National Drinking Water Advisory Council
Recommendations on the
Public Education Requirements of the Lead & Copper Rule
JUNE 2006
-------
NDWAC Recommendations on
Public Education Requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule
Table of Contents
Section 1. Executive Summary
Section 2. Introduction
2.1 Convening and Membership of the NDWAC's Working Group on Public Education
Requirements for the Lead and Copper Rule (WGPE)
2.2 WGPE Charge
2.3 Summary of the WGPE Deliberation Process
Section 3. Importance of Public Education on Lead in Drinking Water
3.1 Background on Lead Exposure
3.2 Background on the Lead and Copper Rule's (LCR) Public Education (PE)
Requirements
3.2.1 EPA's Short-term Revisions of the LCR
3.2.2 EPA's Decision to Modify PE Requirements
Section 4. WGPE's Proposed Recommendations to the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council
4.1 Principles of Successful Public Education Programs, Regulations, and Guidance
4.2 Expedited Implementation of Public Education Requirements
4.3 Recommended Changes to the LCR: Mandatory and Suggested Language, Utility
Instructions, and Delivery Methods for Public Education Materials
4.4 Recommendations to Encourage Continuous Public Education on Lead in Drinking
Water, Including CCR Modifications
4.5 LCR Guidance Recommendations
4.5.1 Language Bank
4.5.2 Unusual Circumstances
4.5.3 Partnering with the Community
4.5.4 Partnering with Public Health Officials
4.5.5 Working with the Media
4.5.6 Special Resources for Small Systems and Others Responding to an Action Level
Exceedance
4.5.7 Communication During Lead Service Line Replacement Programs
2
-------
Section 5. Overview of Proposed Recommendations and How They Differ from Current
Requirements
5.1 Changes to the Mandatory Text of Written Materials
5.2 Changes to Reach At-risk Populations
5.3 Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers throughout the
Exceedance
5.4 Changes to the Required Timing of Completion of Public Education Requirements
5.5 Changes to Consumer Confidence Reports
Section 6. Proposed Recommendations on Related Issues
6.1 Ongoing Public Education Efforts
6.2 Providing Sample Results
6.3 Evaluating Public Education and Outreach Programs Beyond the LCR
6.4 Lead in Plumbing Fixtures
6.5 Lead Service Lines
6.6 Health Effects Research
6.7 Risk Communication
Attachments
Attachment A. Utility Instructions and Delivery Methods
Attachment B. Information Recommended for Inclusion in Consumer Confidence Report
Attachment C. Guidance to Utilities on Working with the Media
Attachment D. Example Flow Charts for Small Systems
3
-------
Section 1. Executive Summary
The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires systems that exceed the action level to complete a
number of steps, such as delivering public education to alert the public of the exceedance and
providing information on steps customers can take to reduce their risk. To ensure that at-risk
populations are receiving the necessary information to protect them from exposure to lead, EPA
led and supported an in-depth review of the LCR's public education requirements of the LCR.
To support its work on revisions to public education requirements of the LCR, EPA sought to
establish an advisory group under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (hereafter
referred to as NDWAC or Council). On June 1, 2005, the NDWAC voted on and approved the
formation of a Working Group (WGPE) to provide recommendations on the Public Education
Requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule to the NDWAC at its spring 2006 meeting. EPA
selected 16 members to represent small, medium, and large utilities; consumers; regulators;
public health; and risk communication experts. Four members of the NDWAC served on the
WGPE to facilitate the flow of information between the two groups.
WGPE members agreed to consider the mandatory public education language under the LCR
and, as time and resources permitted, risk communication issues more broadly. The WGPE
agreed to operate by consensus, which was defined as "all can live with the recommendation."
Members met in plenary four times: October 5-6, 2005; December 15-16, 2005; February 1-2,
2006; and April 19-20, 2006. All meetings were held in Washington, DC. Members also
participated in numerous conference calls to advance draft documents. The WGPE was assisted
by a team of EPA staff and RESOLVE facilitators. All work group meetings were open to the
public.
On June 20, 2006, theWGPE members who serve on the Council presented the WPGE's report
on proposed recommendations for the LCR's public education requirements. These proposals
were reviewed and discussed by the NDWAC after which the report was approved unanimously
by the Council. Thus, the WGPE's proposed recommendations became the NDWAC's actual
recommendations that are sent to EPA's Administrator.
The following is a brief description of the Council's recommendations to the Agency.
I. Revise the mandatory content of written public education materials, delivery
requirements, and timing for public water systems (PWSs) to complete all required
activities after a lead action level exceedance
II. Provide more flexibility in the language or content of written materials to PWSs, so
they may tailor the public education message to their community and situation
III. Use the Public Notification Rule (PNR) as a model of required language, required
topics, and templates
IV. Change delivery requirements, e.g., requiring water systems to send written materials
to a wider range of community organizations to better reach at-risk populations
4
-------
V.
Require PWSs to carry out many additional public education activities, but allow
them to choose activities that would be most effective for their customers
VI. Adopt the above revisions to the public education requirements as soon as feasible.
EPA and primacy agencies should exercise administrative flexibility and allow
utilities the option of using all new materials recommended even before the date of
the regulation
VII. Ensure that systems maintain communication with consumers throughout the lead
action level exceedance by: requiring that information be included with every water
bill; providing two press releases a year; and, for larger systems, adding or expanding
information on their web sites
VIII. Empower primacy agencies to give PWSs more time to complete the additional
activities and deliver lead education information with water bills, if requested in
advance
IX. Change the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requirements to ensure consumers
are aware of concerns about lead in drinking water
X. Review the additional recommendations presented in section 6 of this report
5
-------
Section 2. Introduction
2.1 Convening and Membership of the WGPE
The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires systems that exceed the lead action level to complete
a number of steps, such as delivering public education to alert the public of the lead exceedance
and providing information on steps customers can take to reduce their risk. To ensure that at-risk
populations are receiving the necessary information to protect themselves from exposure to lead
in drinking water, EPA is reviewing the public education requirements of the LCR. (For more on
EPA's short-term revisions, please see section 3.2.1.)
To support its work on revisions to the public education requirements of the LCR, EPA sought to
establish an advisory group under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC).
The NDWAC was established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f
et seq.), and provides practical and independent advice, consultation, and recommendations to
the Agency on the activities, functions, and policies related to the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. On June 1, 2005, the NDWAC voted on and approved the formation of a
Working Group on Public Education (WGPE) to provide proposed recommendations on the
Public Education Requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule to the Council at its spring 2006
meeting.
EPA issued a request for nominations for working group members on July 22, 2005. WGPE
members were selected based on the expertise and experience needed to provide balanced advice
to the NDWAC, and hence to EPA, on issues related to public education under the LCR as well
as risk communication in general. Individuals were chosen to represent small, medium, and large
utilities; consumers; regulators; public health; and risk communication experts. Four WGPE
members also serve on the NDWAC in order to facilitate the flow of information between the
two groups.1
Membership of the work group is as follows:
Brenda Afzal, Community Health Specialist, University of Maryland School of Nursing,
Baltimore, MD
Yone Akagi, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor, Portland Water Bureau, Portland, OR
Jeanne Bailey, Public Affairs Officer, Fairfax Water, Fairfax, VA
Ron Bergman, Chief, Drinking Water Protection Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, US EPA, Washington, DC
Steve Drda, Lead and Copper Rule Manager, Public Drinking Water Program, Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services, Lincoln, NE
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, Director of Planning, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Boston, MA
Gregg L. Grunenfelder (NDWAC member), Assistant Secretary, Division of Environmental
Health, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA
1 A fourth WGPE member, Lynn Thorp, was also a NDWAC member at the start of the WGPE process; she
completed her term in December 2005, but continued to serve on the WPGE. Ms. Thorp was reappointed to a
second term on the Council, which began on June 19, 2006.
6
-------
Ed Hallock, Program Administrator, Delaware Office of Drinking Water, Dover, DE
Linda Caleb Hazel, Consumer and Educator, Jamaica, NY
Kathy Moriarty, Assistant General Manager, Bangor Water District, Bangor, ME
Shelley Nolan, Water Training Specialist, Montana Rural Water, Havre, MT
Lisa Ragain, Research Associate, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health,
School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Portland, OR
Perialwar Regunathan (NDWAC member), Regunathan & Associates, Inc., Wheaton, IL
Blanca Surgeon (NDWAC member), Rural Development Specialist, Rural Community
Assistance Corporation, Santa Fe, NM
Lynn Thorp (NDWAC member), National Programs Coordinator, Clean Water Fund,
Washington, DC
Bob Vincent, Environmental Administrator, Bureau of Water Programs, Florida Department of
Health, Tallahassee, FL
2.2 WGPE Charge
The Council's charge for the WGPE was to (1) review the current public education requirements
on lead in drinking water to find and define the need for improvements and make
recommendations to the NDWAC; (2) develop language for communicating the risk of lead in
drinking water and a suggested response to the public; and (3) define the delivery means to the
public. The NDWAC established a target date of its spring 2006 meeting to complete these tasks.
The WGPE members agreed with this charge and further defined their goals by agreeing on the
following mission to guide their work on drafting recommendations:
The Lead and Copper Working Group on Public Education (WGPE) will consider the
mandatory public education program under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and, as
time and resources permit, risk communication issues more broadly. The short-term
goal of the group is to develop recommendations to revise the mandatory public
education program. This may include the development of recommendations on:
guiding principles for revising the program; required topics; mandatory and
recommended language; guidance; ways to communicate differential risk, including
exposure or vulnerabilities, posed by a lead Action Level Exceedance (ALE); and,
effective ways to communicate with the consumer, including actions the consumer
can take to reduce potential exposure and/or risk.
As time and resources allow, the group could also consider the broader issue of how
to communicate health risks to the public. The working group may suggest products
that could help utilities communicate with the public, areas for additional research or
guidance, or ways to deliver complicated health information in an easy to understand
message that will motivate individuals to act to reduce their risk. Upon completion of
its review, the Working Group will develop written, proposed recommendations to
the NDWAC.
2.3 Summary of the WGPE Deliberation Process
WGPE members met in plenary four times: October 5-6, 2005; December 15-16, 2005; February
1-2, 2006; and April 19-20, 2006. All meetings took place in Washington, DC. Members also
participated in numerous conference calls to advance draft documents. The WGPE was assisted
7
-------
by a team of EPA staff and RESOLVE facilitators. All work group meetings were open to the
public.
The WGPE agreed to operate by consensus, which was defined as "all can live with the
recommendation." WGPE preliminary materials were drafted by individuals or small groups and
reviewed by conference calls or in-person at meetings. Agreement on final products, however,
required consensus of all members.
The WGPE completed its charge in May 2006, and a copy of its draft report to the NDWAC was
sent to each member prior to the Council's meeting on June 20-22, 2006.
8
-------
Section 3. Importance of Public Education on Lead in Drinking Water
3.1 Background on Lead Exposure
Human exposure to lead has long been an important public health issue. The 1991 Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) is intended to reduce health risks associated with potential exposure to lead
in drinking water. Exposure to lead may cause neurological impairment, altered physical
development and blood chemistry, and adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. According
to health experts, exposure to even small amounts of lead poses a potentially significant health
risk, especially in infants and young children. For infants and children, exposure to high levels of
lead in drinking water can result in delays in physical or mental development. Although the main
sources of exposure to lead are ingesting paint chips and lead-contaminated dust, EPA estimates
that 10 to 20 % of human exposure to lead may come from lead in drinking water. Infants who
consume mostly formula mixed with tap water can receive 40 to 60 % of their exposure to lead
from drinking water.
To regulate lead in drinking water, EPA established a public health goal (known as a MCLG or
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) for lead of zero. In setting enforceable standards (known as
MCL or Maximum Contaminant Levels), the Agency must also consider economics and
available technology. Lead presents an additional regulatory challenge because its source is
frequently from home plumbing, which a water system does not control. Further, while some
contaminants like arsenic have predictive models on exposure and the lifetime risk of cancer,
comparable risk assessment evaluations are not available for lead.
Thus, rather than setting a MCL for lead, EPA instituted an action level. The action level
approach was chosen because water systems do not control many of the sources of lead.
Understanding that zero is the public health goal, EPA sought to identify an effective treatment
technique and a treatment level at which as much lead as possible could be kept out of drinking
water, while also making the program feasible and cost-effective for water systems nationwide.
As with all standards setting, EPA had to estimate the cost of the regulation at a particular level
and justify the cost of contaminant reduction at that level.
To establish the action level, EPA reviewed information from representative water systems,
efficacy of different treatment technologies, and cost effectiveness of these technologies.2 EPA
identified the action level of 15 |ig/L because they expected this was a standard that water
systems should be able to maintain through an effective corrosion control program.
As of January 1997, all large systems (serving over 50,000 consumers) must have installed state-
approved optimal corrosion control treatment (CCT). EPA also requires monitoring to ensure
that the treatment technique is effectively implemented. If more than 10% of household tap
samples exceed 15 |ig/L, different actions are triggered, depending on the size of the water
system. In small systems, an exceedance triggers a requirement for installation of optimized
2 EPA gathered data from 39 medium-sized water systems. Approximately 96% of these systems were able to keep
in the 90th percentile in the range of 10-20 |ig/L. Thus, EPA concluded that 15 |ig/L represented the feasible level for
public water systems.
9
-------
CCT, and perhaps additional steps. Large systems must optimize CCT and take other steps such
as replacement of lead service lines.
In addition to these steps aimed at reducing the corrosivity of water that reaches household taps,
exceeding the action level triggers a public education requirement. Public education on lead in
drinking water is important because its source is on both sides of the consumer-utility interface.
If CCT does not reduce lead levels below the action level, consumers may need to flush and/or
filter their water and take other steps to reduce their exposure.
Public education is an essential part of the LCR because when the water system is not able to
prevent all lead from entering drinking water, the consumer can act to reduce exposure. The
Public Education (PE) program under the LCR is vital in protecting consumers from exposure to
lead in their drinking water.
3.2 Background on the Lead and Copper Rule Public Education Requirements
3.2.1 EPA's Short-Term Revisions of the LCR
The purpose of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is to reduce potential health risks associated
with lead by protecting populations from exposure to lead in drinking water. Recent high
profile reports of elevated drinking water lead levels in the District of Columbia prompted
EPA to initiate a comprehensive national review of the LCR to evaluate the implementation
and effectiveness of the rule. The purpose of the review was to ascertain
if elevated drinking water lead levels were a national problem;
if a large percentage of the population received water that exceeded the lead action
level;
if a significant number of systems failed to meet the action level;
if the existing LCR worked well in reducing drinking water lead levels; and
if the rule is currently being effectively implemented, especially with respect to
monitoring and public education requirements.
EPA's comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series of workshops
designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from stakeholders on particular issues;
a review of data to evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR
implementation by states and water utilities. As a result of this multi-part review, EPA
identified seven targeted rule changes intended to strengthen the implementation of the LCR
in the areas of monitoring, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement in the
short-term. Some of the regulatory changes identified in EPA's review are meant to clarify
provisions that have generated some confusion on the part of water utilities, while other
provisions reconsider LCR requirements in light of the recent experiences in the District of
Columbia. The short-term changes will be proposed in 2006 and are expected to provide
more effective protection of public health through the reduction in lead exposure.
In its review of the LCR, EPA also identified several regulatory changes that will be
considered as part of more comprehensive changes to the LCR. These considerations are
longer-term as they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and stakeholder
involvement to support decisions. The working group believes that the short-term revisions
10
-------
represent an appropriate and timely vehicle for EPA to implement the public education
recommendations of the WGPE.
3.2.2 EPA's Decision to Modify Public Education Requirements
When conducting the national review of the LCR, EPA heard from a variety of stakeholders
that the public education requirements of the rule were not as effective as needed. Specific
observations were that the PE program is difficult to implement, includes language that is
confusing to the public, and uses delivery methods that may not reach all consumers,
especially at-risk populations. Many stakeholders believed EPA needed to make
improvements to the public education program to ensure the public is informed, empowered,
and motivated to act to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. While different
parties all agreed that the public education requirements should be updated, they did not
agree on how to accomplish this change. The NDWAC established a Working Group to
assist EPA in determining how to improve public education and thereby ensure consumers
have the information required to limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. The WGPE
believes that its proposed recommendations can and should be implemented as soon as
feasible.
11
-------
Section 4: WGPE Recommendations
4.1 Principles of Successful Public Education Programs, Regulations, and Guidance
In addressing environmental factors that may pose a risk to people's health, there is a growing
expectation from the public that information is shared in a timely and effective way. This allows
people to make personal decisions to minimize risks while the issues are being considered and
addressed in a comprehensive way by responsible public and private entities. Contaminants like
lead present particular challenges in communicating health information in a clear and
understandable manner. Lead exposures can come from multiple sources and may cause a broad
range of health effects, sometimes taking years to manifest themselves. In addition, lead levels
vary so that water system monitoring may not be representative of the lead levels for all
consumers. More importantly, the relative contribution and health impacts of lead from drinking
water vary with an individual's age, water consumption habits, and other individual
circumstances.
Today, the effective communications of health risk information goes well beyond the simple
dissemination of data and fact sheets. Effectively communicating information to meet the
growing expectations of the public requires clear, thoughtful, well-formulated information to be
delivered in a manner that meets the needs of diverse communities. These efforts should not only
address our critical health protection goals but also have a significant influence on the public's
trust and confidence in the entities involved. Education of the public on all the risks of lead is a
multi-entity responsibility with specific roles for federal, state, and local health organizations.
However, water systems can and should play an important role in that comprehensive effort. The
WGPE identified the following key principles that water utilities should use in all lead public
education efforts. EPA should also use these principles in considering and developing
modifications to the requirements and guidelines for the lead education component of the Lead
and Copper Rule. Additionally, these principles could apply to other public education initiatives.
A public education program on lead in drinking water is successful if the message:
1. Is timely
2. Is concise and clear
3. Meets the communication needs of diverse populations
4. Is compelling and encourages the public to take action to reduce exposure
5. Communicates risk from all sources and methods of exposure, while focused on
drinking water; and,
6. Is effective and revised based on evaluation
Public Education requirements and guidance should:
7. Direct and assist the utility to accomplish 1-6 above
8. Provide flexibility for local situationsnot all information has to be in every
communication piece
9. Equip utilities with tools they need to communicate to consumers
10. Equip utilities with tools to explain the difference between the action level and health
risk level
11. Consider different sizes and types of systems; and
12
-------
12. Offer multiple communication methods.
4.2 Expedited Implementation of Public Education Requirements
Given the substantial benefit to improving lead education, WGPE urges the Council to
recommend that EPA and primacy agencies adopt these revisions to the public education
requirements as soon as feasible. The WGPE also urges that EPA and primacy agencies use
administrative flexibility to allow utilities the option of using the new materials even before the
effective date of the regulation.
4.3 Recommended Changes to the LCR: Mandatory and Suggested Language, Utility
Instructions, and Delivery Methods for Public Education Materials
The WGPE proposes altering the current required language in the Lead and Copper Rule and
giving utilities suggested language for completing their public education materials. They suggest
that EPA create a set of Utility Instructions, to include mandatory and recommended language,
delivery methods, and other suggestions for utilities to carry out their public education programs.
The WGPE has developed a template format for EPA, which is Attachment A of this report.
4.4 Recommendations to Encourage Continuous Public Education on Lead in Drinking
Water, Including CCR Modifications
Currently, public water systems engage in public education about lead under the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) and Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) rules. When 10% or more of
homes sampled for compliance exceed the action level, the LCR requires distribution of a
brochure on lead and other actions to increase consumer awareness. The CCR rule requires
communicating lead levels and sources of lead whenever lead is observed by the water system. It
also includes specific additional language when either 5 or 10% of compliance samples are
above the action level. The WGPE is concerned that these requirements do not assure that
consumers receive sufficient information and believes that consumers need to understand health
effects associated with lead, that lead levels can vary from home to home, that lead in drinking
water is primarily from home plumbing, that they can take steps to reduce their exposure, and
where they can go to get more information. This situation is unique to lead (and copper) among
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act in that the source of exposure is
primarily outside the control of the public water system. The WGPE proposes the following to
the Council:
1. All PWS should be encouraged to voluntarily develop and implement a lead public
education program to inform their consumers of the risks lead poses, especially to
vulnerable populations and the potential actions that they can be take to reduce such
risks.
2. The CCR rule requirements be modified, as described in Attachment B: Information
Recommended for Inclusion in Consumer Confidence Report. The WGPE is
recommending modified language for those systems over the action level and for those
systems with over 5% of samples above the action level and new language for all other
systems detecting lead.
13
-------
3. EPA should pursue enhanced public education efforts aimed at reducing exposure to lead
as described in the attached recommendations for Section 6 of this report.
4.5 LCR Guidance Recommendations
The following suggestions provide recommendations and approaches for EPA to include in
guidance manuals. Some may also be appropriate for waterworks and professional associations
to act on.
4.5.1 Language Bank
One provision in the current LCR is that utilities must engage in public education and
notifications to populations that do not speak English as their primary language. This type of
information is crucial for reaching many of the most vulnerable populations. Public
education and notification in other languages needs to be addressed. EPA should develop and
support a bank of required and recommended templates in languages other than English.
Many utilities have developed language-specific materials, and EPA could facilitate the
collection and distribution of such materials. Utilities would have a substantial resource to
draw on for this effort. Additionally, EPA could work to expand this effort for required and
recommended language in other rules, such as the CCR and PNR.
4.5.2 Unusual Circumstances
The WGPE recognizes that there may be unusual circumstances which may require efforts
beyond or different than those normally mandated by the LCR PE requirements. The WGPE
proposes that EPA guidance to state primacy agencies explicitly provide sufficient flexibility
for states to address any unusual education challenges or circumstances particular to
individual water systems. This might include identifying appropriate steps to take when lead
action level exceedances result from numerous compliance monitoring samples containing
very high lead levels.
4.5.3 Partnering with the Community
Creating and sustaining collaborative partnerships in the community supports and promotes
utility public education efforts and notification approaches. Several examples of community
based lead educations programs exist. In addition, there is a large body of research and
recommendations for community partnering specific to the water industry. EPA, utilities,
professional organizations, public health agencies and primacy agencies should use these
tools to advance partnerships at the national, state and local level.
4.5.4 Partnering with Public Health Officials
Collaborating with public health officials is crucial to developing an effective public
education and notification effort. In addition to working with water-specific sections of the
state and local health agencies, working with maternal and child health, community health
and other sections of health agencies can assist in developing materials and outreach efforts
in consultation with specific populations. Additionally, working throughout many divisions
of a health agency can integrate lead and general drinking water concerns into a holistic
14
-------
water education program. It also is essential to remember that public health extends beyond
agencies and into universities and community based organizations.
4.5.5 Working with the Media
Working with the media is essential to a successful public education and notification
program. Though press releases and notifications are mandatory, working beyond the
elementary steps enhances the effectiveness and value of a utilities effort. Attachment C
provides additional, specific steps for working with the media.
4.5.6 Special Resources for Small Systems and Others Responding to an Action Level
Exceedance
The WGPE proposes the following items be included in EPA guidance in a prominent
location designated for small systems and in general guidance for all systems.
1. Checklist of required Public Education steps and deadlines.
2. Flow diagram showing sequence of necessary and optional decisions, steps, and
deadlines in preparing and executing a Public Education program. (See Attachment D
for a small systems example.)
3. Examples or templates of materials intended for specific Public Education purposes
(i.e. public service announcement scripts, letters to health care providers or public
health officials, ads for print media, etc.)
4. Question-and-Answer sheet of likely questions to be asked by water users, the media,
or general public to assist water system personnel in answering such questions. The
WGPE recommends that EPA develop a template addressing the following kinds of
questions:
Why is there lead in my drinking water?
