Regulating Lead in Drinking Water: Issues and Developments

Regulating Lead in Drinking Water: Issues and Developments

Updated January 11, 2018
Regulating Lead in Drinking Water: Issues and Developments
Introduction
State Funding
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the U.S.
States receive annual grants from EPA to defray some
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate
PWSS program administration costs. (SDWA §1443(a); 42
contaminants in public water supplies. EPA regulates lead
U.S.C. §300j-2(a)). The grants are used primarily to pay
specifically through the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR;
agency salaries. States have sought more funding, noting an
40 C.F.R. Part 141 Subpart I). In the wake of detections of
annual funding gap of more than $300 million, the growing
elevated lead levels in tap water in Flint, Michigan, and
complexity of SDWA requirements, and the challenges of
elsewhere, questions emerged regarding (1) the adequacy of
assisting numerous (mostly small) water systems. Congress
SDWA authorities, and (2) the effectiveness of the LCR in
appropriated $101.8 million for PWSS grants for FY2017.
limiting lead exposures and protecting public health.
The President requested $71.2 million for FY2018.
Regulatory issues associated with the LCR include (1)
Lead and Copper Rule
monitoring protocols, (2) public notification and reporting
The 1991 LCR (56 Federal Register 26460) is intended to
requirements, (3) corrosion control to prevent lead in
protect public health by limiting levels of these metals in
plumbing materials from leaching into water, (4) lead
drinking water, primarily by reducing water corrosivity.
service line (LSL) replacement practices and costs, and (5)
This rule replaced a lead standard of 50 micrograms per
overall implementation and enforcement of the rule. EPA is
liter (µg/L, or parts per billion) that was measured at the
working to update the LCR to address these and other
water utility but not at the tap. The LCR does not include a
issues and respond to scientific and technological
health-based standard (i.e., maximum contaminant level
advancements—including improved corrosion control
[MCL]) as is often the case for NPWDRs. Instead, the rule
practices and improved understanding of the health effects
established a treatment technique that includes (1) corrosion
of low-level lead exposures. The agency announced plans
control treatment, (2) source water treatment, (3) LSL
to propose comprehensive revisions in August 2018.
replacement, and (4) public education. When developing
the rule, EPA determined that using an MCL at the tap (or
Broader SDWA issues concern (1) the adequacy of state
treatment plant) was not feasible, as lead levels are often
agency resources to oversee the nation’s 151,000 public
influenced by factors beyond the control of the water utility.
water systems and ensure compliance with EPA rules, (2)
the financial and technical capacity of systems—
As with other SDWA regulations, federal, state, and often
particularly smaller and lower-income communities—to
local levels of government have responsibilities and roles
comply with SDWA requirements, and (3) funding needed
under the LCR. The role of public water systems (most are
to upgrade and replace aging drinking water infrastructure.
publicly owned) broadly includes tap water monitoring,
reporting to the state, corrosion treatment, water quality
SDWA Implementation
parameter monitoring, public notification, and lead service
Implementation of the LCR emerged as an issue in Flint
line replacement (as needed). Further, water system
and raised questions regarding federal and state roles under
operators must deliver annual water quality compliance
the SDWA. Generally, the act is administered jointly by
reports to customers that include lead education
EPA and the states. Among other duties, EPA promulgates
information. The state’s role broadly includes providing
national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) that
technical assistance, setting water quality parameter
establish standards or treatment techniques to control
monitoring requirements, overseeing each water system’s
drinking water contaminants. Public water systems, both
corrosion control treatment and LCR compliance, and
publicly and privately owned, must comply with the
reporting to EPA. EPA provides technical assistance and
regulations (SDWA §1412; 42 U.S.C. §300g-1).
regulatory guidance to system operators and states, oversees
state implementation of the rule, and retains ultimate
States generally have primary responsibility (“primacy”) for
enforcement responsibilities.
enforcement and oversight of public water systems and
administration of the Public Water System Supervision
The LCR includes an “action level” of 15 ppb for lead (and
(PWSS) program (SDWA §1413; 42 U.S.C. §300g-2).
1,300 ppb for copper), based on the 90th percentile level of
Primacy states or tribes adopt and enforce regulations at
tap water samples. Unlike an MCL, an action level is not a
least as stringent as EPA rules, provide technical assistance
health-based standard but, rather, a screening tool for
to public water systems, conduct inspections of systems,
determining whether treatment technique actions are
maintain records and compliance data, report to EPA, etc.
required. The lead action level is based on the practical
All states (except Wyoming and the District of Columbia)
feasibility of reducing lead through controlling corrosion.
and territories and Navajo Nation have primacy. EPA
An exceedance of the action level is not a violation of the
directly oversees public water systems in non-primacy areas
rule but can trigger other requirements. A water system
and retains oversight of primacy states.
violates the LCR if it does not take the triggered actions.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Regulating Lead in Drinking Water: Issues and Developments
Public Water System Requirements
issued short-term clarifications and revisions to the LCR.
The LCR generally requires water system operators to
The agency plans to promulgate comprehensive Long Term
obtain results from properly sampled taps at homes or
Revisions to the LCR (LTR LCR) in early 2020.
buildings at high risk of lead contamination (i.e., with
known LSLs or lead plumbing) if sufficient sites can be
NDWAC LCR Working Group Recommendations
identified (40 C.F.R. 141.86(b)). Sampling results must be
In December 2015, EPA’s National Drinking Water
provided to water users at tested sites. If more than 10% of
Advisory Council (NDWAC) approved its working group’s
samples collected during a monitoring period exceed the
extensive set of recommendations for the LTR LCR and
action level, a water system must take specified actions that
presented them to EPA (Report of the Lead and Copper
depend upon the system’s size and corrosion control
Rule Working Group to the National Drinking Water
treatment status. These actions are outlined briefly below.
Advisory Council). Among other recommendations, the
NDWAC urged EPA to revise the rule to (1) establish a
 Water systems serving fewer than 50,000 persons are
proactive LSL replacement program and encourage water
considered to have optimal corrosion control if their 90th
systems to include such costs in their capital improvement
percentile sample level is below the action level. If
programs; (2) strengthen public education requirements; (3)
monitoring results indicate the 90th percentile for lead
strengthen corrosion control requirements to include review
(or copper) to be above the action level, such water
of updated EPA guidance; (4) modify monitoring
systems must undertake:
requirements to provide for consumer requested samples

