation/reduction potential and a measurement of microbiological population by ATP. Note that ATP gives us the population of not only heterotrophs (like the heterotrophic plate count) but also autotrophs, algae, fungus, etc. We never know what might be a major player in shaping the water quality, so the data need to be inclusive of all possibilities. Keep in mind that there are large numbers of types of microorganisms and each type in certain conditions can be a dominating factor in metals corrosion. We can t just look at heterotrophs, for example, and think we have a handle on the complete microbiological component of a distribution system. 35

81 With all this comprehensive data, we can see if phosphate is helping to protect public health from high lead and copper release. I will give you a few glimpses of this assessment. 36

82 Here is one of our water systems (Utility I) using surface water and phosphate. The residential profile sampling shows that one residence with a lead service line was protected from high lead release. However, a second residence in the same system is not protected even though phosphate is used. Because a high iron concentration was found in the problem residence, we think about how iron can help to accumulate and carry lead to the consumers tap. The phosphate could not protect the consumers from this phenomenon. Graphs are on the next slide. 37

83 38

84 I mentioned previously about the water systems in this project where the wells were providing high concentrations of Fe, Mn and microorganisms. I call these types of systems a soup of metals and microbes. I have seen this in larger water systems in WI and MN, not just these small campuses. So here are data from a PRS Monitoring Station lead test chamber as the wells are rehabilitated and the distribution system is cleaned with flushing and biofilm removing chemical. At the same time, the phosphate dosage is notched down slowly over time. Graphs follow 39

85 Here is a trace of the phosphate dosage entering the PRS Monitoring Station as it is lowered over time from October 2014 to October

86 Here is a trace of Total Lead as seen from the PRS Monitoring Station lead test chamber. The total lead concentration is higher than I have ever seen in any other water system using a PRS Monitoring Station. The turquoise triangles show the taking of wells offline for rehabilitation and the putting them back on line. The purple triangles show when the biofilm removing chemical was introduced at 0.5 ppm and then increased to 1 ppm. The lead was high before the wells were worked on and before the biofilm removing chemical was introduced. The phosphate was high at this time also. The cleaning of the water system contributed to the continued high lead through July. With wells back being pumped as usual and with the biofilm removing chemical and without the phosphate, on the right hand side of the graph, the lead concentration from the test chamber is lower than it has typically been. This is still a work in progress and we plan to follow it into next summer to see if lead levels can be kept low even in warmer weather. 41

87 Here is a graph of the accompanying dissolved lead fraction to that high total lead. If is very low for a test chamber. We aim to bring the total lead levels down to this level as the chemical scales and biofilms are removed from the distribution system and without the presence of phosphates. 42

88 We will also look at the impacts of the phosphorus on the wastewater treatment plants. A survey has been sent to each water system s associated wastewater treatment plant to gather information about phosphorus loads and economic impacts of removing the phosphorus. I am working with engineers from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and some other wastewater utility managers who are very interested in this issue to assess the information that we gather. 43

89 We will run some numbers on cost changes with various phosphate dosing scenarios especially if phosphate dosage changes are required by a rewritten LCR. 44

90 We will also try to expand this assessment to include environmental costs and also to address what phosphate scenarios best serve public health. 45

91 Here is the Project 4586 schedule. We finish collecting most of the data by January. Three systems will continue into next summer. The report will begin to be written starting in January and a draft will possibly be ready by September. The draft report is actually due by December. 46

92 47

93 Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group To the National Drinking Water Advisory Council FINAL AUGUST 24,

94 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Charge Findings and Recommendations Considerations and Background Information Considerations in Preparing this Report Regulatory Background and Formation of the NDWAC Lead and Copper Work Group Recommendations for Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule Replace Lead Service Lines Update Inventories and Improve Access to Information about Lead Service Lines Establish Active LSL Replacement Programs LSL Compliance Develop Stronger Public Education Requirements and Programs for Lead and LSLs National Lead in Drinking Water Clearinghouse Outreach to New Customers Revise the Current CCR Language Strengthen Requirements for Public Access to Information Routine Outreach to Caregivers/Health Care Providers of Vulnerable Populations Public Education Compliance Improve Corrosion Control Corrosion Control Recommendations Corrosion Control Compliance Modify Monitoring Requirements Water Quality Parameter Monitoring Tap Sampling for Lead Sample Invalidation Criteria Monitoring Compliance Establish a Household Action Level Household Action Level Recommendations Household Action Level Compliance