What is the water system doing about it?
What can I do to make my water safe to drink?
What will lead do to me or my family?
Does boiling water remove lead?
If I boil water for making formula, will it increase or remove lead?
Why can't I use hot water from the tap for drinking, cooking, or making baby
formula?
Will my filter remove lead?
My neighbors got their water tested and found lead. Is my water safe/are my
test results accurate?
Can I get my water tested for lead?
Where can I get more information on lead?
What do you mean when you say the Action Level has been exceeded?
Is there anything else I can do beyond flushing my tap or buying bottled
water?
15
-------
5. Advice to water system operator to immediately inform the water system's decision-
making authority (Board, Mayor, Owner, etc.) of the situation and requirements for
Public Education.
6. Advice to the water system to designate a specific contact person to answer questions
resulting from the lead exceedance and public education efforts.
7. Advice to the water system to disseminate follow-up information to the public when
the system returns to compliance.
4.5.7 Communication During Lead Service Line Replacement Programs
Lead service line replacement can be the most visible portion of a lead abatement program.
This portion of a lead reduction program provides an opportunity to educate consumers. The
WGPE's proposed recommendation is that EPA develop guidance to utilities on enhancing
communication efforts specifically tailored to lead service line replacement. Utilities may
want to consider training field personnel on working with customers.
16
-------
Section 5: Overview of Recommendations and How They Differ from Current
Requirements
The recommended public education requirements differ in a number of ways from the current
requirements of the LCR. The recommendations still require water systems to complete the
public education requirement after a lead action level exceedance but change the mandatory
content of written materials, delivery requirements, and timing for when systems must complete
all required activities. They also change the requirements for the language or content of written
materials, giving water systems more flexibility to tailor the public education message to their
community and situation. In addition, the recommendations change the delivery requirements in
a number of ways. Water systems will be required to send written materials to additional
organizations in an attempt to better reach at-risk populations. The recommendations also require
the systems to do several additional activities but allow them to pick from a list of activities in
order to do what is most effective for their community. The WGPE proposes to require water
systems maintain communication with consumers throughout the lead action level exceedance by
including information with every water bill, providing two press releases a year, and for larger
systems, including information on their website. These proposals allow primacy agencies to give
water systems more time to complete the additional activities and deliver lead education
information with water bills. Finally, the WGPE proposes to include changes to the Consumer
Confidence Report to ensure consumers are aware of concerns about lead in drinking water.
5.1 Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
The recommendations require that systems continue to deliver written materials to all customers
as well as a number of key organizations. However, WGPE is proposing to change the content of
the required written materials. Currently, §141.85 requires written materials to include
mandatory language consisting of over 1,800 words describing health effects, lead in drinking
water, steps to reduce exposure, and ways to obtain additional information. Under the
recommendations, the mandatory language would be much shorter and easier to understand. The
mandatory language would address essential topics such as the opening statement and health
effects language. Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems would still be required to provide information on other topics, but the system may either
use suggested language or their own words to explain these topics. The WGPE recognizes that
small systems do not have the resources to create their own language for the required topics, so
they suggest EPA provide language in guidance that systems can use to explain all of the
required topics in the regulation. The WGPE used the Public Notification Rule as a model of the
use of required language, required topics, and templates.
5.2 Changes to Reach At-risk Populations
The WGPE proposes adding organizations to the list of recipients of the public education
materials in order to increase the likelihood that the most vulnerable populations will receive the
information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. The WGPE proposes to
add licensed childcare centers, preschools, Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives to the
current list of organizations to which a system must deliver information. In addition, WGPE is
proposing a new requirement that systems include a cover letter with the printed materials that
they send to these organizations to explain the importance of sharing this information with their
17
-------
customers/patients. This recommendation is designed to help ensure that the information reaches
non-bill paying customers.
While it is important for this information to get to all of these organizations, WGPE believes that
the local health agencies play an important role in making sure consumers who are most
vulnerable receive the information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.
To assure that local health agencies know about the lead action level exceedance, WGPE
suggests requiring that systems directly contact (e.g., phone, in person, etc.) the local health
agency rather than simply delivering brochures to this organization. By directly contacting the
local health agency, utilities can enlist the health agency's support in disseminating information
on lead in drinking water and the steps that vulnerable populations can take to reduce their
exposure.
In addition to using organizations to disseminate information to at-risk populations, WGPE is
also proposing that systems complete additional activities from a list of options. System, state,
and consumer representatives on the WGPE all agreed that what works in one community does
not always work best in another community. In order to make the public education as effective as
possible, WGPE proposes giving systems some flexibility in how they deliver their public
education materials. The list of additional activities that systems can choose from includes:
Categories
Example Activities
Public Service Announcements
Radio and Television PSAs
Paid Advertisements
Newspaper, transit, or movie theater ads
Display Information in Public Areas
Community and health centers
Local sporting events
Grocery store
Laundromat bulletin boards
Libraries
Faith-based organizations
Internet
Community listservs
Utility Website (if serving <100,000)
Post on local government websites
Fax network
Public Meetings
Town hall meetings
PTA meetings
Delivery to Every Household
Doorknob hangers, mailing to all consumers
Individual Contact with Customers (targeted
contact)
Phone trees
Calls to individual consumers/households
Targeted Mailing to at-risk populations
Provide Materials Directly to Multi-family
Homes
Other Methods Approved by the Primacy
Agency
18
-------
The recommendations require that systems serving 3,300 people or above be required to do three
additional public education activities from one, two, or three of these general categories. Systems
serving 3,300 or fewer individuals must do one additional activity from this list.
5.3 Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers throughout the
Exceedance
To ensure continued contact with consumers, WGPE suggests requiring systems to include
information in or on the water bill as long as there is an exceedance of the lead action level.
WGPE recognizes that this requirement can be difficult for some systems that are unable to print
messages on their bills, so there is a provision to allow systems to work with their primacy
agency to deliver this information in a different way.
Another way that WGPE's proposed recommendations encourage continuous communication
with consumers is by requiring systems that serve more than 100,000 people to put the public
education information on their websites until the system tests below the lead action level.
Currently, systems that exceed the lead action level must issue a press release. WGPE suggests
requiring systems distribute two press releases per year in order to ensure systems are
maintaining communication with their customers. The systems must send the press releases to
the major newspapers as well as TV and radio stations that reach the population served by the
water system. This is another way to inform consumers who do not receive water bills. In
response to concerns about small systems' ability to complete this requirement, primacy agencies
can waive the press release requirement if there are no media outlets that serve the population
served by the system. In addition, WGPE suggests moving the requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two Public Service Announcements (PSA) per year to the list of additional
outreach activities.
5.4 Changes to the Required Timing of Completion of Public Education Requirements
While the WGPE's proposed recommendations would still require systems to complete most of
their public education in 60 days, there is increased flexibility for the primacy agency to allow
longer periods of time for completion of the lead education statement printed on or with water
bills and the additional activities from the list of options. This ensures systems choose the most
effective public education program rather than the fastest.
5.5 Changes to Consumer Confidence Reports
The WGPE suggests modifications to the CCR rule to address two concerns: that lead exposures
may be taking place even though the action level is not exceeded and that consumers are not
getting sufficient information. Under current regulations, systems must include information on
lead levels and sources of lead whenever lead is observed. Specific additional language is
required in the case of an exceedance and when 5% of compliance samples are above the action
level.
The WGPE developed a new informational statement for the CCR for use in two conditions:
1) systems that Exceed the Action Level (10% or more of compliance monitoring
samples above the action level of 15 ppb)
19
-------
2) systems that don't exceed the Action Level but have any observed compliance
monitoring samples above the detection level (1 ppb)
The newly-developed language is intended to help consumers understand the health effects
associated with lead, that lead levels can vary from home to home, that lead in drinking water is
primarily from home plumbing, that they can take steps to reduce their exposure, and where to
get more information.
20
-------
Section 6: Recommendations on Related Issues
Below are recommendations on topics that the WPGE identified as important to public education
efforts, but which are not within the Lead and Copper Rule public education regulations (Section
141.85) or guidance.
