&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review:
National Report
-------
Office of Water (4606) EPA 816-R-06-001 www.epa.gov/safewater June 2006
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
CONTENTS
Figures and Tables ii
Acronyms iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1.0 LEAD AND COPPERRULE STATE FILE REVIEW 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Methodology 3
2.0 NATIONAL FINDINGS 7
2.1 90th Percentile 7
2.1.1 Accuracy of9ffh Percentile Calculations 7
2.1.2 90th Percentile Values 10
2.2 Site Selection and Sample Management 11
2.2.1 Sample Site Plans and Sample Collection Forms 11
2.2.2 Sampling Protocol 13
2.2.3 Who Collects the Sample? 14
2.2.4 Where are the samples taken? 14
2.2.5 How much time passes between the collection of the first and last sample used to
calculate the 90th percentile? 15
2.2.6 Sample Invalidation and Replacement Samples 15
2.2.7 Individual Lead Sample Results and Homeowner Notification 16
2.3 Response to Action Level Exceedances 19
2.3.1 System Responses to Lead ALEs 21
2.3.2 Public Education 25
2.3.3 Water Quality Parameters and Source Water Monitoring 26
2.3.4 Corrosion Control 27
2.3.5 Monitoring Changes for New Sources or Corrosion Control Treatment
Adjustments 28
2.3.6 Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) 28
2.4 Schools 29
2.5 Waivers and Bottled Water 32
3.0 CONCLUSION 35
4.0 NEXT STEPS 37
Appendix A Program Structures of Reviewed States 39
-------
Figures
Figure 1. Results of Verification of 90th Percentile Values for 1,135 Sampling Rounds 8
Figure 2. Distribution of Individual Sample Results for all Water Systems (2000-2004) 17
Tables
Table 1. Systems Reviewed 4
Table 2. Accuracy of 90th Percentile Calculation 9
Table 3. Lead 90th Percentile Values Identified for PWSs 10
Table 4. Status of Systems' Sampling Site Changes 12
Table 5. Ranges of Individual Lead Sample Results 18
Table 6a. Number of ALE Events for the 82 Systems With Lead ALEs 20
Table 6b. Systems with Lead Action Level Exceedances during 2000 - 2004 21
Table 7. Follow-up Actions by Seven Large Systems that Exceeded the Lead Action 22
Table 8. Initial Follow-up Actions by 75 Medium or Small Systems that Exceeded the Lead
Action Level during 2000 - 2004 24
Table 9. Initial Public Education for Lead Action Level Exceedance Identified for PWSs .... 26
Table 10. Follow-up Actions by 22 Schools that Exceeded the Lead Action Level 30
n
-------
Acronyms
AL Action Level
ALE Action Level Exceedance
CCT Corrosion Control Treatment
CWS Community Water System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
LSL Lead Service Line
LSLR Lead Service Line Replacement
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OWQP Optimal Water Quality Parameter
PE Public Education
Pb Lead, chemical symbol
ppb Parts per Billion
PQL Practical Quantitation Level
PSA Public Service Announcement
PWS Public Water System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
WQP Water Quality Parameter
111
-------
This page left intentionally blank.
IV
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a review and analysis of state
file data from 483 drinking water systems in ten states to gain a national picture of Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) implementation. EPA contractors looked at LCR compliance data from
1992, the effective date of the LCR, through 2004. Most of the analysis of this report focuses on
the time period 2000-2004 in recognition that implementation improvements have been made
since the rule was finalized.
Of the 483 water systems selected for review; 406 were randomly selected and 77 were
targeted for selection based on certain characteristics (e.g., past compliance with the LCR, water
system size or water system type). While this sample set provides a degree of confidence in
national implementation, it does not provide enough data points to draw conclusions for subsets
of data. For each water system, EPA evaluated implementation of requirements of the LCR such
as accuracy of the 90th percentile data1 reported to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS), sampling site selection and sample management, water systems' response to
lead action level exceedances (ALEs), and implementation by regulated schools.
The state file review did not identify a widespread problem with elevated lead levels
in America's public water supplies. For the 406 randomly selected water systems, 7% of
sampling rounds reviewed had a 90th percentile value greater than the action level. Fewer than
1% of the randomly selected systems had more than 1 ALE 2000-2004. Data evaluated from
17,542 individual tap water lead samples collected between 2000 and 2004 show that only 5% of
all lead samples were greater than the lead action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb).
Information collected during the file review demonstrated that SDWIS data of 90th
percentile lead values is accurate. While a small number of 90th percentile calculations were
done incorrectly, in only 1% of the cases did this error affect whether a water system was
required to take action. The reviews of state files did not show evidence that 90th percentile
values reported to SDWIS were artificially lowered due to inappropriate re-sampling,
manipulation of data, or improper invalidation.
The review did identify a need for improved documentation in both SDWIS and in
state files. Individual home sample results were not available for 21% of the water system
sampling rounds reviewed. Therefore, 90th percentile calculations could not be verified. In
addition, many state files did not contain the water system's materials evaluation, sampling site
plans, and other information to determine if water system sampling reflected the requirements of
The LCR established an action level of 0.015 mg/L (15 ppb) for lead based on the 90th percentile level of tap water
samples. If more than 10 percent of tap water samples are above the action level, the water system must take steps to reduce the
corrosivity of the water, replace lead service lines, and inform customers about risks associated with exposure to elevated levels
of lead.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
the LCR. Information regarding required follow-up activities after an action level exceedance,
such as public education and corrosion control treatment steps was also lacking. Follow-up
activity (milestone) information is often missing in SDWIS as well.
The file review revealed a lack of system response to action level exceedances. This
was especially true for requirements to inform the public, where water systems provided the
required information to their consumers less than 1/3 of the time. In addition, out of 134
occasions in which water quality parameter (WQP) and source water monitoring was required
during 2000-2004, documentation in the state files indicated initial WQP and source water
monitoring was conducted only 42 percent of the time.
The file review identified problems at schools. More than half the schools that had a
lead action level exceedance did not begin the appropriate follow-up requirements. For schools
that did begin ALE follow-up activities, none completed every step on schedule.
EPA believes that the data from the file review, coupled with information gathered from
other Agency evaluation efforts, does not show a wide-spread problem with lead in drinking
water. However, both the state file review and the Agency's year long LCR review demonstrated
a need for implementation improvements, especially related to exceedances of the action level.
Both EPA and states have undertaken steps to improve this activity.
EPA has already increased its oversight of the LCR, and has emphasized SDWIS
reporting. To address the public education issue, EPA asked the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) to develop recommendations to improve message and delivery.
EPA expects that these recommendations will both improve compliance and provide clearer
information to those most vulnerable to lead concerns. EPA has also significantly increased its
efforts to reduce lead levels in schools.
EPA identified opportunities to improve implementation of the current rule, through
revised guidance and revisions to the LCR in the areas of monitoring, treatment processes,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. In addition, EPA will conduct further
research to address other issues identified.
Many states, including all of the states in the review, have informed EPA of new efforts
they have undertaken to improve LCR oversight. Actions include new rounds of training for
water systems, improved data flow management, internal reviews of responses to action level
exceedances and enforcement, increased focus on education materials for schools and child care
facilities, and changes or increases in staffing. EPA is encouraged by this response. While EPA
recognizes the resource constraints of many states, the state role is key to ensuring reduction of
lead levels.
VI
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
It is important to note that the work of states and water utilities to implement the LCR has
resulted in lower lead levels across the United States. While this report is focused on the most
recent years of implementation, the reviewers looked at data through the 1990s as well.
Reviewers noted that implementation has consistently improved over time. States and water
systems have resolved many of the problems in the rule, and should be given credit for their
actions. The examples of the District of Columbia and other communities throughout the
country show that water systems, states, and EPA must continue their actions to keep lead levels
down.
vn
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
1. LEAD AND COPPER RULE STATE FILE REVIEW
1.1 Introduction
In 2004, the EPA began a national review of implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) as part of its oversight responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The review was prompted by concerns from Congress and consumers that high lead levels
observed in the District of Columbia's drinking water were representative of a nation-wide
problem. The national review consisted of 3 components: an evaluation of the LCR data reported
to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS); LCR expert workshops on the
topics of monitoring, public education, simultaneous compliance, lead service line replacement,
and plumbing fixtures; and an analysis of how states are implementing the rule through a review
of water system files in selected states. This report summarizes the findings of the state file
review which focused on four main areas: accuracy of SDWIS 90th percentile data,
appropriateness of sampling site selection and sample management, water systems' response to
lead action level exceedances (ALEs), and implementation of the LCR requirements by schools.
