Final Recommendations

of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group 

To the National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council

November 18, 2015
Introduction

• EPA identified key issues of the Lead & Copper Rule (LCR) 

that would benefit from input from stakeholders

• LCR Working Group (LCRWG) was formed under the 

auspice of National Drinking Water Advisory Council 

(NDWAC)

• 15 working group members, with representation from:

– State regulators

– Local health departments

– Drinking water utilities (small/large systems; public/private)

– Public interest groups (community, children’s health, national NGOs)

– NDWAC members

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

2
LCRWG Process

• Technical presentations on state of the science:

– Corrosion control

– Sample site selection

– Lead sampling protocol

– Copper public education

– Lead service line replacement

• Seven, two-day, in-person meetings; a webinar up-date 

with the NDWAC; and a dozen small group calls to discuss 

issues, develop recommendations and prepare report

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

3
4

Background

• LCR is a treatment technique rule

– Rule is not based on maximum contaminant levels but instead 

requires PWS to take actions to minimize exposure to public

– Large systems required to reduce corrosivity of water and water 

quality parameter (WQP) monitoring (PWS > 50,000 pop.)

• If lead action level (AL) is exceeded, the following actions 

are triggered:

– Conduct public education

– Implement source water monitoring and if needed treatment 

– Install or optimize corrosion control treatment (CCT) (for PWS 

<50,000)

– Implement Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR), if corrosion 

control does not reduce lead and copper levels below the ALs

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA
Considerations in Preparing the Report 

(Section 2.1, pp 6-7)

• There is no safe level of lead. Lead-bearing plumbing 

materials in contact with drinking water may pose a risk at 

all times, not just when AL is exceeded. 

• Proactive action to remove lead materials from contact 

with drinking water is needed.

• Source is in the service lines and in homes. Thus, 

elimination of lead materials is a shared responsibility. 

– PWSs, consumers, property owners and public health community 

all play important roles.

– A holistic effort is required with cross-sector stakeholder 

partnerships, and creative financing are needed to remove the 

sources of lead

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

5
Considerations in Preparing the Report

(Section 2.1, pp 6-7)

• The LCR should remain a treatment technique rule.

• The issues associated with lead and copper are different. 

• CCT is complex, dynamic, and varies w/system conditions.

– Better understanding of the science (and the complexities)

– Attention to unintended consequences is important. 

• Attention to what systems can implement and States are 

able to oversee and enforce also is important. 

• PWS and state resources should be focused on actions 

that achieve the greatest health protection.

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

6
Overview of Recommended Revised Lead and Copper Rule Framework

Note: Compliance steps are embedded throughout the framework
8

Overview of Recommendations 

(Section 3, pp 10-11)

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

• The LCRWG’s proposed improvements to the LCR make 

some fundamental changes: – Proactive approach to actions previously triggered by lead action level exceedance

• All systems work with customers to remove LSLs

• Stronger public education requirements for all systems

– Establish a household action level; results to health dept. if exceeded

– Separate requirements for copper; focus on systems w/ aggressive water

• Improvements to CCT and monitoring

• Complementary critical actions

• LCRWG conclusion: Taken as a whole, this will achieve 

more public health protection than the current rule
Complementary Critical Actions 

(Section 4, pp 40-42)

• Revisions to LCR are important but not sufficient.

• EPA can take a leadership role in a national effort with 

other partners to reduce lead in drinking water that 

includes, but is not limited to:

– EPA working across all offices and with other federal agencies on 

integrated approach to action and education (HUD, CDC)

– State and local policies to support LSLR and to assist customers 

(e.g. inspection/disclosure on sale of homes, building code 

requirements upon substantial renovation, priority in SRF funding)

– Enhanced cooperation among state and local health departments 

on childhood lead poisoning, screening and prevention that 

includes a focus on drinking water as a source

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

9
Complementary Critical Actions

(Section 4, pp 40-42)

• Critical to a national effort to reduce lead in drinking 

water includes: [continued]

– EPA/CDC and PWS efforts to educate healthcare providers and 

health departments about health threats due to exposure of lead 

in drinking water

– Financial assistance programs for low-income customers

– Engaging experts in community-based risk communication to 

improve PE approaches

– Additional research on CCT, tap flushing, defining water 

aggressive to copper, etc.

– National clearinghouse of best practices as a resource both for 

the public and for small systems (templates)

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

10
Find and Remove LSLs as Long-term Goal
Lead Service Line Replacement Background

(Section 3.1, pp 13-14)

• Under the current LCR:

– LSL replacement triggered by a lead action level 

exceedance

– Action is required in a short time frame; results in 

many partial lead service line replacements (PLSLR)

– The replacement requirement stops with two 

consecutive rounds of sampling being under the AL

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

12
Lead Service Line Replacement Background

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

13
Lead Service Line Replacement Background

(Section 3.1, pp 13-14)

• Science Advisory Board evaluation of effectiveness of 

PLSLRs concluded:

– PLSLR does not reliably reduce lead in the short-term

– PLSLR often associated with short-term elevated 

drinking water lead levels for some period of time

– Full LSLR appears in general to effectively and reliably 

achieve long-term reduction of lead levels in drinking 

water

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

14
Proactive Lead Service Line Replacement 

(Section 3.1.2, pp 16-18) 

• All systems should establish LSLR programs, which set 

replacement goals, engage customers in 

implementing those goals, and provide improved 

access to information 

• Recommended framework:

– Assume lines are lead if prior to a certain date, unless PWS 

can demonstrate otherwise (incentive for accurate 

inventory)

– Targeted outreach to customers with LSLs

– No penalty for customer refusal; no credit for partial LSLR

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

15
Proactive Lead Service Line Replacement 

(Section 3.1.2, pp 16-18) 

• Recommended framework continued:

– Interim replacement milestones (3 year reporting); credit 

for lines determined not to be lead; increasing actions if 

milestones are not met (see Appendix Tables 1 and 2)

– Failure to meet target is not a violation; failure to increase 

actions is

– SOPs for planned maintenance, emergency repairs, etc. 

(EPA guidance/templates for small and medium systems.) 

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

16
Proactive Lead Service Line Replacement

• Benefits:

– Primary source of lead in contact with drinking water will be 

largely removed over time

– Reduced public health risk and costs of corrosion control 

treatment

– Improved process for planning and replacing LSLs (e.g. can include 

in capital improvement programs)

– Improved awareness of location of LSLs and PLSLs

– Improved communication with consumers and public health 

partners about the risks of lead in drinking water

– Reduced risk/consequences from treatment upsets or source 

water changes

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

17
Public Education is a Cornerstone
Stronger Public Education Requirements

(Section 3.2, pp 19-21)

• Customers and PWSs share responsibility for reducing 

exposure to lead; therefore, public education (PE) and 

customer outreach is critical

• Should convey, among other information:

– The risk of lead in drinking water and the likelihood that water in 

one’s home contains lead

– Importance of LSL replacement

– Shared responsibility nature of the LCR

– Availability of additional information on measures to minimize 

exposure through the National Clearinghouse (flushing, POU)

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

19
Stronger Public Education Requirements

• LCRWG recommends EPA establish a national lead 

information clearinghouse (3.2.1, pp 21-23) and include 

the following LCR revisions:

– New customer outreach and targeted outreach to consumers 

with LSLs and vulnerable populations (3.2.2, p 23)

– Revise the current CCR language to address LSLs and update 

health statements (3.2.3, pp 23-24)

– Add requirements for public access to information (e.g. 

household action level, water quality parameters, LSLR program, 

etc.) and better access to monitoring info through SDWIS Prime 

(3.2.4, pp 24-25)

– Outreach to public health partners (3.2.5, pp 26-28)

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

20
Stronger Public Education Requirements

• National lead information clearinghouse: (Section 3.2.1, 

pp 21-23)

– Consult stakeholders and experts in community-based risk 

communication for best methods

– Health risks and sources of lead exposure in drinking water 

(vulnerable populations, no level of lead is safe)

– How to have your water tested, blood lead level (BLL) tested and 

limitations to both

– Specific information for homes with LSLs

– PE (and other) templates for PWS use (to provide guidance on 

best practices and reduce burden)

– And more...

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

21
Stronger Public Education Requirements

• CCR revision recommendations: (Section 3.2.3, pp 23-24)

– Update public health statements to reflect current 

understandings and science

– Clarification that CWS compliance with federal regulations is not 

an indication of individual household lead levels

– The role of the public to protect themselves from lead exposure

– Link CCR and national clearinghouse website

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

22
Corrosion Control Treatment is Retained
Improve Corrosion Control Treatment

(Section 3.3.1, pp 29-30)

• LCRWG recommends:

– EPA release a revised CCT guidance manual and update regularly to 

reflect new science

– EPA provide increased assistance to PWSs and primacy agencies

– PWS review of updates to guidance to determine if CCT is based on 

best science

– CCT reassessment when PWS changes treatment or source

– Better use of water quality parameters (WQPs) for process control

– More rigorous data review, control charts, process controls

– PWSs not practicing CCT demonstrate water quality characteristics 

remain in place

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

24
Copper Control Program

Lead Service 

Line 

Replacement 

Program

Corrosion 

Control 

Treatment 

needed?

Is water corrosive?

Change such 

that water is not 

corrosive

Public Education

Do Lead Service 

Lines Exist?

Water 

Quality 

Parameter 

Monitoring

Maintain Water 

Quality 

Conditions

Lead Control Program

Yes No

Yes

No

Yes

Customer 

Requested 

Tap 

Sampling

Maintain Water 

Quality Conditions

Maintain Water Quality Monitoring

Change 

Treatment 

or Source

Provide Public Education Information and 

Consumer Confidence Report

&

Provide Information in Consumer 

Confidence Report

No Yes

Change 

Treatment or 

Source

No

HAL 

Exceeded?

SAL 

Exceeded?