6.1 Ongoing Public Education Efforts
As described earlier in this report, human exposure to lead has long been an important public
health issue and has been associated with a wide range of health effects. Significant progress
has been made over the past several years in reducing exposures to lead through actions such
as banning the production and use of leaded gasoline and lead based paint, as well as
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule to reduce exposures to lead from drinking
water. The proposed recommendations to enhance the Lead and Copper Rule requirements
contained in this report will further the progress to reduce human exposures to lead.
In addition to the recommended Lead and Copper Rule enhancements described in this
report, the WGPE presents to the Council that additional efforts, as described below, be taken
to provide broad public information on lead, the sources of lead, and steps people can take to
further reduce their exposures to lead. By implementing these recommended efforts, trends to
reduce the adverse health effects of lead in this country will be strengthened.
1) The WGPE proposes that EPA work collaboratively with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) to enhance public education efforts on the health hazards of lead and
the steps the public can take to limit their exposures to all sources of lead. EPA and CDC
should work together to encourage health agencies - principally through the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health
Officials - to continue to emphasize and reinvigorate as necessary their overall lead education
programs and to ensure that the potential exposure from lead in drinking water is an
appropriate and integral component of their efforts.
2) The WGPE proposes that EPA and primacy agencies encourage water utilities to
collaborate with their local health jurisdictions in appropriate broad lead education efforts
focusing on all exposure routes, even when lead levels in drinking water are below the
current Action Level as defined in the federal Lead and Copper Rule.
3) The WGPE proposes that EPA develop a model public education insert for potential
inclusion with water utility billing statements that provides basic information on health risks
associated with lead and how consumers can best minimize their exposure to all sources of
lead. This model insert should be appropriate for use by water utilities when no exceedance
of the current Action Level for lead in drinking water has occurred.
6.2 Providing Sample Results
The WGPE supports EPA's proposed regulatory change to require that utilities provide
consumers with the results of any regulatory compliance samples taken in their homes in a
timely manner and at no cost. The WGPE encourages EPA to provide a template for a
21
-------
transmittal letter to communicate results.
6.3 Evaluating Public Education and Outreach Programs Beyond the LCR
Public education and outreach are major components of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, and are practiced by many utilities in compliance efforts beyond the LCR.
Effective public education is an important aspect of communication between utilities and
consumers. Implementing a public education and outreach program can be expensive and
time consuming. It is important that the utilities know the effectiveness of such programs.
The WGPE proposes that EPA develop a guidance document to help utilities measure and/or
evaluate the effectiveness of their public education and outreach programs.
A guidance document "Evaluating Public Education and Outreach Programs" should address
whether (see Section 4.1.2, Principles):
the information is clear, understandable, and timely
the information reached the intended public
information conveyed the message adequately to the intended audience
the information was what the public wanted/needed
the message had an effect on behavior
This guidance will assist utilities to effectively deliver messages to the public and track or
measure the effectiveness of their education and outreach efforts so they can focus their time
and resources on the most effective approach. The information from evaluations conducted
by different utilities can be incorporated into future guidance documents such as updates to
the LCR Public Education Guidance.
6.4 Lead in Plumbing Fixtures
Under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, brass water service parts (meters,
valves, elbows, tail pieces, and other lead-containing plumbing components) are defined as
being "lead free" if they contain less than 8% lead. Likewise, end-use brass plumbing
fixtures such as faucets can contain up to 8% lead, so long as they meet certain NSF 61
standards.3 These fixtures containing lead can leach lead into drinking water under certain
conditions. The WGPE proposes that EPA issue a more stringent definition and standard for
"lead free" (based on reexamination of both lead content of these materials and the protocols
for determining leaching potential) so that potential for exposures to lead in drinking water
can be minimized in the future. For steps in this direction, the WGPE proposes that:
EPA publish a list of currently available low lead water service parts that utilities can
use to minimize potential exposures to lead [i.e. those fixtures containing no more
than 0.25% lead, or other fixtures that leach little lead (i.e. complying with the
California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, 25249.5)].
3 NSF Standard 61NSF/ANSI Standard 61 - Drinking Water System Components establishes minimum requirements
for the control of potential adverse human health effects from products that contact drinking water. NSF/ANSI
Standard 61 includes criteria for testing and evaluating products to ensure they do not leach contaminants into the
water that would be a health concern. See www.nsf.org for more information.
22
-------
EPA publish and maintain a list of end-use fixtures (e.g. faucets) that consumers can
reliably expect to minimize potential exposures to lead (i.e. these fixtures meet the
more stringent California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,
25249.5).
EPA prioritize research on low lead fixtures to address the following issues that are
currently perceived as potential barriers to the broader use of such fixtures:
o Life cycle and manufacturing performance of new alternative materials
o Performance, durability, and leaching results from any new alternative
materials
o Potential health affects from alternative materials
EPA pursue stronger compliance to NSF 61 standard by requiring ALL products in
substantial contact with drinking water meet a national standard relative to the
potential leaching of lead. Concurrently, EPA should explore, in consultation with
NSF and other stakeholders, whether or not revisions are needed to NSF 60/61, to
ensure that products perform adequately in a full range of actual drinking water
conditions. This is particularly important for fixtures likely to be used in schools and
child care facilities.
unless and until there are national changes in the amount of lead allowed to be present
in or to be leaching from brass plumbing fixtures as discussed above, EPA should
develop a national program, modeled on the Energy Star program, for low lead
fixtures. The program would develop a labeling brand for low lead fixtures, establish
criteria for low lead fixtures modeled after the California Safe Drinking Water and
Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 or Lead Contamination Control Act-type standards,
and develop model memoranda of understanding for manufacturers of common "end
use fixtures" (i.e. faucets, fountains, etc.) which would allow them to use the labeling
brand when making products that meet the strictest standards for lead leaching.
Further, EPA should develop a national information campaign to be mounted in
cooperation with manufacturers, health authorities, and water systems to market the
low lead labeling brand and inform the public that there are fixtures available that
present a lower risk of exposing the consumer to lead in drinking water.
6.5 Lead Service Lines
Under the Lead and Copper Rule, water utilities may be required to replace lead service lines
if test results exceed the action level after installing corrosion control and/or source water
treatment. Many have questioned the effectiveness of lead service line replacement
programs, and there is little conclusive information on the extent to which replacing lead
service lines lowers lead levels at the tap. To further examine the issue, the WGPE supports
the recommendations, as presented verbatim, made by the US Government Accountability
Office4
4 "EPA Should Strengthen the Ongoing Efforts to Ensure that Consumers are Protected from Lead Contamination,"
GAO, January 2006, GAO-06-148.
23
-------
USEPA collect and analyze data on the impact of lead service line
replacement on lead levels and conduct other research, as appropriate,
to assess the effectiveness of lead line replacement programs and
whether additional regulation or guidance may be warranted
6.6 Health Effects Research
EPA's ongoing research and determination of health effects of lead in drinking water, which
would determine a health advisory, need to be expedited to inform the public education
process and to answer baseline questions consistently raised by the public, utilities, agencies,
and health providers.
6.7 Risk Communication
The WGPE's proposed recommendations are based on the expertise of its members. As EPA
develops its lead public education program, the WGPE suggests that EPA use existing and
developing risk communication literature and data to inform the program. Additionally,
evaluation of the Public Education program should use risk communication methodology to
determine the effectiveness of these recommendations. Further, the WGPE acknowledges
that additional research is needed to more effectively communicate.
As EPA conducts research, the WGPE proposes the consideration of the following:
Peer-Reviewed Literature
Models of lead education and outreach efforts.
Health education efforts on environmental issues, such as asthma, targeted to
similar populations.
Environmental health evaluation methods in the peer-reviewed literature.
Grey Literature
Grey literature is the body of valuable materials not found in official peer-reviewed literature.
However, many of the organizations producing these materials evaluate their effectiveness.
Banks of literature exist or are under development on some environmental health topics.
Evaluation
Drinking water communication efforts required by provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act
have not been formally evaluated. EPA should support a comprehensive evaluation of PN/PE
language and materials as new rules take effect. Information analyzed from the literature
reviews referenced above could then be incorporated to further inform guidance and utility
endeavors. Materials should also be evaluated for literacy level.