EPA used an contractor to conduct the state file reviews and to evaluate implementation
concerns raised in various venues. To gain a national picture of LCR implementation, the file
reviews looked at data for 483 water systems across the country. While this sample set gives a
degree of confidence in implementation as a whole, it does not provide enough data points to
give an accurate picture for subsets of data (i.e., large vs. medium-sized systems).
1.2 Background
The LCR, promulgated June 7, 1991, established a maximum contaminant level goal
(MCLG) for lead of zero and an MCLG for copper of 1.3 mg/L. The rule also established a
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead and copper consisting of a
treatment technique requirement that includes corrosion control treatment, source water
treatment, lead service line replacement and public education. The rule set an action level (AL)
of 0.015 mg/L or 15 parts per billion ( ppb) for lead and 1.3 mg/L or 1300 ppb for copper. The
action level is a concentration of lead or copper in the water that determines, in some cases,
whether a water system must install corrosion control treatment, monitor source water, replace
lead service lines, and undertake a public education program. The action level is exceeded if the
concentration in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring
period is greater than the action level (i.e., if the 90th percentile level is greater than the action
level). If the 90th percentile value for tap water samples is above the action levels, it does not
signal a violation but can trigger other requirements that include water quality parameter (WQP)
monitoring, corrosion control treatment (CCT), source water monitoring/treatment, public
education, and lead service line replacement.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Sampling is conducted at high-risk sites because, unlike the majority of other
contaminants, most of the lead in drinking water comes from components of the water system's
distribution system (e.g., service lines, meters) and from the consumer's home plumbing. This
means that lead levels will vary throughout the distribution system, and may be highest at the
consumer's tap. To address this variability, EPA established a sampling schema that requires
water systems to collect a specified number of samples at homes with the highest potential risk
for lead leaching. Sites with the highest risk for lead are called Tier 1 sites and include single
family homes that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed after 1982 or lead pipes and/or
with a lead service line. The LCR outlines criteria for Tier 2 and Tier 3 sites as well. Water
systems must use Tier 1 sites for tap water sampling. If a system does not have enough Tier 1
sites for a sufficiently large pool of sites, the water system will then add Tier 2 sites to complete
the sampling pool. Tier 3 sites are only used when the water system does not have sufficient Tier
1 and Tier 2 sites to complete its sampling pool. This sampling schema is designed to identify
the need for system-wide CCT or to determine if CCT has been optimized.
Water systems which exceed the action level must conduct water quality parameter
(WQP) monitoring. WQP samples are collected at taps and at each entry point to the distribution
system. WQPs include: pH, alkalinity, calcium, and in the initial sample, conductivity and
temperature as well. If treatment is currently installed, other parameters may also be included
depending on the treatment type. After follow-up monitoring, the primacy agency will set a
range of optimal WQPs.
Systems must also check the source water for lead or copper following an action level
exceedance. Systems must collect samples at each entry point to the distribution system, and
make a recommendation for source water treatment as needed.
Corrosion control activities triggered by an action level exceedance (ALE) include:
recommendation for optimal corrosion control treatment, completion of a corrosion control study
(if required by the state), installation of corrosion control treatment after the state has determined
appropriate treatment, and monitoring of WQP at entry points for 2 consecutive 6-month periods.
Water systems which exceed the lead action level are required to implement a public
education program which includes distribution of print materials and other activities to provide
information to customers about the health effects of lead, sources of lead in drinking water, and
actions consumers can take to reduce their risk.
A water system must begin replacing lead service lines (LSLs) if it continues to exceed
the lead action level after installing corrosion control treatment and/or source water treatment. A
water system that has triggered lead service line replacement (LSLR) must annually replace
seven percent of their LSL inventory.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
1.3 Methodology
Representatives from EPA and The Cadmus Group, Inc., a contractor to EPA, conducted
on-site reviews of water systems data in the drinking water supervision programs in ten states.
The purpose of the review was to examine in great detail the states' implementation of the LCR.
The review consisted of detailed file examinations and interviews.
Water system files from ten states were evaluated, one state from each US EPA Region.
Selection of states was based on geographic diversity and previously scheduled on-site review
activities. Five states were selected because they were already scheduled for a file review
between August and December 2004 as part of the routine oversight practiced by EPA. The
protocol used for conducting the routine state review was augmented to include additional LCR
specific information for examination. For the remaining five regions, states were selected that
had not undergone a recent routine state review. Reviews were conducted in Massachusetts,
New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Utah, California, and Oregon. While the
states selected may not be statistically representative of the nation, they serve to represent an
overall national impression of implementation at the state and system level. Appendix A
provides information about state program structures.
Once the states were chosen, a subset of systems from each state was selected for review.
The systems reviewed (see Table 1) were selected through a two-step process. First, a sample
was selected using the random selection utility in SDWIS to provide a 90 percent confidence
interval and 5 percent error tolerance. This produced a list of 22 to 36 active community water
systems (CWSs)2 and 17 to 19 non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs)3 per
state, yielding 406 water systems total. In this report, these systems are referred to as "random
systems". Second, the selections were reviewed to ensure that systems with the following
specific characteristics were included in the pool for review:
• At least two large systems serving > 50,000 people; with at least one system with
a lead action level exceedance (ALE)
• At least five medium systems serving 3,300 - 50,000 people; with at least two
systems with ALEs
• Small systems serving less than 3,300 people; with at least two systems with
ALEs
• Schools; with at least three to five schools with an ALE
A community water system is a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
A non-transient non-community water system is a public water system that is not a community water system and that
regularly serves at least 25 persons over 6 months per year.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
EPA selected 77 additional systems - 46 CWSs and 31 NTNCWSs (including 21
schools) because of high lead 90th percentile values or other issues of interest noted in SDWIS.
These systems are discussed separately in sections of this report and are referred to as "targeted
systems." The total number of systems reviewed in the ten states was 483. Table 1 provides
inventory details of the systems that were reviewed.
Table \
State
California
Georgia
Iowa
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Total
Total
42
50
44
52
46
50
56
48
49
46
483
. Systems Reviewed
Community Water Systems
>50,000
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
4
1
27
3,301-
50,000
9
7
4
10
6
10
8
11
4
8
77
< 3,300
15
19
18
16
14
15
20
20
22
17
176
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
< 3,300
11
14
13
12
10
16
11
9
14
10
120
Schools
5
8
7
11
13
5
13
6
3
10
81
The file review protocol utilized hard copy and microfiched documents and electronic
data for the sample of public water systems (PWSs). Reviewers examined file records from the
beginning of initial implementation of the LCR in 1992 to the most current information. Data for
LCR compliance for 2000-2004 was examined in greater detail in order to compare file review
information with data reported to SDWIS. The reviewers looked at four main areas: accuracy of
SDWIS 90th percentile data, appropriateness of sampling site selection and sample management,
water systems' response to lead action level exceedances (ALEs), and implementation of the
LCR requirements by schools.
If individual results for sampling rounds were available, the 90th percentile calculations
were verified. Verification of the 90th percentile calculations allowed reviewers to determine if
data reported to SDWIS is accurate and if ALEs were correctly identified and addressed.
When available, reviewers compared the original site sampling plans and initial
monitoring results to the sampling sites used for the most current sampling rounds. This would
identify if sampling sites were changed inappropriately over time.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
When file documentation indicated an ALE, records were reviewed to determine if the
water system completed all required activities such as public education (PE) and CCT steps. In
addition, records for water systems which began CCT steps in response to a lead ALE were
evaluated to determine if the system met the criteria for discontinuing corrosion control treatment
steps (e.g., by having two consecutive six-month sampling rounds below the lead and copper
action levels).
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
2. NATIONAL FINDINGS
2.1 90th Percentile
The LCR established an action level of 0.015 mg/L (15 ppb) for lead and 1.3 mg/L (1300
ppb) for copper based on the 90 percentile level of tap water samples. This means no more than
10 percent of samples can be above either action level. If lead or copper levels are found above
the action levels, it does not signal a violation but can trigger other requirements that include
water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water
monitoring/treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement.