95 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final 3.6 Establish Separate Monitoring Requirements for Copper Copper Recommendations Copper Compliance Complementary Actions Critical to the Success of the National Effort to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water Conclusion Appendices Appendix A Lead and Copper Working Group Members Appendix B Table 2 Figures Figure 1 Overview of Recommended Revised Lead and Copper Rule Framework 3

96 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final Abbreviations AL Action Level ALE Action Level Exceedance CCR Consumer Confidence Report CCT Corrosion Control Treatment DWLRP Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency LAL Lead Action Level LCR Lead and Copper Rule LCRWG Lead and Copper Rule Working Group LSL Lead Service Line LSLR Lead Service Line Replacement LTR LCR Long Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal mg/l Milligram per Liter µg/l Microgram per Liter µg/dl Microgram per Deciliter NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water OCCT Optimum Corrosion Control Treatment OWQP Optimal Water Quality Parameter PE Public Education ph Negative log of hydrogen ion molar concentration PLSLR Partial Lead Service Line Replacement POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works POU Point-of-use Treatment Device PWS Public Water System SAB Science Advisory Board SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund TT Treatment Technique WQP Water Quality Parameter 4

97 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council 1. Executive Summary The Lead and Copper Rule Working Group (LCRWG) of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) has completed its deliberations on issues associated with long term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). This report includes the group s findings and recommendations. This executive summary provides a brief overview of the report. Details of the findings and recommendations are provided in the body of the report. A list of the members of the working group can be found in Appendix A Charge The charge to the LCRWG was to provide advice to the NDWAC as it develops recommendations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on targeted issues related to long term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Findings and Recommendations The anticipated Long Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LTR LCR) is a very important opportunity for removing sources of lead in contact with drinking water and for reducing exposure to lead from drinking water in the meantime. Creative financing and robust public education also are essential. The LCRWG took the following considerations, among others, into account in making recommendations for revisions to the LCR. A more detailed list of considerations is included in the full report. There is no safe level of lead. Lead can pose health risks to anyone, but there are heightened risks for pregnant women, infants and young children and other vulnerable populations with both acute and chronic exposures. Effective elimination of leaded materials in contact with water and minimization of exposure to lead in drinking water is a shared responsibility; public water systems (PWSs), consumers, building owners, public health officials and others each have important roles to play. The lack of resources to reduce the sources of exposure in some communities, however, also raises important questions of disparate impact and environmental justice. Thus, creative financing mechanisms will be needed. The LCR should remain a treatment technique rule, but it can be improved based on the scientific knowledge that has emerged since the current LCR was promulgated. Corrosion control treatment is complicated, and will vary based on specific circumstances in each public water system. Thus, regular updates to guidance by EPA based on the latest science and the creation of a national clearinghouse of information both for the public and for PWSs are needed. The LCRWG considered but did not quantify the cost implications of its recommendations. An important factor in the group s deliberations was the principle that PWS and state resources should be focused on actions that achieve the greatest public health protection. Recognizing that lead service line (LSL) replacement programs will be costly in some locations, the LCRWG also encourages PWSs to incorporate 5

98 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final anticipated costs into their capital improvement program as appropriate to their situation, and urges states to include the costs of LSL replacement in their criteria for allocation of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The LCRWG specifically recommends that EPA revise the LCR to: Require proactive lead service line (LSL) replacement programs, which set replacement goals, effectively engage customers in implementing those goals, and provide improved access to information about LSLs, in place of current requirements in which LSLs must be replaced only after a lead action level (AL) exceedance; Establish more robust public education requirements for lead and LSLs, by updating the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), adding targeted outreach to consumers with lead service lines and other vulnerable populations (pregnant women and families with infants and young children), and increasing the information available to the public; Strengthen corrosion control treatment (CCT), retaining the current rule requirements to re-assess CCT if changes to source water or treatment are planned, adding a requirement to review updates to EPA guidance to determine if new scientific information warrants changes; Modify monitoring requirements to provide for consumer requested tap samples for lead and to utilize results of tap samples for lead to inform consumer action to reduce the risks in their homes, to inform the appropriate public health agency when results are above a designated household action level, and to assess the effectiveness of CCT and/or other reasons for elevated lead results; Tailor water quality parameters (WQPs) to the specific CCT plan for each system, and increase the frequency of WQP monitoring for process control; Establish a health-based, household action level that triggers a report to the consumer and to the applicable health agency for follow up; Separate the requirements for copper from those for lead and focus new requirements where water is corrosive to copper; and Establish appropriate compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Although leadership by EPA is essential, reduction of exposure to lead in drinking water cannot be achieved by EPA regulation alone. Thus, this report also includes recommendations for renewed commitment, cooperation and effort by government at all levels and by the general public. We urge EPA to play a leadership role not only in the revisions to the LCR but also in educating, motivating, and supporting the work of other EPA offices; federal state and local agencies and other stakeholders. (See Section 4: Complementary Actions Critical to the Success of the National Effort to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water.) 2. Considerations and Background Information 2.1. Considerations in Preparing this Report The members of the LCRWG brought different perspectives and expertise to the preparation of this report. Although not all members agreed with each and every consideration listed below, the LCRWG took one another s perspectives into account and, thus, the following concepts collectively underlie the recommendations in this report. Additional detail is provided in the recommendations section below. 6

99 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final There is no safe level of lead. Lead can pose health risks to anyone, but there are heightened risks for pregnant women, infants and children with both acute and chronic exposures. Lead-bearing plumbing materials in contact with drinking water pose a risk at all times (not just when there is a lead action level (LAL) exceedance). Effective elimination of leaded materials in contact with water and minimization of exposure to lead in drinking water is a shared responsibility. PWSs, consumers, building owners, public health officials and others each have important roles to play. The LTR LCR is an important opportunity for removing sources of lead in contact with drinking water and for reducing exposure to lead from drinking water in the meantime. However, additional action beyond the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act is needed. Removing lead from drinking water systems also will require renewed commitment, cooperation and effort by government at all levels and by the general public. (See Section 4: Complementary Actions Critical to the Success of the National Effort to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water.) Proactive action is needed to remove the sources of lead, with appropriate incentives both for PWSs and their customers needed to encourage such action. Successful implementation of the revised LCR can only take place in the context of a more holistic effort on lead in water issues involving stakeholders other than just EPA and water systems, and resources beyond those able to be brought to bear by water systems. Partnerships at all levels are essential. Recognizing that public agency budgets are tighter than ever, greater engagement by local health agencies, those funding housing programs, and those involved in permitting and construction is particularly important. Creative financing mechanisms also will be needed to achieve this goal for all individuals potentially exposed to lead, regardless of race, ethnicity or income. Leaving a lead service line in place because a low-income resident does not have the means to pay raises serious questions of disparate impact and environmental justice. The public plays a critical role in protecting their families health by reducing exposure to lead and copper, and informing the public enables them to be effective participants in implementing their share of the responsibility. The issues associated with lead and copper are very different and warrant more separate attention than has been the case in the past. The LCR should remain a treatment technique rule, but it can be improved. Corrosion control treatment (CCT) is complex, dynamic, and varies based on the circumstances in each PWS. The understanding of the challenges with CCT has improved in recent years, but questions still remain. Attention to unintended consequences is important generally and, in particular, with respect to CCT. The presence of lead-bearing materials in premise plumbing raises issues about what systems can implement in customers homes. Attention to what States are able to oversee and enforce also is important. PWS and state resources should be focused on actions that achieve the greatest public health protection. 7