Risk Perception/Risk Communication/Linguistics
This type of research will provide information on specific vulnerable populations, their
practices and preferences. Methods for conducting this type of research include interviews,
focus groups, and mental modeling. Linguistics has its own methodology for assessing
communication that would greatly enhance drinking water public education and notification
efforts.
24
-------
Case Studies
Case studies are a useful tool for providing insight into the elements that make a particular
effort successful. For the water sector, the peer-to-peer aspect of a case study could assist in
incorporating successful elements of other utility education and outreach efforts. EPA should
develop case studies of utility efforts.
Future Collaborations
Using water sector and public health experience as well as information from the literature
reviews and case studies, EPA should work with partners within the Agency, the federal
government, state and local agencies, and public groups to identify collaborations for public
education.
25
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Instructions for Utility Who Must Send Out Public Education After Action Level
Exceedance
If you (the water system) have a Lead Action Level Exceedance, you must send out a notice to
your customers to inform them about the issue within 60 days of the exceedance. Below is an
explanation of exactly what must be in this notice, including delivery methods, mandatory topics,
and language. In addition to these instructions, attached is a template that includes all of the
mandatory topics and language. If you have any questions about what is required, please contact
your primacy agency.
DELIVERY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIALS
Timing
If a water system has a Lead Action Level Exceedance, they must complete the required methods
of delivery (listed below) to inform customers of the issue within 60 days of the exceedance.
In the case of a continued lead exceedance, a community water system shall repeat all required
tasks every 12 months. In addition, a community water system shall post material on a publicly
accessible internet site (if population is greater than 100,000) and provide information on or in
each water bill (items A.3 and A.5) so long as system exceeds the action level. The system must
also distribute press releases (item A.4) twice annually on a schedule agreed upon with the state
primacy agency.
A. Required Methods of Delivery for CWSs
1) Deliver required printed material, for example in a brochure, pamphlet, or other printed
format, to all bill paying customers.
2) Make good faith effort to reach all customers who are most at risk by making the
information in the brochure available to the list of prioritized
organizations/facilities/providers (see next page for list), along with a cover letter or
direct contact, explaining health risks and encouraging distribution
a. Directly contact local public health agency, as identified by primacy agency, by
phone or in-person.
b. CWS serving 3300 or fewer persons can limit distribution of printed materials to
the list of prioritized organizations/facilities/ providers served by the system that
are most likely to be visited regularly by pregnant women and children, unless it
is notified by the State in writing that it must make a broader distribution.
3) Post required public education material on publicly accessible internet site if system
serves a population >100,000.
4) Submit press release to newspaper, television, or radio stations with the largest audiences
that serve the community served by the water system. The Primacy Agency may waive
this requirement for systems serving 3300 or fewer persons as long as system distributes
notices to every household served by the system.
A-l
-------
5) Provide information on or in each water bill as long as the system exceeds the AL for lead.
Message: [Insert name of water system] found high levels of lead in drinking water in some
homes. Lead can cause serious health problems. For more information please call [water
system] [or visit www, website J. Message or delivery mechanism can be modified in
consultation with primacy agency.
6) CWS must undertake additional public education:
In addition to 1-5 above, systems that serve over 3,300 persons must implement at least
three activities from one or more categories from the list below. In addition to 1-5 above,
CWS serving 3,300 or fewer persons must implement at least one activity from the list
below. All systems are encouraged to implement additional PE activities.
Categories
Example Activities
Public Service Announcements
Radio and Television PSAs
Paid Advertisements
Newspaper, transit, or movie theater ads
Display Information in Public Areas
Community and health centers
Local sporting events
Grocery store, Laundromat bulletin boards
Libraries
Faith-based organizations
Internet
Community listservs
Utility Website (if serving <100,000)
Post on local government websites
Fax network
Public Meetings
Town hall meetings
PTA meetings
Delivery to Every Household
Doorknob hangers, mailing to all consumers
Individual Contact with Customers (targeted
contact)
Phone trees
Calls to individual consumers/households
Targeted Mailing to at-risk populations
Provide Materials Directly to Multi-family
Homes
Other Methods Approved by the Primacy
Agency
The primacy agency can allow activities in A.5 and A.6 to extend beyond the 60-day
requirement if needed for implementation purposes; however, this extension must be approved in
writing by the primacy agency in advance of the 60-day deadline.
B. Required Methods of Delivery for NTNCWSs
1) NTNCWSs must deliver the public education materials by posting informational
posters on lead in drinking water in a public place or common area in each of the
buildings served by the system; and distribute informational pamphlets and/or
brochures on lead in drinking water to each person served by the non-transient non-
A-2
-------
community water system. The State may allow the systems to utilize electronic
transmission in lieu of /or combined with printed materials as long as it achieves at
least the same coverage.
Organizations/Facilities/Providers for utilities to target to reach sensitive populations
A water system with a lead action level exceedance is REQUIRED to deliver brochures and/or
posters to the local offices of the required list of organizations/facilities/providers. EPA suggests
that the water system also make the information available to these
organizations/facilities/providers in a poster format. In addition, EPA encourages water systems
to deliver brochures and/or posters to as many of the list of suggested
organizations/facilities/providers as possible.
A. Required to Deliver Brochure to the Following Organizations/Facilities/Providers:
¦ Local Public Health Agencies - MUST BE DIRECT CONTACT (phone calls, face-to-face,
etc). Local public health agencies may provide specific contact list of additional community
based organizations serving targeted populations.
¦ Public/private Schools or School Boards
¦ Licensed childcare centers
¦ Pre-schools: public and private
¦ WIC/Head Starts
¦ Public/Private Hospitals and clinics
¦ Pediatricians
¦ OBGYNs/Midwives
¦ Family planning clinics
¦ Local welfare agencies
B. Recommended to Deliver Brochure to the Following Organizations/Facilities/Providers
(for inclusion in guidance):
¦ Groups which reach at risk populations - Women of child bearing age and children 6 and
under
o Maternity Programs/ Birthing Classes
o Teen parent programs
o Parents and teacher organizations
o Parent support organizations
o Women's shelters
o Family Practice, General Physicians, and Nurse Practitioners
o Institutes of higher education
o Local nonprofit health groups
¦ Groups which reach non-bill payers
o Citizen Assistance offices in City/County buildings (lobby, brochure racks)
o Health insurance providers
o Postings in outlets accepting WIC and other government funding for goods and
services,
o Low income/ HUD housing
o Community Based Organizations (soup kitchens, faith-based groups, etc.)
A-3
-------
Additional Notes to EPA:
Guidance should assist utilities to develop an integrated approach when developing a public
education program.
Wherever possible, EPA should provide a template (e.g., TV ad, etc) that can be adapted with
more specifics by utilities.
CONTENT OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION NOTICE
Your notice must include the topic areas in bold below. Anything in italics under each topic
area is required language while anything in regular text must be covered but you may use either
EPA's suggested language or your own words to cover that subject. Please note that, in your
printed materials, EPA is not requiring the use of the italic font.
Your notice MUST begin with the following opening statement (though you have the option to
include a title of the pamphlet or brochure of your choosing):
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING WATER
[Insert name of water system] found high levels of lead in drinking water in some homes. Lead
can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and children 6 years and
under. Please read this notice closely to see what you can do to reduce lead in your drinking
water.
Required Topics (NOTE: All required topic section headers - in bold italic - are
mandatory.)
1) Your notice must include the topic "Health Effects of Lead" and the exact wording in italics
below.
Health Effects of Lead
NOTE: The WGPE recommends "Health Effects of Lead" as a required topic, and that the
health effects language (to be drafted by EPA) be mandatory for this notice. The WGPE
was not able to review specific language drafted by EPA for this notice, nor did the group
draft its own consensus language. We encourage EPA to include language on vulnerable
populations (e.g. pregnant women, children 6 and under, and the elderly) in this language.