For each monitoring period, a system (or the state) must calculate and report the lead 90th
percentile value for sites monitored during the sampling round. To calculate the 90th percentile,
all results are ranked from the lowest to the highest value, numbering each from 1 up to the
number of samples taken. The number of samples taken is multiplied by 0.9. The resulting
number is the value that is the 90th percentile. For example, if a system collects tap water
samples from 100 sites, it sorts its results from the lowest to the highest concentration and reports
the concentration it observed in the 90th sample (100 x 0.9). If this 90th percentile result exceeds
the action level for lead (15 ppb) the water system is required to undertake public education and
corrosion control activities. It is important that the 90th percentile is calculated and reported
correctly. If the 90th percentile level is incorrectly calculated, it can falsely trigger a system into
treatment steps or, conversely, delay the implementation of needed treatment or public education.
In 2000 the LCR underwent minor revisions. These minor revisions (also known as the
Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions or LCRMR) streamlined requirements, promoted
consistent national implementation, and in many cases, reduced burden for water systems. One
of the provisions of th LCRMR require States to report the 90th percentile to EPA's SDWIS
database for all water systems serving 3,300 or more persons. States must report the 90th
percentile value for water systems serving less than 3,300 persons only if the water system
exceeds the action level. The effective new reporting requirements became effective in 2002.
2.1.1 Accuracy of 90th Percentile Calculations
File reviewers evaluated the accuracy of the 90th percentile calculations for all water
systems. A total of 1,135 sampling rounds were reviewed for the 483 systems for the period
between 2000 to 2004. Evaluation of the accuracy of 90th percentile values revealed that for
those values that could be verified, 93% of sampling rounds had been calculated correctly. The
state is required to maintain within their files individual sample results that are used to calculate
the 90th percentile for a sampling round. Reviewers found sufficient information in state files to
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
perform verification of the 90th percentile value for over 78% of sampling rounds reviewed.
However, this data was not available for 250 rounds of lead sampling.
For the 885 sample rounds that did have individual sample results, reviewers confirmed
that the 90th percentile level was calculated correctly for 824 sampling rounds. For the 61 rounds
where the 90th percentile was calculated incorrectly, 22 sampling rounds were above the action
level when recalculated. For those 22 rounds, 11 of the corrected values would have resulted in a
previously unidentified action level exceedance. The remaining 11 rounds although calculated
incorrectly as above the action level, when corrected were still above the action level. The
remaining 39 calculations, while incorrect, were still below the action level when recalculated
correctly.
Two hundred fifty sampling rounds could not be verified because the file did not include
all individual sample results. A review of the state files for these 250 sampling rounds showed
that 17 sampling rounds had no 90th percentile lead value recorded, 29 sampling rounds had 90th
percentile lead levels greater than the AL, and 204 sampling rounds had 90th percentile lead
levels less than the lead AL.
Figure 1 shows the results of verification of the 90th percentile values for the 1,135
sampling rounds evaluated. Table 2 provides a summary of the accuracy of 90th percentile
calculations for 1,135 sampling rounds collected during 2000-2004.
Figure 2. Results of Verification of 90th Percentile Values for 1,135
Sampling Rounds
1,135 SAMPLING ROUNDS
885 VERIFIED
250 UNVERIFIED
824CALCULATED
CORRECTLY
61 CALCULATED
INCORRECTLY
17 = NO VALUE
29 > AL
204 < AL
11 < AL, but vvhen calculated correctly vvere > AL
11 > AL, when calculated correctly were still > AL
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 2. Accuracy of 90th Percentile Calculation
(Based on data for 1,135 sampling rounds between 2000-2004)
Calculation of
90th Percentile
Values
Calculated
correctly
Calculated
incorrectly -
correct values
less than the AL
Calculated
incorrectly -
correct values
greater than the
AL1
Subtotal
Unknown2
Total
Total
Sample
Rounds
824
39
22
885
250
1,135
Community Water
>50,00
0
64
3
0
67
13
80
3,301-
50,000
121
10
5
136
42
178
Systems
<3,300
265
6
3
274
81
355
Non-transient Non-community Water
Systems
3,301-
50,000
3
0
1
4
0
4
<3,300
214
14
8
236
56
292
Schools
157
6
5
168
58
226
1 For 22 sampling rounds (18 systems) the 90th percentile was incorrectly calculated. Eleven systems
original 90th percentile was less than the AL and when recalculated correctly was above the AL, and 1 1
systems original 90th percentile was greater than the AL and when recalculated correctly was still above
theAL.
2 Note: For 250 values the 90th percentile could not be confirmed because only the 90th percentile or no
90th percentile value was available for review (individual tap sample results were not in the file). Twenty
nine sampling rounds were greater than the ALE, 204 were less than the AL, and 17 had no values in the
state files.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
2.1.2 90th Percentile Values
For the 483 systems reviewed, 1,135 lead 90th percentile values from 2000- 2004 were
identified (Table 3). For the randomly selected systems, 91 percent of the sampling rounds fell
below the action level and 7 percent of sampling rounds reviewed had a 90th percentile value
greater than the action level. For the targeted systems, 70 percent of the sampling rounds were
below the action level. The lower percentage of sampling rounds at or below the action level for
the targeted systems was expected, since many of the targeted systems were selected due to ALE
data reported to SDWIS. Table 3 identifies the size of the public water systems (PWSs) and the
range of 90th percentiles values.
Table 3. Lead 90th Percentile Values Identified for PWSs
(Based on data from 1,135 sampling rounds during 2000-2004)
90th Percentile
Value Ranges
Number of
90th
percentile
Values
Community Water Systems
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
< 3,300
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
< 3,300
Schools
Randomly Selected Systems
Not Detected
<15 ppb
>15-50ppb
>50-100ppb
> 100 ppb
Unknown (1)
Total
185
599
49
7
6
14
860
2
38
3
1
-
1
45
14
94
8
1
-
4
121
74
198
10
2
-
5
289
2
-
-
-
-
2
59
183
13
1
3
3
262
36
84
15
2
3
1
141
Targeted Systems
Not Detected
<15 ppb
> 15-50 ppb
>50-100ppb
> 100 ppb
Unknown (1)
Total
21
171
57
12
11
3
275
25
10
-
-
-
35
4
37
12
3
1
-
57
6
37
8
7
8
-
66
1
1
-
-
-
2
1
18
10
-
1
-
30
10
53
16
2
1
3
85
10
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 3. Lead 90th Percentile Values Identified for PWSs
(Based on data from 1,135 sampling rounds during 2000-2004)
90th Percentile
Value Ranges
Number of
90th
percentile
Values
Community Water Systems
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Schools
All Systems in Sample
Not Detected
<15 ppb
>15-50ppb
>50-100ppb
> 100 ppb
Unknown (1)
Total
206
770
106
19
17
17
1135
2
63
13
1
1
80
18
131
20
4
1
4
178
80
235
18
9
8
5
355
-
3
1
-
-
4
60
205
25
1
4
3
292
46
137
31
4
4
4
226
(1) The 90th percentile was not present in the file.
2.2 Site Selection and Sample Management
The rule requires that systems create a pool of sample sites that are expected to have the
highest levels of lead. Federal regulations require each water system to complete a materials
evaluation of its distribution system in order to identify this pool of targeted sampling sites that
may be particularly susceptible to high lead concentrations. Determination of sites as high risk is
based on a tiering system. Tier 1 sites are those that are most likely to show the highest lead
concentrations at the customer's tap within the water systems service area. Water systems are
required to monitor a select number of sites from the identified pool.
2.2.1 Sample Site Plans and Sample Collection Forms
States are not required to review and approve the materials evaluation plans. However, the
reviewers did check files for materials evaluation plans and sampling site plans. Frequently state
files did not contain the original sampling site plans or materials evaluation. States noted that,
because the plans were created more than 10 years ago, they have either archived, microfiched, or
required the systems to retain the records. When the system retains the records, state employees
verify that the system has a sampling site plan during sanitary surveys but do not verify the
sampling site locations or tiering for the sites within the pool.
11
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
The rule requires that systems report the results of all the samples including the criteria
under which the site was selected for the sampling pool (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3). In order to
ensure correct site locations are used, the regulations require systems to identify any new site
which was not sampled during previous monitoring periods and include an explanation of why the
sampling sites have changed.
To help ensure that proper sites are used, nearly every state reviewed had designed a
standardized sample collection form that the systems are required to submit with their samples.