Contact 

Health 

Agency 

and Report 

to 

Customer

Report to 

Customer 

and to 

State

Report to 

Customer 

and to 

State and 

Evaluate 

CCT and 

other 

Conditions

Yes No No Yes

Sampling: Continuous & Customer Initiated
Modify Tap Sampling Requirements

• Currently PWSs conduct tap sampling for lead, with 

sample site selection tiers and first draw sampling 

protocol. If the AL is exceeded, small/med systems 

triggered to CCT and all systems must do PE and LSLR until 

results are under the AL for two monitoring periods

• Issues with current approach:

– Sampling protocol may not capture the highest lead levels (not from 

LSL, inconsistent sampling from customers, variability among 

properties, etc.)

– Recruitment is difficult and labor intensive

– Sampling is infrequent and in relatively few homes

– Implications for CCT are complicated

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

26
Modify Tap Sampling Requirements

(Section 3.4, pp 30-31)

• Voluntary customer initiated tap sampling (with PE 

encouraging sampling) to provide customers with 

information and PWS’s with data to identify and correct 

unanticipated problems

– Targeted outreach to customers with LSLs and vulnerable 

populations; available to any customer

• Tap sampling results will be used to:

– Inform and empower individual households to reduce risk

– Report to health officials when monitoring exceeds a “household 

action level”

– Evaluate effectiveness of CCT and guide reassessment

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

27
Assessing the Effectiveness of CCT

(Section 3.4.2, pp 33)

• Tap samples would be reported to primacy agency on a routine bases, 

and include information on sampling protocols used

• The PWS should maintain the data for review to identify trends and 

changes; data would be available for public review

• Data to be reviewed during sanitary surveys

• Annually, at the request of the primacy agency, the PWS would 

provide a report which includes the three most current years of data

• If the 90th percentile of the three years of data exceeds the “System 

Action Level” then the PWS must assess the cause and potentially reevaluate CCT or take other actions prescribed by the primacy agency

• Source water and treatment changes would necessitate a review of 

the tap sampling data in consultation with the primacy agency

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

28
Water Quality Monitoring is Expanded
WQP Monitoring Requirements

(Section 3.4.1, p 31)

• Tailor WQPs based on the individual PWS’s CCT plan, 

increase the frequency of WQP monitoring for process 

control, and ensure sites are representative of the 

distribution system (DS)

• EPA should review and consider adding to the list of WQPs 

in the LCR based on new science 

– The new information would be disseminated through EPA’s CCT 

guidance manual

• WQP data should support a more rigorous review process 

such as control charting and other techniques to fine tune 

operations, reduce variability in DS and detect excursions

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

30
Copper Control Program

Lead Service 

Line 

Replacement 

Program

Corrosion 

Control 

Treatment 

needed?

Is water corrosive?

Change such 

that water is not 

corrosive

Public Education

Do Lead Service 

Lines Exist?

Water 

Quality 

Parameter 

Monitoring

Maintain Water 

Quality 

Conditions

Lead Control Program

Yes No

Yes

No

Yes

Customer 

Requested 

Tap 

Sampling

Maintain Water 

Quality Conditions

Maintain Water Quality Monitoring

Change 

Treatment 

or Source

Provide Public Education Information and 

Consumer Confidence Report

&

Provide Information in Consumer 

Confidence Report

No Yes

Change 

Treatment or 

Source

No

HAL 

Exceeded?

SAL 

Exceeded?

Contact 

Health 

Agency 

and Report 

to 

Customer

Report to 

Customer 

and to 

State

Report to 

Customer 

and to 

State and 

Evaluate 

CCT and 

other 

Conditions

Yes No No Yes

Household Action Level
Establish a Household Action Level 

(Section 3.5, pp 36-37)

• Current lead action level (“system action level”) is based 

on 90th percentile of collected tap samples

• Household action level would be based on lead 

concentration necessary to elevate BLL ≥ 5 μg/dL in a 

healthy, formula fed infant

– Based on CDC level of concern

• PWS to notify local health department when result of tap 

sampling is greater than household action level – health 

department to take action it deems best

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

32
Separate Copper Requirements
Separate Requirements for Copper 

(Section 3.6.1, pp 38-39)

• Actions should be based on aggressiveness of water to 

copper not routine in-home monitoring

• EPA should develop criteria to define water that is not 

aggressive to copper for purposes of the LCR

• PWSs can choose among options to demonstrate water is 

not aggressive to copper:

– WQP monitoring

– One-time evaluation with tap sampling for copper at homes with 

new copper

– Pipe loop study

– CCT to change water chemistry

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

34
Separate Requirements for Copper

(Section 3.6.1, pp 38-39)

• For non-aggressive waters, continue to demonstrate that water 

is not aggressive to copper

• For systems with water aggressive to copper, initiate and 

maintain a PE program to inform:

– Owners of new homes at initiation of service; and 

– Owners of renovated homes or to all customers routinely

• EPA should consider whether and under what circumstances 

CCT should be required (LCRWG assumes this would be a 

limited set of circumstances, but option should exist)

• Long-term treatment or source water changes may result in a 

demonstration of continued non-aggressiveness of water 

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker on behalf of the LCR work group and 

do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA

35