2) You must include the topic "Sources of Lead," and you must cover the following bullet
points under this topic. You may use the EPA suggested language below or modify it to meet
your local systems circumstances. For instance you do not have to mention lead service lines if
your water system does not have any in the distribution system.
Sources of Lead
What is lead?
How does lead enter the drinking water?
Where does the lead in drinking water come from? Include information on home
plumbing and service lines that may contain lead.
A-4
-------
What are other important sources of lead in addition to drinking water?
Use of the EPA suggested language below would be responsive to the required topics on lead
sources. Below is an example integrating the answers to each of the four required topics listed
above.
Lead is a common metal found in the environment. Drinking water is one possible source of lead
exposure. The main sources of lead exposure are lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust or
soil. However, lead can be in some soil, dust, and certain types of pottery, pewter, food, and
cosmetics. Other sources include exposure in the work place and exposure from certain hobbies
(lead can be carried on clothing or shoes).
[Utility should develop specific language describing condition of the community's source water
- e.g., "The source water from XX Reservoir does not contain lead" or "Smallville does not have
any lead in its sourcewater or water mains in the street."] When water is in contact with pipes,
(refer to service lines), and plumbing containing lead for several hours, the lead may enter
drinking water. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have plumbing containing lead. New
homes may also have lead: even "lead-free" plumbing may contain some lead.
EPA estimates that 10 to 20 percent of a person's potential exposure to lead may come from
drinking water. Infants who consume mostly formula mixed with lead-containing water can
receive 40 to 60 percent of their exposure to lead from drinking water.
Don't forget about other sources of lead such as lead paint, lead dust and lead in soil. Wash your
children's hands and toys often as they can come into contact with dirt and dust containing lead.
3) Your notice must include the topic "Steps you can take to reduce your exposure to lead in
your water." You need to cover the bullet points below within this section. You can cover these
bullets using your own language or the EPA language suggested below.
What should I do?
Steps you can take to reduce your exposure to lead in your water
You must include a recommendation on running the water to flush out the lead. EPA suggests
the following language:
Run your water for 15-30 seconds or until it becomes cold or reaches a steady
temperature before using it for drinking or cooking, if it hasn't been used for several
hours. This flushes lead-containing water from the pipes.
A water system may include a different flushing time in the public education
notice if there is representative data that indicate a different flushing time would
better reduce lead exposure and the State approves the wording.
Also, your system may want to consider the weather conditions in your area and
whether or not the instruction to wait until the water is cold is appropriate for your
A-5
-------
area. If it is too warm for water to turn cold, you may want to suggest a consumer
flush the water for 15-30 seconds or until it becomes a steady temperature.
You must explain concerns with using hot water and specifically caution against the use of hot
water for baby formula. EPA suggests the following language:
Do not cook with or drink water from the hot water tap; lead dissolves more easily into
hot water.
Do not use water from the hot water tap to make baby formula.
You must tell consumers that boiling water does not reduce lead levels. EPA suggests the
following language:
Do not boil your water to remove lead. Boiling water will not reduce lead.
You must discuss other options consumers can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water,
such as alternative sources or treatment of water.
You may want to consider purchasing bottled water or a water filter. Read the package to
be sure the filter is approved to reduce lead or contact NSF International at 1(800) NSF-
8010 or www.nsf.org for information on performance standards for water filters.
You must tell consumers how to get their water tested.
EPA suggests the following language:
Call us at number below to find out how to get your water tested for lead.
You might want to have a separate brochure or info on your web site with
information on sampling tap water. Does your system provide this service for free
or at a cost? Which labs are certified and do lead testing in your area? Suggest
how the testing should be done to get accurate results.
Learn about other ways to reduce your exposure - see contact information below.
You must discuss lead in plumbing fixtures. EPA suggests the following language:
New brass faucets, fittings, and valves, including those advertised as "lead-free," may
contribute lead to drinking water. The law currently allows end-use brass fixtures, such as
faucets, with up to 8% lead to be labeled as "lead free." Consumers should be aware of
this when choosing fixtures and take appropriate precautions.
Note to NDWAC: While it would be valuable to have a requirement discussing this difference
between low lead and lead free, it is not possible at this point to provide specific recommended
language. We recommend that EPA develop guidelines to help consumers choose fixtures. (See
recommendations in Section 6.4, Lead in Plumbing Fixtures.)
4) In your notice, you must discuss why lead levels are high and what is being done to reduce
them. You should discuss each of the bulleted topics below if they apply to your system's
circumstances.
What happened? What is being done?
Why are there high levels of lead in my drinking water (if known)?
A-6
-------
What are you (the water system) doing to reduce the lead levels in homes in this area?
Does your system still have lead service lines? How can a consumer find out if their
home has one? Is there a program to replace it? Any special incentives?
Your system may also want to provide information on the history of lead levels in tap
samples: have they declined substantially over time? Have they been low and risen
recently? Is there a known reason for any change?
5) Your notice must include utility contact information including a phone number and EPA
contact information in the mandatory language italicized below so a consumer can easily find
more information about lead in drinking water. In addition we recommend including the
system's website as well as the phone number and website for your primacy agency
(environmental or health department). If you have a local lead program, include their contact
information as well.
For more information
Call us at [INSERTNUMBER,\. For more information on reducing lead exposure around
your home and the health effects of lead, visit EPA's website at www. epa. sov/lead, call
the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD, or contact your health care
provider.
You must include the name of your system and the date that the info is being distributed, along
with the state water system ID, somewhere on the notice.
This notice is being sent to you by [system]. State Water System ID#: . Date
distributed:
To be added (as guidance):
Section on Suggested Layout of Brochure. One idea was that utilities use graphics which
reinforce the message to catch the attention of households with individuals particularly
vulnerable to lead, such as pregnant women, infants, children, or the elderly.
A-7
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Information Recommended for Inclusion in Consumer Confidence Report
Condition 1: Systems that Exceed the Action Level (10% or More of Compliance
Monitoring Samples Above Action Level of 15 ppb).
In addition to LCR public education and public notification requirements, items 1-7 must be
addressed. (Items 2-7 are currently required under the CCR. Item 1 is modified.) The CCR must:
1. Include a short informational statement about lead in drinking water:
"Our system exceeded the lead action level. It is possible that there may be high lead levels
in your home as a result of materials in your home plumbing. Lead can cause serious health
problems, especially for pregnant women and children 6 and under. If you are concerned
about high lead levels in your home's water, run your water for 15-30 seconds or until it
becomes cold [or reaches a steady temperature]1, and have your water tested. Additional
information is available from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD."
OR a utility may write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with the
Primacy Agency.
2. Be distributed annually to all customers.
3. Include lead 90th percentile result for the most recent round of sampling, [not intended to
change other CCR reporting requirements]
4. Identify exceedance in table.
5. Include the number of locations that exceeded the lead action level.
6. Define the action level.2 (see footnote for proposed definition)
7. Identify sources of lead.
1 Able to tailor to local circumstances.
2 NOTE: The WGPE recommends that the definition of "action level," a required component of the CCR, be
changed to be more understandable to the public. The intent of the draft definition, below, is to explain that action
levels are a trigger for action and are not intended to be directly related to a specific health outcome. The WGPE
recommends that EPA create a definition with this intent in mind, though they recognize that the agency may choose
to modify the following language:
"An action level is a concentration of a contaminant which if exceeded triggers treatment or other
requirements which a water system must follow. An action level is a trigger for action and is not
intended to indicate an adverse health level."
B-l
-------
Condition 2: Systems that Do Not Exceed the Action Level but have Any Observed
Compliance Monitoring Samples above the Detection Level (1 ppb)3
Items 1-6 must be addressed. (Items 2-6 are currently required under the CCR. Item 1 is
modified.) The CCR must:
1. Include a short informational statement about lead in drinking water:
"While our system did not exceed the lead action level as shown in the table, it is possible
that there may be high lead levels in your home as a result of materials in your home
plumbing. Lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and
children 6 and under. If you are concerned about high lead levels in your home's water, run
your water for 15-30 seconds or until it becomes cold [or reaches a steady temperature]4,
and have your water tested. Additional information is available from the National Lead
Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD."