The forms clearly identify each site and tier to which the site belongs, the address of the site, and a
contact name. Most forms ask whether any sites changed and request an explanation if they do.
However, the forms often were either unavailable or incomplete in the files. For nearly half of the
systems reviewed, it was not possible to determine if the sample sites met the highest possible
tiering classification.
For 106 of the 483 water systems, sampling site locations have not changed from the
system's initial LCR monitoring. One hundred and sixty-five systems changed sites without
explanation, and 34 systems selectively dropped sites that had tested above the action level.
During the state review, reviewers could not determine whether systems sampled consistent sites
for 82 systems because the state files did not contain information clearly identifying sampling site
locations. Ninety-four water systems did change sampling sites, but provided an explanation for
the change. Commonly identified reasons for site changes were homeowners refusing to continue
to participate, a homeowner who had moved and the new owner was unwilling to participate,
plumbing changes, or not wanting to use a vacant home. Only two states review the sampling
round site information to determine whether systems changed sites. Table 4 provides an overview
of sampling site change status.
Table 4. Status of Systems' Sampling Site Changes
(Based on data from 483 systems)
Reason
No Change
Varied Between
Rounds, but from
Approved Pool
Total
Systems
106
2
Number of Systems
Community Water
Systems
>50,000
2
3,301-
50,00
0
6
1
< 3,300
49
1
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
<, 3,300
27
Schools
22
12
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 4. Status of Systems' Sampling Site Changes
(Based on data from 483 systems)
Reason
Sites No Longer
Available1
Sites Appeared to
Be Selectively
Dropped
Sites Changed but
Reason
Unexplained
Unable to Verify if
Sites Changed2
Total Number of
Systems Reviewed
Systems
94
34
165
82
483
Number of Systems
Community Water
Systems
>50,000
10
1
12
2
27
3,301-
50,00
0
24
7
28
11
77
<3,300
32
15
52
27
176
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
-
1
1
2
<, 3,300
21
4
42
26
120
Schools
7
7
30
15
81
1 Homeowners refused to continue to participate, homeowner moved and the new owner was
unwilling to participate, plumbing changes,
or home vacant.
2 Sampling sites locations were not clearly identified
in the state files.
2.2.2 Sampling Protocol
The tap water sample collection protocol for the LCR is designed to identify the
contributions of different sources of lead in drinking water: source water, lead service lines, lead
and copper interior piping, lead solder, and fixtures and faucets. Because lead in drinking water is
primarily due to the corrosion of distribution components and household plumbing materials, tap
water samples are collected at kitchen or bathroom taps of residences and other buildings. In
addition, EPA considers that the best measure to adequately assess the degree to which a system
13
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
has minimized corrosivity of the water for lead and copper is through measurement of first draw4
lead and copper levels at the tap.
Under the LCR, samples may be collected by the system or the system may allow residents
to collect samples after instructing the residents on proper sampling procedures. However, water
systems are responsible for ensuring that reported results accurately reflect the samples collected.
Because concerns have been raised about samples being taking incorrectly by homeowners, the
reviewers closely considered this issue.
2.2.3 Who Collects the Sample?
Although the information is not required to be in the state files, reviewers looked to see if
they could determine who collected the sample. For 248 systems, the files did not contain
information indicating who collected the sample. Ninety-six of the systems collect the tap water
samples (usually NTNCWSs who have access to all of their taps) and 124 of the systems rely on
occupants to collect samples. The remaining 15 systems arrange for a laboratory to collect
samples or vary collection between the occupant and the water system.
Training for collecting samples included a comprehensive letter accompanying the sample
bottles with clear instructions for homeowners about how and when to collect a sample, training
seminars and a video describing proper sample collection procedures for the water systems. All of
the states seemed to have good sample collection training programs and the availability of training
materials was judged to be adequate to excellent.
2.2.4 Where are the samples taken?
About 124 of the systems reviewed routinely indicated the location where the sample was
collected (e.g., at the sink, a tap at the well, or the outside hose bib). This type of information can
be helpful to the state to ensure that the sample was taken at the correct location. Roughly half of
the system files, 241 out of 483 systems, did not provide that information. Thirty-six systems did
not consistently provide the information and a few systems did not have information about where
the sample was collected because they were not required to monitor (either a new or inactive
system, or a system that had been issued a waiver).
A first draw sample is 1 liter in volume and is collected from a cold water kitchen tap or bathroom sink tap. The
sample is collected immediately after turning the water on without allowing any water to run into the drain. Water must have
stood motionless in the plumbing system for each sampling site for at least six hours.
14
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
2.2.5 How much time passes between the collection of the first and last sample used to calculate
the 90th percentile?
Reviewers considered when samples are collected to see if water systems were
manipulating results by extending the monitoring period5. An evaluation of the amount of time
that passes between the first and last compliance samples taken in a sampling round shows that
the majority of sampling rounds are completed within the same day. For 1,635 sampling rounds
of the 2,069 evaluated from 1992 to 2004, 79% were collected within one day, while samples for
262 of the 2,069 sampling rounds (12.7%) were collected within one month. Samples for 97
sampling rounds (4.7%) were taken within 4 months or more, and the time frame over which
sampling was conducted could not be determined for 75 sampling rounds (3.6%). The file review
did not reveal evidence that monitoring period extension resulted in manipulation of results.
2.2.6 Sample Invalidation and Replacement Samples
The LCR contains provisions which allow for invalidation of individual tap water samples.
States may invalidate a lead or copper tap water sample if at least one of the following conditions
is met: the laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results, the state
determines that the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria, the
sample container was damaged in transit, or there is substantial reason to believe that the sample
was subject to tampering. While the file review found that states infrequently invalidated
samples, it also found that most of the invalidations did not meet the criteria of the LCR.
Individual samples were invalidated in at least one sampling round for 26 systems (5%) of
the 483 systems reviewed. Samples for only two systems were invalidated according to one of the
four acceptable criteria outlined under the LCR. For the remaining 24 systems, the reason for
sample invalidation did not meet one of the allowable invalidation criteria. This "improper"
sample invalidation was noted in seven states. The systems where improper invalidation occurred
used replacement samples for one or two rounds of the systems' monitoring history. One of the
systems had invalidated samples during four different sampling rounds.
The reason for invalidation was not always documented in the files. However,
invalidation occurred most often when a sample site yielded a high lead concentration. This was
noted in four states for a total of 12 systems (2% of all systems reviewed). Under the invalidation
The monitoring period may be 6 months, for water systems on standard monitoring, or annual, triennial, or once
every 9 years if the water systems meets criteria for reduced monitoring or a waiver. Water systems sampling annually or less
frequently shall conduct tap water sampling during the months of June, July, August or September unless the state has approved a
different sampling period.
15
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
provisions of the LCR, states may not invalidate a sample solely on the grounds that a follow-up
sample result is higher or lower than that of the original sample. States also incorrectly
invalidated samples because of recent plumbing changes, use of an improper tap (e.g., outdoor
hose bib, shower), or because the sample was collected after an excessively long standing time
(e.g., site was abandoned, closed for the summer, taken from a vacation home). One sample was
invalidated for being collected after too short of a standing time.
An invalidated sample does not count toward determining lead or copper 90th percentile
levels or toward meeting the minimum number of samples required. The water system must
collect a replacement sample if, after the invalidation, the system has too few samples to meet the
minimum requirements. The replacement samples must be taken at the same locations as the
invalidated samples or, if that is not possible, at locations other than those already used for
sampling during the monitoring period.
Systems varied in how the replacement samples were used in the 90th percentile
calculation. For the 26 occasions of invalidated samples, 22 systems correctly used only the
replacement sample results, three systems used both the replacement sample value and the
original sample values, and one system did not use the result from the replacement sample in the
90th percentile calculation.
In most cases, sample invalidation affected whether the system continued to have an ALE.
For 19 of the 24 systems (79%) in which samples were invalidated improperly, the system no
longer exceeded the lead AL. For four of the 24 systems, sample invalidation did not affect
whether the system exceeded the lead AL and the effect on the 90th percentile level was not
documented for the remaining system.
