VA AWWA Water Quality and Research Committee Seminar July 12, 2018 Jim Moore VDH - Office of Drinking Water Lexington Field Office 1
1. Provide a quick overview of SB 1359: Lead Testing in Virginia Schools 2. Describe the challenges faced by local school boards 3. Provide some clarifications & assistance to help local school boards 4. Quickly look at what we think we know about the LCR Long Term Revision Rule 2 2
The Lead Contamination Control Act/Rule was promulgated in 1988 The USEPA Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) was promulgated on June 7, 1991 The Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions (LCRMR) were promulgated on January 12, 2000, and 3 3
The Lead and Copper Rule: Short Term Revisions and Clarifications (LCR STR) were promulgated on October 10, 2007 Public Law 111-380 effective January 4, 2014 amended the SDWA changing the definition of lead free with respect to pipe, fittings and components EPA is currently working on another revision to the LCR: Lead and Copper Rule Long Term Revision Rule 4 4
Passed by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly VA Code 22.1-135.1. Potable water: lead testing Each local school board shall develop and implement a plan to test and, if necessary, remediate potable water from sources identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as high priority for testing, including bubbler-style and cooler-style drinking fountains, cafeteria or kitchen taps, classroom combination sinks and drinking fountains, and sinks known to be or visibly used for consumption. The local school board shall give priority in the testing plan to schools whose school building was constructed, in whole or in part, before 1986. 5 5
The code contains very general language and does not specify: Number of samples required Timing of sample collection Interpretation of sample results Necessary remediation actions 6 6
Introduced in the 2018 Virginia General Assembly Session Left in Committee Number of Samples As often as is required of the supplying public water system by the Virginia Department of Health's Office of Drinking Water pursuant to regulations established in accordance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act Post the sampling plan and results - The plan. and the results of each test conducted shall be posted on the local school board's website and reported to the Virginia Department of Health Transparency If the results of any test A indicate a level of lead in the potable water that is at or above 20 parts per billion, the school board shall develop, implement, post on its website, and report to the Virginia Department of Health a plan to remediate the level of lead in the potable water to below 20 parts per billion and confirm such remediation by retesting the water at two consecutive six-month intervals 7 7
The Virginia Department of Education has provided local school boards some clarifications: DOE interprets the Code to require samples to be collected from every tap in every school where children could consume water (on average 90+ taps per school) DOE interprets the Code to mean this is a one-time sampling event and does not have to be repeated 8 8
The Virginia Department of Education has provided local school boards some clarifications: DOE interprets the Code to allow samples to be collected over time (i.e. all sampling does not have to occur at the same time and can occur over a number of years) There is no reporting or enforcement provisions 9 9
The General Assembly did not provide any funding to cover the costs of testing or remediation Smaller school divisions will likely have difficulty in completing the testing and remediation requirements The testing requirement does include schools that have their own water source (well) and are permitted waterworks testing for lead and copper under the LCR 10 10
VDH Office of Drinking Water recommends that school divisions follow USEPA published guidance for testing and reducing lead in drinking water in schools and child care facilities 3T s Guidance (Training, Testing, Telling) Available on the ODW web page 11 11
Training guidance raises awareness of sources of lead in drinking water, the health effects, and identifying areas where elevated lead may occur Testing guidance details how to evaluate school internal plumbing to identify sampling locations; provides detailed sampling instructions; how to interpret sample results and remediation efforts where needed Telling guidance on communicating with students, parents and the larger community about testing, risks, and remediation actions 12 12
Sampling Systematic approach to identify specific taps used for consumption of drinking water that may contain elevated lead concentrations Sampling protocol designed to identify the specific source of lead Faucet or water cooler Piping serving the faucet Piping upstream of the faucet Piping entering the building Water source serving the building 13 13
There are differences in the 3T s guidance and LCR which has created a great deal of confusion: 20 ppb vs 15 ppb 3T s guidance uses a 20 ppb lead concentration as a trigger to conduct additional sampling or take immediate actions The LCR uses a 15 ppb lead Action Level 14 14