OR a utility may write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with the
Primacy Agency.
2. Be distributed annually to all customers.
3. Include lead 90th percentile result for the most recent round of sampling.
4. Include the number of locations that exceeded the lead action level.
5. Define the action level.
6. Identify sources of lead.
3 For Condition 2, the WGPE is recommending modified language for those systems over the action level and for
those systems with over 5% of samples above the action level and new language for all other systems detecting lead.
4 Able to tailor to local circumstances.
B-2
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Working with the Media
The WGPE proposes that EPA provide utilities with guidance on working with the media
to communicate with the public. Examples include:
Normal Operating Procedures
1. Designate a spokesperson that has been trained in media relations.
2. Identify spokespeople in the community.
3. Establish media and communication protocols. All media inquiries should be
directed to the spokesperson.
4. Develop and maintain a relationship with the local media (print and television and
radio).
a. Meet with local editors of both small and large publications and discuss
your mission and goals and brief them on water issues in your area.
b. Meet with reporters who are handling water, health or environmental
issues.
c. Meet with local radio and television/cable news producers.
d. Invite the media to your utility for a tour (if appropriate to your utility's
policy).
e. Give positive feedback. When the media "gets it right" tell them!
f. Talk regularly with the media - don't wait until a crisis.
5. Develop and maintain relationships with the local/state public health agency.
Crisis Management
1. Designate a spokesperson that has been trained in media relations.
2. Develop messages in coordination with primacy and public health agencies.
a. The message should tell the consumer what the problem is and what they
can do about it.
3. Be transparent
4. Control the message by being proactive, not reactive.
5. Create a timely, comprehensive and honest press release and brief the press.
6. Talk to the media on a regular basis during the crisis.
a. Provide current, accurate information
b. Provide alternative sources (public health agencies, scientific sources, ...)
c. Develop a list of experts to go to in times of crisis.
d. Don't use jargon.
e. Don't get mad.
f. Never say "no comment."
g. Never say "no," "not," "never," "nothing," "none."
h. Anticipate questions. Know the answers. Know what you want to say
ahead of time.
C-l
-------
7. Your message should be updated on a regular basis (this is dictated by the
situation - it could be hourly, daily).
8. Evaluate your efforts after the crisis is over.
C-2
-------
ATTACHMENT D
Example Flowcharts to Assist Small Systems
(This is meant as an example of what the WGPE recommends EPA provide as part of their revised
guidance to small systems. In its flowcharts, EPA should distinguish between steps which are mandatory
and those which are guidance.)
Small Systems AL Exceedence Communications Strategy
Friday. March 24. 2008
WCTlON LEVEL EXCEECENCE
TRIGGERING PUBLIC EDUCATION
TE NOTIFIES PUBLIC WA
SURREY OPERATOR OF LEAD
AL EXCEEDANCE
tStaKS Specific I
DAY 1
WATER SUPPLY OPER
NOTIFIES THE STATE OF LEAD
AL EXCEEDANCE
I Slate Specific*
DAY 1
~PB1AT0R NOTIFIES BOARD
wua. water district or
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR SYSTEM
0W»R
UMMEDlATELY*
SYSTEM OPERATOR. SYSTEM OWNER
STATE PRIMACY AGENCY' AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER
QISOUSS A PLAN OF ACTION FOR
PUBLIC EDUCATION
(FIRST 15-30 DAYSI
(UJ'LN'R-AN FUR
SYSTEMS < 3300 IN
POPULATION!
IMPLEMENT
A
REFERENCE NUMBERS IN
TRIANGLES FOR
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO
FULFILL REQUIREMENTS
DOCUMENTATION TO
PRIMACY Of PUBLIC
EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
ARE MET
(^0 DAYS)
PUBLIC EDUCATION
PUBLIC EDUCATiON ACTION PLAN IS
IMPLEMENTED BY THE SMALL PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEM WTHIN 60 DAYS OF THE
EXCEEDENCE
Page i
D-l
-------
(Instructions on the following page refer to numbered triangles on page 1, above.) Instructions
should distinguish between required and suggested steps and should be consistent with the
regulation.
1. Your recent round of lead testing results has been analyzed and calculated using the 90th
percentile and are in exceedance of the Action Level.
2. If your state computes the 90th percentile, then they will notify the system upon discovering
the exceedance. If your water system is responsible for computing the 90th percentile, you
must notify the state regulatory authority that your recent round of lead samples is in
exceedance of the lead action level.
3. The operator or person in charge is responsible for notifying the decision maker (owner or
president of the system) by phone or in person of the exceedance upon notice by the primacy
agency or calculating all sample results for the 90th percentile.
4. The system operator or responsible person in charge should consult with the owner or board
president, the state primacy agency, and or their technical assistance provider for assistance
in implementing an effective education program.
5. A plan of action or effective public education program should be decided upon in
consultation with the primacy agency and system owner or board president. A spokesperson
or contact person for the community should also be appointed to answer any questions that
may arise from a lead exceedance situation.
6. An effective public education action plan must be implemented within 60 days of the
exceedance. It should include three categories of requirements. These are:
1. Providing public education information on lead
2. Offering water testing to the people you serve, if requested
3. Providing documentation to the state that shows you met your public education
requirements.
An effective plan should also include
1. Who is the designated spokesperson?
2. Who will be in contact with the primacy agency?
3. Who will be notified of the exceedance?
a. Required
i. At Risk Groups
b. Additional Outreach
4. How will you notify the consumer?
a. Door to Door
b. Separate mailed brochure or template
c. Monthly bill
d. Newspaper Notice
5. Who will do consumer sampling if requested?
6. What lab should they be sent to?
7. What alternatives will you recommend to the consumer temporarily?
a. Bottled Water
b. Flushing methods
c. Lead Filters
D-2
-------
Below are additional flow charts of the three categories of requirements for an effective
communications plan to simplify the process.
SMALL SYSTEMS ACTION PLAN <3300
[PUBLIC EDUCATION]
GROUP OR TASK f
MADE UP OF OPERATOR. BOARD
MEMBER OR SYSTEM OWNER
PRIMACY AGENCY ANCHOR
CHMCAL ASSISTANCE PROW
REQUWEO
LANGUAGE AND
OUTREACH OF A
PUBLIC EDUCATION
PROGRAM
ADDITIONAL
OUTREACH EFFORTS
[ENCOURAGED]
EXHIBIT B
Ui" vhR-
CONTACTS
MEDIA
METHODS
nitfnmtiiYffln
EXAMPLES
1) TOWN KALL MEETING
2\ CUSTOMER
2) LOCAL PUBLIC
HEALTH AGENCY
31- SCHOOLSflDAY CAM
2) DOOR TO DOOR
3) MAIL TO EACH
CUSTOMER
4> CALL EACH CUSTOMER
5) NEWSPAPER NOTICE
[SOME METHODS MAY BE
WAIVED BY YOUR PRIMACY
AGgHICYl
\ J TEMPLATE'BROCHURE - EXHIBIT A
2) PSA'S - EXHIST A - I
3) posters exhbit Ar2
D-3
-------
^MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PWMACYN
AGENCY BY mO OF THE CALENDAR YEAH
THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION IS DELIVERED
s. (DECEMBER 31 OF CURRENT YE>tft| ^
MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC
EDUCATION
DISTRIBUTION UST
MUST SEND
CERTIFICATION THAT
CONTENT WD
DELJVERY
REQUIREMENTS WERE
MET AS PART Of
DOCUMENTATiDiN
LETTER OF DOCUMENTATlON TO
THE PRIMACY AGENCY WHEN
PUBUC EDUCATION PROGRAM IS
IMPLEMENTED
MUST SUBM T WRITTEN
DOCUMENTATION TO PRIW\CY
AGENCY THAT PUBLIC
EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
HAVE BEEN MET
[ WITHIN TODAYS OF THE END
OP EACH PERIOD IN WHICH
PUBLIC EDUCATION TASKS
WERE REQUIREDI
ACTION PLAN FOR SMALL SYSTEMS <3300
[DOCUMENTATION]
D-4
------- |