2.2.7 Individual Lead Sample Results and Homeowner Notification
A total of 17,541 individual sample values were included in the sampling rounds from
2000-2004 that were evaluated by the reviewers. Five percent (912 of 17,541) of the individual
samples from random and targeted systems exceeded the action level. The randomly selected
systems had 357 of 10,932 (3 percent) of individual sample values above the action level and
targeted systems had 555 of 6,609 (8 percent) above the action level. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of lead concentrations in individual tap water samples. Table 5 shows the range of
lead concentrations found in individual tap water samples.
16
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Figure 3. Distribution of Individual Sample Results For All Water
Systems (2000-2004)
16,198
• <=15ppb
• >15-50 ppb
D>5[I-1[IQ ppb
D>lCiQppb
• unknown
157
120
431
<=15ppb
ppb
>5Q-10Q >100ppb unknown
ppb
17
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 5. Ranges of Individual Lead Sample Results
From Data between 2000-2004
Pb Sample
Value
Number
of
Samples
Number of Samples
Community Water
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
Systems
<3,300
Non-transient Non-community
Water Systems
3'301- <3 300
50,000 -J'JUU
Schools
Randomly Selected Systems (10,932 samples)
< 15 ppb
>15-50ppb
>50-100
ppb
>100ppb
unknown
Subtotal
10,304
250
57
50
271
10,932
2,016
45
9
4
76
2,150
3,263
83
20
18
53
3,437
Targeted Systems
<15 ppb
> 15-50 ppb
>50-100
ppb
> 100 ppb
unknown
Subtotal
5,841
385
100
70
160
6,609
2,708
164
42
4
105
3,023
1,701
112
38
24
20
1,895
2,511
39
11
6
73
2,640
38 1,532
0 39
0 13
2 15
2 28
42 1,627
944
44
4
5
39
1,036
(6,609 samples)
520
29
13
33
6
601
33 171
6 24
1 0
0 4
0 1
40 200
761
50
6
5
28
850
All Systems in Sample (17,541 samples)
<15 ppb
>15-50ppb
>50-100
ppb
> 100 ppb
unknown
Total
16,198
635
157
120
431
17,541
4,724
209
51
8
181
5,173
4,964
195
58
42
73
5,332
3,031
68
24
39
79
3,241
71 1,703
6 63
1 13
2 19
2 29
82 1,827
1,705
94
10
10
67
1,886
18
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 5. Ranges of Individual Lead Sample Results
From Data between 2000-2004
Pb Sample
Value
Number
of
Samples
Number of Samples
Community Water
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
Systems
<3,300
Non-transient Non-community
Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Schools
Note:
The total does not include data for 17 systems for which no 90th percentile values were
available or where the highest lead sample result was not noted for the sampling round. Lead
sample values that are "unknown" are due to the lack of individual sample results in files. To
approximate the number of samples that were less than the lead action level, the number of
samples where the highest value was less than the action level was counted. The number of
samples that are less than the action level is likely to be much higher.
There are no federal requirements under the LCR for water systems to notify homeowners
of the results of sampling carried out in their residence. Therefore, it was not possible to
determine how many systems are informing homeowners of elevated lead samples. In their
standard letter to systems informing them of their sample results, five states tell systems that they
should inform their customers if any individual sample result exceeds the action level. One state
routinely provides two copies of the analytical results produced by the state lab and requests that
one copy be forwarded to the occupants. Another state commented that many homeowners
volunteered to participate in the sampling program in order to receive this type of information.
2.3 Response to Action Level Exceedances
Exceeding the action level at the 90th percentile is representative of a potential system-
wide problem related to lack of corrosion control. As such, an exceedance triggers several actions
by the water system that are important to take to ensure that risks to the public are minimized.
Water systems which exceed the action level are required by regulation to begin corrosion control
steps, monitor water quality parameters and source water, and deliver public education to alert the
public of the problem. If the system has already installed corrosion control and source water
treatment, the water system must optimize these treatment processes and begin lead service line
replacement (LSLR).
19
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Large systems, serving a population greater than 50,000, are required to implement
corrosion control, regardless of whether they exceed the action level during tap sampling. Medium
and small systems are only triggered into implementing corrosion control if they exceed the action
level. The system may elect to continue sampling at six-month intervals at the standard number of
sites while initiating corrosion control. If the system is below the action level for two consecutive
rounds of samples, the system may discontinue corrosion control activities. However, if they later
exceed the action level again, the system must resume their corrosion control program at the point
at which it had previously been discontinued.
Of the 483 systems reviewed, 82 systems had lead action level exceedances (ALEs) from
2000 to 2004. Each of the 10 states reviewed had from four to thirteen systems with lead ALEs
during the four year period. The 82 systems had anywhere from one to eight lead ALEs during
this time period. Fewer than 1% of the randomly selected systems had more than 1 ALE from
2000-2004. Most of the 82 systems (about 63%) had only one exceedance during this time period
(Table 6a). Table 6b shows the distribution by system size of the 82 systems with ALEs.
Table 6a. Number of ALE Events for the 82
Systems With Lead ALEs:
52 systems had one ALE
17 systems had 2 ALEs
8 systems had 3 ALEs
4 systems had 4 ALEs
1 system had 8 ALEs
An evaluation of the time period from 2000 to 2004, shows these 82 systems had at least
134 occasions when the systems should have initiated follow-up actions such as public education,
water quality parameter monitoring (WQP), source water monitoring, and corrosion control
treatment (CCT) steps as a result of a lead ALE. As with the site sampling plans, files for
individual systems were frequently incomplete.
20
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 6b. Systems with Lead
Action Level Exceedances during 2000 - 2004
Community Water Systems
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
< 3,300
Schools*
Randomly Selected Systems
(39 of 406 "randomly selected" systems reviewed had at least one lead ALE during 2000-2004)
Numbers of
Systems with
ALEs
39
2
5
7
0
Targeted Systems
(43 of 77 "targeted" systems reviewed had at least one lead ALE
Numbers of
Systems with
ALEs
43
5
9
13
1
12
13
2000-2004)
6
9
All Systems in Sample
(82 systems had at least one lead ALE during 2000-2004)
Numbers of
Systems with
ALEs
82
7
14
20
1
18
22
* One of the targeted schools in the sample is a community water system.
2.3.1 System Responses to Lead ALEs
Although it is not required by regulation, notifying a PWS of its exceedance and required
follow-up actions is key in ensuring that small and medium systems stay on schedule to address
requirements. Unlike large systems, for which state and system CCT deadlines are specified in
the LCR, the schedule for a small and medium system is triggered by a state's determination of
whether a CCT study is needed, the type of treatment to be installed, and the designation of
optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs)6.
Ranges or minimums set by the primacy agency that indicate a system's CCT is operating at a level to most
effectively minimize lead and copper concentrations at user's taps. Water Quality Parameters (WQPs) may include pH, alkalinity,
orthophosphate, silica, and/or calcium.
21
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
For the 82 systems that had ALEs during 2000-2004, Table 7 presents a history of the
known responses the systems took based on the information available in the state files. The table
separately describes all follow-up actions for large systems (Table 7a), and initial follow-up
actions (those that must be completed within 6 months of the ALE) for small and medium systems
(Table 8).
Table 7: Follow-up Actions by Seven Large Systems that Exceeded the Lead Action Level
during 2000 - 2004
(Expressed as Number of Systems)
Action
Public Education
(PE) conducted?1
Water Quality
Parameter (WQP)
monitoring
conducted?2
Source monitoring
conducted?3
Corrosion Control
Treatment (CCT)
study completed?4
Unknown
0
1
1
1
Not Required
All systems
must conduct
PE.
1
1
0
No
0
1
1
0
Yes
Some
2
1
0
All
5
3
4
6
Action
CCT installed?5
CCT adjusted
[applies to PWSs
w/ ALE after CCT
installation]6
Unknown
1
1
Not Required
1
4
No
0
0
Yes
< AL
1
2
>AL
4
0
22
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 7: Follow-up Actions by Seven Large Systems that Exceeded the Lead Action Level
during 2000 - 2004
(Expressed as Number of Systems)
Action
Lead Service Line
Replacement
(LSLR) initiated?7
Unknown
0
Not Required
4
Began
3
Will Begin after
2004
0
1 For an initial ALE PWSs must begin PE requirements within 60 days. Public service
announcements are due every 6 months for CWSs. Other public education requirements must
be repeated annually for as long as system has a lead ALE. Systems document completion of
these activities in an annual letter to the state.
2 Large systems must conduct WQPs during each initial lead and copper tap monitoring period,
and after CCT installation, irrespective of whether they exceed an AL.