100 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final 2.2 Regulatory Background and Formation of the NDWAC Lead and Copper Work Group Under the Safe Drinking Water Act EPA sets public health goals and enforceable standards for drinking water quality. 1 The Lead and Copper Rule is a treatment technique rule. Instead of setting a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead or copper, the rule requires (PWSs) to take certain actions to minimize lead and copper in drinking water, to reduce water corrosivity and prevent the leaching of these metals from the premise plumbing and drinking water distribution system components and when that isn t enough, to replace lead service lines under their control. The current rule sets an action level (AL), or concentration, of mg/l for lead and 1.3 mg/l for copper. An AL is not the same as an MCL. An MCL is based on health effects and feasibility; whereas an action level is a screening tool for determining when certain treatment technique actions are needed. The LCR action level is based on the practical feasibility of reducing lead through controlling corrosion. In the LCR, if the AL is exceeded in more than ten percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring period (i.e., if the 90 th percentile level is greater than the AL), it is not a violation, but triggers other requirements that include water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment (CCT), source water monitoring/treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement (LSLR). The rule also requires States to report the 90 th percentile for lead concentrations to EPA s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database for all water systems serving 3,300 or more persons, and for those systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons only when the lead action level (LAL) is exceeded. States only report the 90 th percentile for copper concentrations in SDWIS when the copper action level is exceeded in water systems regardless of the size of the service population. Public education requirements ensure that drinking water consumers receive meaningful, timely, and useful information that is needed to help them limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. Copper is a common material used in household plumbing and drinking water service lines in the United States. Copper is an essential nutrient in small amounts; however, acute ingestion of excess copper in drinking water has been associated with adverse health effects, including acute gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal discomfort, nausea, and vomiting. The SDWA requires EPA to set MCLGs at concentration levels at which no known or anticipated adverse effects would occur, allowing for an adequate margin of safety. EPA proposed an MCLG of 1.3 mg/l for copper in 1985, and finalized that MCLG in 1991 when the LCR was promulgated. The LCR set the action level (AL) for copper, the level at which treatment technique actions are triggered for the water system, equal to the MCLG. The AL is triggered if the 90 th percentile level of water samples is exceeded. All community water systems must report the 90 th percentile level and the number of samples that exceeded the 90 th percentile in their Consumer Confidence Reports. In early 2004, EPA began a wide-ranging review of the implementation of the LCR to determine if there was a national problem related to elevated levels of lead in drinking water. As part of its national review, EPA collected and analyzed lead concentration data and other information, carried out a review of implementation in States, held four expert workshops to discuss elements of the regulations, and worked to understand local and State efforts to monitor for lead in school drinking water, including a national meeting to discuss challenges and needs. EPA released a Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan (DWLRP) in March This plan outlined short-term and long-term goals for improving implementation of the 1 EPA establishes national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) under SDWA. NPDWRs either establish a feasible maximum contaminant level (MCL) or a treatment technique to prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible. 8

101 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final LCR. The plan can be found at the following web address: In 2007, EPA promulgated regulations, which addressed the short-term revisions to the LCR that were identified in the 2005 DWLRP. These requirements enhanced the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, treatment, LSLR, public education, and customer awareness. These revisions were intended to better ensure drinking water consumers receive meaningful, timely, and useful information needed to help them limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. A number of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments aim to reduce lead in drinking water by limiting the amount of allowable lead in plumbing materials that come into contact with drinking water. In 1986, the SDWA was amended to prohibit the use of any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the installation or repair of (i) any public water system; or (ii) any plumbing in a residential or non-residential facility providing water for human consumption, that is not lead free. Lead Free was defined as solder and flux with no more than 0.2% lead and pipes with no more than 8% lead. Congress again amended the SDWA in 1996, to prohibit the introduction into commerce of any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture that is not lead free and to also require pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures be in compliance with 3 rd party lead leaching standards. These provisions ensure that only products meeting the lead free definition are sold in the U.S. and that pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures are certified to be lead free. The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 revised the maximum allowable lead content from not more than 8% to not more than a weighted average of 0.25% lead and included a calculation procedure for determining the weighted average; further reducing the amount of lead in contact with drinking water. It also eliminates the federal requirement to comply with the lead leaching standard and included exemptions from the lead free definition for plumbing devices that are used exclusively for nonpotable services and also for specific plumbing devices such as toilets, bidets and urinals. The Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 further amended the SDWA to add fire hydrants to the list of exempted plumbing devices. EPA has continued to work on the long-term issues that required additional data collection, research, analysis, and full stakeholder involvement, which were identified in the 2005 DWLRP and the 2007 rule revisions. This action is referred to as the LCR Long-Term Revisions (LTR). The LCR LTR would apply to all community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). In this report, the term public water system (PWS) is meant to refer to both of these categories but not to transient non-community water systems. Seeing the need for additional input on potential revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA requested that the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee (NDWAC) form the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group (LCRWG) to consider several key questions for the LCR LTR, taking into consideration previous input. The LCRWG met seven times in 2014 and 2015 to produce this report, and sought input from the NDWAC in advance of the last meeting to understand and address questions the NDWAC might have about the working group s recommendations. A list of members of the working group is provided in Appendix A. This report was approved by the LCRWG, with one dissent. 9

102 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final 3. Recommendations for Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule The long term revisions to the LCR is an important opportunity for removing sources of lead in contact with drinking water and for reducing exposure to lead from drinking water in the meantime. Creative financing and robust public education also are essential. The LCRWG offers the following recommendations, based on information provided to the work group and on the work group s own deliberations. The LCRWG considers these recommendations to be an integrated package, not a menu of choices from which some recommendations can be selected and combined with others. This package reflects a concerted attempt to strengthen public health protection, which includes targeting the resources available to PWSs for the greatest public health value. While individual members might differ on specific recommendations, the work group (with one dissent) agrees that this package of recommendations constitutes an improvement over the current LCR. The LCRWG carefully considered the information and questions posed by EPA in a white paper prepared for the working group. In its deliberations, the LCRWG came to the conclusion that the lessons learned from the implementation of the current LCR warranted a fresh look at the premises of the regulation. To truly solve the problem of exposure to lead in drinking water, the LCRWG concluded that lead-bearing materials should be removed from contact with drinking water to the greatest degree possible, while minimizing the risk of exposure in the meantime. That premise has led to a different paradigm for a revised LCR and, thus, to a somewhat different set of assumptions than underlay questions posed to the working group. The diagram on page 12 illustrates the conceptual framework of the recommendations that follow. The LCRWG specifically recommends that EPA revise the LCR to: Require proactive LSL replacement programs, which set replacement goals, effectively engage customers in implementing those goals, and provide improved access to information about LSLs, in place of current requirements in which lead service lines (LSLs) must be replaced only after a lead action level (AL) exceedance and CCT; Establishes more robust public education, by creating a national clearinghouse of information for the public and templates for PWSs, by updating the Consumer Confidence Report, adding targeted outreach to consumers with lead service lines and other vulnerable populations (pregnant women and families with infants and young children), and increasing the information available to health care providers and the public; Strengthen corrosion control treatment (CCT), retaining the current rule requirements to re-assess CCT if changes to source water or treatment are planned, adding a requirement to review updates to EPA guidance to determine if new scientific information warrants changes; Modify monitoring requirements to provide for consumer requested tap samples for lead and to utilize results of tap samples for lead to inform consumer action to reduce the risks in their homes, to inform the appropriate public health agency when results are above a designated household action level, and to assess the effectiveness of CCT and/or other reasons for elevated lead results; Tailor water quality parameters to the specific CCT plan for each system, and increases the frequency of WQP monitoring for process control; 10

103 Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council - Final Establish a health-based, household action level that triggers a report to the consumer and to the applicable health agency for follow up; Separate the requirements for copper from those for lead and focus new requirements where water is corrosive to copper; and Establish appropriate compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Although leadership by EPA is essential, reduction of exposure to lead in drinking water cannot be achieved by EPA regulation alone. Thus, this report also includes recommendations for renewed commitment, cooperation and effort by government at all levels and by the general public. We urge EPA to play a leadership role not only in the revisions to the LCR but also in educating, motivating, and supporting the work of other EPA offices; federal, state and local agencies and other stakeholders. (See Section 4: Complementary Actions Critical to the Success of the National Effort to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water.) 11

104 Figure 1 12