20 ppb vs 15 ppb Neither value is a health based concentration LCR uses 1 L sample volume and the 15 ppb is based on the 90 th percentile sample concentration (system wide) 15 ppb is a concentration deemed by EPA to be achievable by waterworks that install and operate corrosion control treatment 15 15
20 ppb vs 15 ppb 3T s Guidance uses a 250 ml sample volume and the 20 ppb is applied to each sample tap tested Designed to pinpoint specific drinking fountains and/or faucets that require remediation (i.e. replacement) Should not make any direct comparison between the 15 ppb and 20 ppb concentrations Many school boards have opted to use 15 ppb to trigger additional sampling or remediation 16 16
If schools find taps with elevated lead (> 15ppb / 20 ppb) Immediately remove the tap from service If at all possible remove the source of lead: replace the fixture or upstream piping depending upon the specific identified source of lead with lead free components Point of Use (POU) treatment units (National Sanitation Foundation - NSF approved) are available but should be a last resort solution 17 17
ODW Field Office staff has been providing assistance to school divisions when asked We remain available to continue with this assistance: Provide information on approved laboratories Interpretation of sample results Assistance with appropriate remediation efforts 18 18
The Virginia School Plant Management Association (VSPMA) has developed guidance Developed a white paper for it s members 19 19
Local Health Departments receive many questions and concerns from parents, media and the larger community when schools test their drinking water for lead: School divisions should contact Local Health Departments prior to sampling and when sample results are received Allows local health to be engaged and respond to inquiries 20 20
21 21
What we think we know about the LCR-LTR?? 22 22
Best insight comes from two sources : National Drinking Water Advisory Council LCR Workgroup - Report to EPA Dated December 2015 LCR Revisions EPA Federalism Consultation Meeting January 8, 2018 Both are available on the EPA LCR Revisions Web Page 23 23
Key Areas for LCR Revisions: 1. Lead Service Line Replacement 2. Corrosion Control Treatment 3. Tap Sampling 4. Public Education and Transparency 5. Requirements for Copper No final language (that I know of) has been decided upon - The following are under consideration! 24 24
Lead Service Line Replacement: 1. Require waterworks to develop an inventory of all lead service lines 2. Proactive full LSL replacement on a specified schedule (i.e. 10, 15, 25, 35 years) 3. Allow partial LSLR only for emergency repairs or with unwilling or unable customers when conducting water main replacement projects 4. Require POU filters to be distributed and regularly maintained for 3 months following any LSLR 25 25
Corrosion Control Treatment: 1. Target systems to require OCCT differently Change the system size threshold (currently > 50,000) Require all systems with LSL s to install OCCT 2. Require systems to provide and maintain POU treatment devices to all households with LSL s 3. Change requirements for designating OCCT Prescribe a default CCT that must be maintained Require periodic re-evaluation of installed CCT Review updated EPA guidance to determine if new scientific information warrants changes to CCT 26 26
Corrosion Control Treatment: 5. Require systems to find and fix problems in CCT if a tap sample exceeds an Action Level 6. Require systems to target WQP monitoring to the specific CCT technology 7. Increase WQP monitoring - primarily to ensure greater CCT process control 27 27
Transparency and Public Education: 1. Require systems to provide on-going targeted outreach Special emphasis on all customers with LSL s 2. Require systems to provide notification to customers within 24 hours of exceeding an Action Level 3. Require systems to make information accessible to customers All tap sample results WQP monitoring results Number and location of all LSL s 28 28
Tap Sampling: 1. Change location of tap sampling Sites based on customer requests At schools and day care facilities Increase the number of required samples 2. Change the way samples are collected Instruct customers to collect samples when they are drawing water for drinking or cooking 3. Establish a household Action Level Health based concentration If exceeded will trigger a report to customer and local health agency 29 29
Tap Sampling: 4. Eliminate the 1983 to 1986 time frame to select sample sites? 5. New sampling plan likely 30 30
Requirements for Copper: 1. Establish a screen to determine if water is aggressive to copper If yes, require monitoring and/or Public Education and/or Installation of CCT 2. Require separate sites for copper sample collection 31 31
There is no safe level of lead in drinking water Lead containing plumbing materials in contact with drinking water pose a risk at all times not just if the Action Level is exceeded These materials need to be eliminated Another EPA Rule alone will not adequately address the lead issue it will take a combined effort of federal, state, local and consumer stakeholders From the NDWAC LCR Workgroup Final Report 32 32
Anticipated Timing: EPA originally set a Federal Register Proposed Rule publication date for late 2017 Publication was then delayed until August 2018 This past May EPA indicated: Proposed Rule to be published in February 2019 Final Rule published in February 2020 Effective date three years later 33 33
34 34