3 Systems must collect source water samples within 6 months of the initial ALE, and for those
systems that install source water treatment, collect source water samples after the installation
of this treatment. Source water samples are also collected by systems that are applying for
(b)(3) status. A (b)(3) system is one that can demonstrate that it has minimally corrosive
water based on source water monitoring and lead/copper tap monitoring results. As long as a
system qualifies as a (b)(3) system, it does not have to conduct corrosion control treatment
(CCT) steps. One PWS was granted (b)(3) status in 1995 after it completed a study. It
exceeded the action level in 2000 but its (b)(3) status was not rescinded. Another PWS
purchases all its water from another water system and was not required to conduct source
water monitoring, or CCT steps.
4 Large systems, except (b)(3) systems (see footnote 3 above), were required to submit a CCT
study by July 1, 1995.
5 Large systems, except (b)(3) systems (see footnote 3 above), were required to install CCT by
January 1, 1997. For one system, CCT was installed by seller. One large system reviewed
met the (b)(3) criteria and therefore was not required to install CCT.
6 Only systems that continue to exceed the AL after installing CCT may be required to make
changes to treatment and the state may establish new OWQPs. For the 4 systems that were
not required to adjust CCT, 3 no longer exceeded the AL and 1 was not required by the state
to adjust CCT. One system received state approval to adjust treatment but it is unknown if it
was completed.
7 A minimum of 7% of lead service lines must be replaced annually in systems that continue to
exceed the lead AL after installing treatment. Lead service line replacement (LSLR) may
stop after the water system no longer exceeds the lead AL for 2 consecutive monitoring
periods. One water system listed as starting LSLR is developing a LSLR plan. Another
stopped LSLR after two years because the system had two sampling rounds below the action
level.
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 8: Initial Follow-up Actions by 75 Medium or Small Systems that Exceeded the
Lead Action Level during 2000 - 20041
(Expressed as Number of Systems)
Section A. Did not Conduct Any Required Initial Actions Because (39 systems):
ALE not recognized by
State/PWS2
ALE too recent3
Reason
Unknown/Other4
8
27
Section B. Follow-up Actions Conducted by 36 Systems (Does not include systems in
Section A.)
Action
Unknown8
None
Some
All
Public Education (PE)
Conducted?5
18
18
Initial Water Quality
Parameters (WQPs)
Conducted?6
29
Initial Source Water
Monitoring Conducted?7
26
24
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 8: Initial Follow-up Actions by 75 Medium or Small Systems that Exceeded the
Lead Action Level during 2000 - 20041
(Expressed as Number of Systems)
Notes
1 Initial follow-up actions include those that must be completed within 6 months or less of the
ALE.
2 Includes situations where a PWS was incorrectly determined to be at or below the lead AL
due to: a) incorrect calculation of the 90th percentile level; or b) improper invalidation of
samples (i.e., reasons for invalidation were not documented or did not meet one of the four
criteria allowed under the regulation.)
3 For these systems, the first exceedance occurred during 2004 and it was too soon to
determine if the required follow-up actions had been completed during the review.
4 No evidence that systems responded to initial ALE. One system already had treatment in
place due to copper problems but no evidence that system responded to state letters to conduct
PE, WQPs, source water monitoring, or CCT plan in response to the lead ALE.
5 Initial public education delivery is due within 60 days of lead ALE.
6 Initial WQP monitoring must be conducted during each initial lead and copper tap monitoring
period in which an ALE occurs.
7 Initial source water monitoring is due within six months of the first ALE. One system
purchases its water entirely from another system and was not required to conduct source water
monitoring.
8State files did not contain enough information to determine if actions were taken or not.
2.3.2 Public Education
Water systems are required to carry out Public Education (PE) efforts when they exceed
the lead action level. The LCR specifies mandatory PE language that must be included in a
system's PE materials. Systems must deliver PE materials within 60 days of learning about an
ALE. Public service announcements (PSA) must be repeated every 6 months for as long as the
ALE continues and print material delivery must continue annually for as long as the ALE
continues. Only large systems are required to deliver PSAs.
Little documentation was found in the state files that identified whether a system delivered
PE in any year after the lead ALE. Copies of PE materials for early lead ALEs may not have been
present in state files because many records from the early 1990's had been archived.
Documentation found in the files indicated that only one state routinely tracked whether systems
continued to deliver PE as required, and systems in two states never completed required follow-up
25
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
PE activities. Generally, PE was never conducted in more than half of the systems reviewed for
both CWSs andNTNCWSs.
From 2000-2004, 82 of the 483 water systems reviewed had at least one ALE. Of those 82
systems, 24 water systems (29%) did initial PE after the ALE. The low level of PE compliance
was consistent across all the states reviewed. Only one state's water systems delivered initial PE
50% of the time. Table 9 displays systems which completed initial PE requirements following
the systems first lead ALE
Table 9: Initial Public Education for Lead Action Level Exceedance
Identified for PWSs (Based on data from 2000-2004)
Public
Education
Number of
Systems
that did
PE
Community Water Systems
>50,000
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Non-transient Non-
community Water Systems
3,301-
50,000
<3,300
Schools
Randomly Selected Systems
(39 of 407 "randomly selected" systems reviewed had at least one lead ALE during 2000-2004)
PE First Year
ofALE
(43 of
PE First Year
ofALE
(
PE First Year
ofALE
91 4 3
Targeted Systems
76 "targeted" systems reviewed had at least one
15 5 5 2
All Systems in Sample
82 of 483 systems had at least one lead ALE dui
24
6
9
5
0
lead ALE
1
2000-2004
0 2
ing 2000-2004)
0
3
0
)
1
1
Note: This table includes systems that conducted public education in response to their first lead
action level exceedance during 2000 - 2004. Systems that failed to conduct public education in
response to this lead action level but conducted it for an earlier or subsequent lead action level
exceedance are not included in this table.
2.3.3 Water Quality Parameters and Source Water Monitoring
Systems that exceed either the lead or copper action level must conduct WQP monitoring
within the same monitoring period in which the ALE occurred. Source water monitoring must
26
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
also be conducted within six months after the ALE to help identify the source of lead or copper.
Many of the systems that were reviewed did not complete all required monitoring after an ALE.
Out of 134 occasions in which WQP and source water monitoring was required during
2000-2004, documentation in the state files indicated initial WQP and source water monitoring
was conducted only 42 percent of the time. Thirty-three of 82 systems (40%) with an ALE
conducted initial WQP monitoring and 30 systems (37%) conducted initial source water
monitoring. None of the systems reviewed in two states conducted initial WQP or source water
monitoring after an ALE.
2.3.4 Corrosion Control
Corrosion control treatment (CCT) steps must be conducted by large systems (serving
more than 50,000 people) unless they can meet specific criteria that demonstrate they have very
low levels of lead and copper in their distribution system (see the next paragraph for more detail).
Small and medium water systems must carry out CCT steps if they exceed the action level. Based
on a recommendation from the system regarding the type of corrosion control to be installed, the
state decides if small or medium systems must conduct a corrosion control study to help evaluate
the most effective type of corrosion control treatment for the system (studies are required for large
systems). Systems have 24 months to install the type of corrosion control treatment specified by
the state and must complete follow-up lead and copper tap monitoring and meet state-set WQP
ranges or minimums (called optimal water quality parameters or OWQPs) that indicate that they
are operating corrosion control treatment at a level that most effectively minimizes lead and
copper concentrations at consumers' taps. Small and medium systems can discontinue these steps
if they are at or below both action levels for two consecutive six month monitoring periods.
A system can be deemed to have optimized CCT if it submits results of tap water
monitoring and source water monitoring demonstrating that, for two consecutive six month
monitoring periods, the difference between the 90th percentile tap water lead level and the highest
source water lead concentration is less than 5 ppb (the Practical Quantitation Level for lead).
Based on this criteria, one state exempted all 11 large water systems that were reviewed from
corrosion control activities, unless the action level was exceeded in the future. The reviewers
found that one of the water systems (serving 110,000 people) technically did not meet the criteria
because the difference between its source water level and 90th percentile level for one of the
sampling rounds was 6 ppb.
Reviewers found that, as with other required ALE follow-up actions, most water systems
are not completing corrosion control on schedule and some are not completing this requirement at
all. Twenty-seven of the 82 water systems with ALEs installed corrosion control, 5 of the 7 large
systems and 22 of the 75 medium and small systems. Water systems that exceeded the action
level after the installation of corrosion control generally resumed where they had left off in the
27
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
corrosion control process. However, some continued for eight to ten years before resolving (or
sometimes not resolving) the problem.
Seven often states reviewed allowed plumbing changes, flushing, and other non-corrosion
control steps to replace undertaking a CCT study and selecting and installing treatment. This
practice occurred on an occasional basis.
2.3.5 Monitoring Changes for New Sources or Corrosion Control Treatment Adjustments
The regulations require that no later than 60 days after the addition of a new source or any
change in water treatment (unless the state requires earlier notification), a water system must send
written documentation to the state describing the change. The federal regulation does not require
prior state approval of these changes; although, it may be required by other drinking water
regulations or by the state. While EPA did not expect this information to be in all of the files
since approval is not required, reviewers looked for this information to see how states are
addressing this issue.
Fourteen water systems returned to standard six-month monitoring periods as a result of
adding a new source or a change in treatment. Qualitative observations indicate that about half of
these water systems increased monitoring due to a new source. Two states were observed to
require increased monitoring in response to the addition of a new source and/or treatment. One
state required water systems to revert to initial monitoring at an increased number of sites in
response to the addition of a new source.
All states require water systems to undergo review of plans and specifications before
adding treatment, but whether the state assesses the impact of proposed changes on the corrosion
control program was less clear. Corrosion control treatment adjustment information was rarely
found in the files because few of the water systems reviewed had installed corrosion control. Of
those that did, correspondence regarding treatment changes was not commonly found. In one
state, special samples were required to confirm that nothing affected their compliance with the
LCR.
2.3.6 Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR)
A water system must begin replacing lead service lines (LSLs) if it continues to exceed the
lead action level after installing corrosion control treatment and/or source water treatment. The
state can also require LSLR if the water system is in violation for failure to install treatment after
the deadline has passed (i.e., the water system is more than one year late installing CCT). Water
systems also replace LSLs for reasons other than the federal requirements, including voluntarily
replacement as part of routine maintenance and construction projects.
28
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
A water system that has triggered LSLR under the LCR must annually replace seven
percent of their LSL inventory. None of the 10 states selected require that water systems replace
more than seven percent of LSLs annually. Fourteen of the 82 water systems with lead ALEs
during 2000-2004 indicated that they had no LSLs. Although some did have lead components in
the distribution system (e.g., goosenecks and/or pigtails), these are not considered to be LSLs.
Three water systems that had more than two monitoring periods with a lead ALE were told
to initiate a LSLR program. Two water systems began LSLR after installation of corrosion
control failed to mitigate lead levels. One water systems began a LSLR program in 1999. It
correctly followed the requirements and completed LSLR in 2004. The other water system met
the seven percent LSLR requirement for two years but replaced less than seven percent in
subsequent years. In 2004, the third water system was instructed to initiate a LSLR program, but
it was too soon in the process to determine the status of the LSLR program during the state file
review. All water systems' files had limited information on the LSLR process, although the file
for at least one water system indicated that it did notify homeowners of the option to replace their
lines.
2.4 Schools
EPA included 81 schools that are also public water systems in the review. Sixty of the
schools were randomly selected and 21 were targeted for review. From 2000 to 2004, 13 out of
the 60 randomly selected schools had at least one lead ALE and 9 out of 21 targeted schools had
at least one lead ALE. Reflecting the trend for all water systems reviewed (CWS and other
NTNCWSs), more than half of the schools (15) did not begin the appropriate initial follow-up
requirements in response to a lead ALE. Reasons for not beginning initial follow-up actions
include: the ALE was not identified by the state or the PWS, ALE was too recent, or the files did
not coontain enough information to determine why initial follow-up actions were not taken.
Fifteen of the 22 schools eventually completed one or more follow-up actions. Fifty
percent of the schools conducted some or all required PE and six of the 22 schools installed
corrosion control following an ALE during 2000-2004. However, none of the schools completed
every step on schedule.
Table 10 provides information on all follow-up actions taken by the 22 schools with a lead
ALE during 2000-2004.
29
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 10: Follow-up Actions by 22 Schools that Exceeded the Lead Action Level during
2000- 2004 1
(Expressed as Number of Schools)
A. General Response of 22 Schools
Did not conduct any required follow-up actions
because:
ALE not
recognized2
1
ALE too
recent3
1
Reason(s)
Unknown/Other4
5
Had 2 consecutive 6-
month rounds < Pb AL so
were not required to
continue follow-up actions
0
Completed
one or more
follow-up
actions
(See section
B. of this
table for more
detail)
15
B. Follow-up Actions Conducted by 15 Schools
Public Education (PE) Conducted?5
None
4
Some
9
All
2
8 Water Systems Did Not Complete All Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) Steps Because:
Non-regulatory response6
< AL > AL
4 1
Completed 2 consecutive
6-month monitoring
rounds < AL w/o installing
CCT
2
Increased
monitoring
frequency but
took no other
action
1
CCT Study Completed?7
Unknown
2
Not required
7
Not completed
2
Completed study
4
Study due
after 2004
0
CCT Installed?8
Unknown
2
Not required
7
Not completed
0
Installed CCT
< AL > AL
2 4
CCT Due
after 2004
0
30
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 10: Follow-up Actions by 22 Schools that Exceeded the Lead Action Level during
2000- 2004 1
(Expressed as Number of Schools)
On-going Water Quality Parameter (WQP) Monitoring Conducted?9
Unknown
0
Not required
0
Not conducted
7
Some
8
All
0
CCT Adjusted?10 [applies to the 4 water systems that exceeded the AL after CCT
installation]
Unknown
2
Not required
0
Not completed
0
Adjusted CCT
< AL
2
>AL
0
Adjustment
Due after
2004
0
Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) Initiated?11
Unknown
1
Not
Required
14
Not Initiated
0
Began LSLR
0
Will Begin
after 2004
0
31
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
Table 10: Follow-up Actions by 22 Schools that Exceeded the Lead Action Level during
2000- 20041
(Expressed as Number of Schools)
1 Follow-up actions include all initial actions and those that must be completed after 6 months
of the ALE.
2PWS was incorrectly determined to be at or below the Pb AL due to improper invalidation of
samples (i.e., reasons for invalidation were not documented or did not meet one of the four
criteria allowed under the regulation.)
3 For these water systems, exceedance occurred too recently to determine if required follow-up
actions have been completed (i.e., action is not due or has not been determined, or too early to
have received documents from water system).
4 Unknown why the water system stayed on reduced monitoring and conducted no follow-up .
Sometimes the reason is known ("other"), for example the water system was given a waiver
inappropriately.
5PSAs are due every 6 months for CWSs/other public education is due annually for as long as
water system has lead ALE. Water systems document completion of these activities in an
annual letter.
6 These water systems took steps that are not outlined in the rule after an ALE, such as
replacing plumbing fixtures, which reduced their values to below the action level, although no
other follow-up steps were completed.
7If required by the state, study must be completed within 18 mos for medium PWSs/24 mos for
small PWSs of state requirement.
8CCT installation is due within 24 months of state's determination of the type of CCT to be
installed.
9After CCT is installed, WQPs are required during each monitoring period in which an ALE
occurs.
10Water systems that continue to exceed after installing CCT may be required to make changes
to their treatment and the state may establish new OWQPs.
"Minimum of 7% of lead service lines must be replaced annually in water systems that
continue to exceed the lead AL after installing treatment. LSLR may stop after the water
system no longer exceeds the lead AL for 2 consecutive monitoring periods. If no LSLs are
present, water systems are not required to implement LSLR.
2.5 Waivers and Bottled Water
The LCR allows states to grant small water systems (serving less than 3,300 persons) a 9-
year monitoring waiver if the water system meets certain materials and monitoring criteria. To
qualify, the water system's distribution system, service lines and all drinking water supply
plumbing, including plumbing conveying drinking water within all residences and buildings
32
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
connected to the water system must be free of lead and/or copper containing materials.
Additionally, the 90th percentile levels in all rounds of monitoring conducted since the water
system became free of all lead and/or copper containing materials must not exceed 5 ppb for a
lead waiver or 650 ppb for a copper waiver. Of the 379 small water systems reviewed, 16 water
systems were granted this waiver. All 16 water systems were in one state which offered all of its
small water systems the 9-year monitoring waiver if they indicated they met the criteria in the
regulations. However, reviewers found that at least five of the 16 water systems were
inappropriately granted a waiver when they did not meet the criteria, either by having lead or
copper pipes in the distribution systems or having existing or prior ALEs.
During the state file review, it was noted that a few NTNCWS with ALEs used bottled
water in lieu of installing CCT. The use of bottled water is not an approved alternative to
installing CCT. At least one NTNCWS in each of four states used bottled water for years before
beginning a CCT program. In two cases the NTNCWS used bottle water for six to nine years
before beginning CCT installation.
33
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
This page left intentionally blank.
34
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
3. CONCLUSION
Information collected during the file review did not reveal evidence that SDWIS data of
90th percentile lead values is inaccurate. While a small number of 90th percentile calculations were
done incorrectly, in only 1% of the cases did this error affect whether a water system was required
to take action. During EPA's review of the LCR, concerns were raised that the water systems'
90th percentiles reported into SDWIS were erroneous. The reviews of state files did not show
significant evidence that 90th percentile values reported to SDWIS were artificially lowered due to
inappropriate re-sampling, manipulation of data, or improper invalidation.
The state file review did not reveal that elevated lead levels are a widespread problem in
America's public water supplies. Data evaluated from 17,542 individual tap water lead samples
collected between 2000 and 2004 shows that only 5% of all lead samples were greater than the
lead action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb).
The review identified a need for improved documentation in both SDWIS and in state
files. Individual sample results were not available for 21% of the water system sampling rounds
reviewed. Therefore, 90th percentile calculations could not be verified. In addition, many files did
not contain the water system's materials evaluations, sampling site plans and other documentation
to determine if water system sampling reflected the requirements of the LCR. The LCR requires
relatively few sampling locations because it focuses on locations with the highest risk of lead
leaching. It is important that regulators and water systems work together to ensure that sampling
is conducted at the highest risk sites.
The reviewers found that, generally, states are doing limited oversight of the sample pools,
sampling site plans, changes in sampling site locations, and tiering appropriateness. States
indicated that this is largely because they lack the resources needed to review these plans. Most
states generally provide information to their systems to help them review sampling results but are
unable to devote resources to more detailed oversight.
Follow-up activities that systems are required to conduct after a lead ALE were not always
completed. For example, water systems provided the required PE information to their consumers
less than 1/3 of the time. EPA is very concerned that consumers be given useful and timely
information to make important decisions that affect their health. Children and pregnant women are
at greatest risk. Therefore, it is very important that the consumer be given information so that
they can determine their risk and take any needed action.
Information regarding required follow-up activities after an action level exceedance, such
as WQP and source water monitoring, and CCT steps, was also lacking in files. Reviewers noted
many reasons for this. Some states had lost key LCR personnel, and had not been able to fill
35
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
those positions due to resource constraints. In some cases, the state was moving its files to a new
database, or putting old information on microfiche. In other cases this represented a lack of robust
state oversight for implementation of the LCR.
While too few schools were reviewed to draw national conclusions, enough problems were
identified to raise concern, especially as children 6 years old and under are the most vulnerable to
high lead levels. More than half of the schools reviewed did not begin the appropriate follow-up
requirements in response to a lead ALE. Although some required follow-up activities were
conducted, no schools completed all required actions. Improving implementation at schools is
critical to protect this most vulnerable population.
One of the states that was reviewed targeted schools that are not public water systems by
asking water systems to identify if any schools are within its distribution system. If there are, the
state requires the water system to collect samples at the school. These samples are separate from
the LCR program because EPA recommends a different sample collection protocol for non-
regulated schools.
36
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
4. NEXT STEPS
EPA has already placed an increased emphasis on LCR implementation through a focus on
SDWIS data and oversight. To address the issue of data completeness, EPA will continue to
monitor 90th percentile results reporting in SDWIS. EPA also encourages states to use the state
version of SDWIS to help track water system activities.
The LCR is a complex rule. States and water systems experience significant turnover of
personnel, which causes challenges for compliance and oversight. To help, EPA will conduct rule
training for states, and updatr guidance documents to help both states and water systems improve
implementation. EPA will continue to conduct oversight of LCR implementation and will seek to
identify ways to improve the rule.
EPA believes that a well-informed consumer is central to public health protection, and
public education is a key component of the LCR. EPA asked the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) to develop recommendations to improve both the message and the
delivery of public education on lead in drinking water. The NDWAC considered approaches that
will ensure that systems continue to communicate with their customers until the problem is
resolved. In addition, the NDWAC placed special emphasis on requirements that would give the
customer clear steps to limit their exposure to lead in drinking water, but they will also be easier
for the system to implement. This will result in the necessary information getting to the most
vulnerable populations as quickly as possible. EPA considered several of the recommendations in
developing proposed revisions to the LCR.
Finally, EPA has significantly increased its efforts to reduce lead levels in school drinking
water. EPA has developed a plain English Quick Reference Guide of the LCR to help schools
who are regulated under SDWA and posted it on anew website with a focus on schools
(www.epa.gov/safewater/schools). Further, EPA will reach out to state and county personnel
overseeing schools and child care facilities, who in some cases are not located in the drinking
water program. For schools that receive their water from a public water system, EPA is
encouraging them to voluntarily test their water to determine lead levels. EPA has developed new
guidance and materials to help schools conduct this testing and determine an appropriate response
if elevated lead levels are found.
Many states, including all of the states in the review, have informed EPA of new efforts
they have undertaken to improve LCR oversight. Actions include new rounds of training for
water systems, improved data flow management, internal reviews of responses to action level
exceedances and enforcement, increased focus on education materials for schools and child care
facilities, and changes or increases in staffing. EPA is encouraged by this response. While EPA
37
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
recognizes the resource constraints of many states, the state role is key to ensuring reduction of
lead levels.
It is important to note that the work of states and water utilities to implement the LCR has
resulted in lower lead levels across the United States. While this report is focused on the most
recent years of implementation, the reviewers looked at data through the 1990s as well.
Reviewers noted that implementation has consistently improved over time. States and water
systems have resolved many of the problems in the rule, and should be given credit for their
actions. The examples of the District of Columbia and other communities throughout the country
show that water systems, states, and EPA must continue their actions to keep lead levels down.
38
-------
Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report
APPENDIX A
Program Structures of Reviewed States
States approach program implementation in different ways. Organizational structures vary
between decentralized and centralized program management. Some states provide financial or
technical assistance to water systems with high lead or copper values. Some state staffer state lab
staff collect tap samples. Other states pay for lab analysis for some or all of their water system and
some place all financial and monitoring responsibility on the water systems.
Six of the ten states reviewed — Georgia, Iowa, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas and Utah —
centralize their drinking water programs and house all functions in one location, while the other
four states — California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Virginia, divide program management
among different offices. In New Jersey, a state which centralizes their functions, the Bureau of
Safe Drinking Water within the state Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) has
primacy for the LCR and oversees the program at their central location in Trenton, NJ. The state
includes three regional Water Compliance and Enforcement field offices within NJ DEP who are
responsible for conducting compliance inspections and issuing enforcement actions.
There are three models for decentralization. Massachusetts and Virginia have both central
and regional offices; the regional offices perform all compliance determinations and are
responsible for water systems in their region, while the central offices provide statewide oversight
and serves as a link for drinking water data. California has central and regional state offices with
CWSs and large NTNCWSs overseen by the regional offices and responsibility for smaller
NTNCWSs and TNCWSs delegated to local health departments; again, the central office serves as
a nexus for drinking water data. Illinois employs a third model that divides responsibility between
two state drinking water programs by water system type, where community water water systems
are overseen by the IL Environmental Protection Agency and non-transient non-community water
water systems are overseen by the IL Department of Health.
One state, Illinois, makes a special provision to assist water systems in collecting samples
for the LCR. Water systems can participate in the CWS Testing Fund and pay a fee for sample
analysis. They must agree to a three-year commitment to participate in the program and the
responsibility for conducting all sampling still falls on the water systems. Water systems in the
other nine states do their own sampling and analysis.
California, Georgia, Iowa, Texas and Virginia require laboratories to provide the sample
results directly to the state as well as the water system, to ensure that all results are reviewed by
state staff. In Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, and Illinois, delivery of sample results
falls to the water systems, although many labs send copies to the state.
39
------- |