and to use samples to inform consumer actions, inform
Water quality parameter monitoring,
health agencies, and review corrosion control; (5) establish
 Corrosion control treatment optimization, and
a health-based household action level that triggers a report
 Source water monitoring.
to the consumer and local health agency; (6) increase water
 Water systems serving 50,000 or more people are
quality parameter monitoring; and (7) establish appropriate
required to maintain optimized corrosion control (as
compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
compared to smaller systems that are initially deemed to
have corrosion control). If these systems (or smaller
The NDWAC cautioned that a revised LCR is not sufficient
systems that have already optimized corrosion control
to address lead in drinking water risks. The report identifies
shared responsibilities among federal, state, and local
treatment) exceed the action level, then the following
governments, utilities, and consumers. The NDWAC urged
actions are required:

EPA—in cooperation with other federal agencies—to lead a
Public education, and
national effort to reduce lead in drinking water.
 Lead service line replacement.
The LCR requires systems that have installed corrosion
Recent Developments
control treatment to continue to maintain corrosion control
In 2016, EPA increased oversight of state implementation
treatment and meet water quality parameters set by the
of the LCR. Among other actions, EPA sent letters to the
state. Failure to meet these water quality parameters is a
states requesting them to improve transparency and public
violation of the rule. The LCR also requires that, if a system
information regarding the rule’s implementation and to
plans to change the source or treatment of its water, the
ensure proper implementation. EPA urged states to place
water supplier must notify the state in advance to evaluate
sampling protocols on their websites, work with water
the impact of the proposed change on corrosion control.
systems to place information on LSL locations and
sampling results on websites, improve LSL inventories, and
Maintaining corrosion control to limit lead from leaching
generally implement best practices to protect public health.
into drinking water from water distribution system
EPA also issued a white paper on LCR revisions examining
components and premise plumbing is a complex task—
regulatory options and issues. EPA is currently seeking
made more complex by changes in water chemistry, newer
further input from states, local governments, and others on
NPDWRs, and other factors. The American Water Works
options for LCR revisions. (For more information, see
Association (AWWA), representing drinking water utilities
https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/lead-and-
and professionals, notes, “Since the promulgation of the
copper-rule-long-term-revisions.)
Lead and Copper Rule, and the initial optimization of
corrosion control, systems have faced the ongoing
The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act;
challenge of continuing to maintain optimal corrosion
P.L. 114-322; December 16, 2016) added several provisions
control while making necessary adjustments to treatment
to SDWA to address lead in drinking water, including
processes or system operations unrelated to corrosion
requiring 24-hour public notification of water system lead
control to comply with other NPDWRs. Determining
action level exceedances. (For further information, see CRS
whether treatment is optimized can be challenging.” (See
Report RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A
AWWA, Optimized Corrosion Control Treatment Primer.)
Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements, by Mary
Tiemann.)
LCR Review and Revision
Given advancements in health research, water treatment,
Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy
and corrosion management, EPA has been working with
advisors and stakeholders to revise the rule. In 2004, EPA
IF10446
initiated an extensive review of the LCR after increases in
lead levels were widely detected in District of Columbia tap
water following a change in water treatment. In 2007, EPA
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Regulating Lead in Drinking Water: Issues and Developments

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10446 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED