Summary of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule From a Perspective Using Process Research ...

136 Pages·2015·9.47 MB·English

608-233-3911
P.O. Box 5593
Madison, WI 53705
www.processresearch.net
[email protected]

Summary of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule
From a Perspective Using Process Research Solutions’ Water System Data
December 3, 2015

This is a summary of the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), part of the Primary
Safe Drinking Water Regulations, as approved by the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC), a stakeholder group advising the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on the scheduled review and re-writing of the regulation. This summary
also includes a perspective gleaned from over a decade of water system data collection
by Process Research Solutions, LLC of Madison, Wisconsin.
The documents collected in this ‘pdf’ file include:
 A letter from Process Research Solutions to the NDWAC LCR sub-committee
 A summary of NDWAC proposals
 The 2014 WQTC presentation explaining issues with the NDWAC sub-committee
proposals
 The 2015 WQTC presentation describing research to determine if lead and
copper can be controlled by accounting for the complexities of lead and copper
release and without the use of phosphate
 NDWAC Final Report on the Lead and Copper Rule
Drafting effective drinking water regulations is not an easy task. The NDWAC sub-
committee has made a number of good recommendations for revising the LCR. Major
issues arise with their recommendations solely from the definition of “corrosivity of
water”. NDWAC has based the definition of corrosivity on a theoretical thermodynamic
model of the role that carbonate chemistry plays in the electrochemical mechanism of
metal release from surfaces into water called “uniform corrosion”. Data from Process
Research Solutions investigations of municipal water distribution systems and private
premise plumbing systems show that other mechanisms of metal release and transport
are as significant or more significant than carbonate-based uniform corrosion chemistry.
These mechanisms are:
1. Accumulation and transport of lead and copper on existing chemical scales from
pipe walls in the water system.
2. Microbiologically influenced corrosion
3. Chloride and sulfate-based uniform corrosion chemistry
When these mechanisms are considered, the LCR requirements must be changed or
else many water systems will be sent down the wrong path to remediating lead and
copper issues. We have already seen how these misunderstandings lead to major
public health threats as exemplified by the 2002 Washington, DC and the 2015 Flint,
Michigan lead compliance issues. We have an opportunity to prevent these threats in
the future, if all mechanisms of lead and copper release are acknowledged in the
revised Lead and Copper Rule.
Abigail Cantor, P.E. of Process Research Solutions has participated since 2002 on a
national level to contribute this understanding of lead and copper release. She was
included on a 2002 EPA expert panel to explain the issues with the existing LCR and
has been participating since that time on the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) Lead and Copper Rule Task Advisory Workgroup. While she has not had time
to publish peer-reviewed papers using the water system data, she has spent time
outside of her engineering projects to participate on these national committees, to
almost annually present related information at the AWWA Water Quality and
Technology Conference, to participate as a co-author of the AWWA M-58 Standard of
Practice Manual on Internal Corrosion for both the 1st and 2nd editions, and to participate
in or manage four Water Research Foundation research projects on the subject. The
Process Research Solutions water system data have been summarized in all of these
venues for over a decade. Nevertheless, the information has been ignored for the most
part and the AWWA-sanctioned perspective of lead and copper release continues to be
overly-simplistic.
When the AWWA perspective is questioned, the response is: We can’t introduce such
complexities into a regulation.
This attitude is reminiscent of an old Bazooka Joe bubble gum comic where one
character is looking for his keys in one room when he knows that the keys were lost in
an entirely different location. “Why are you looking in this room then?” asks Bazooka
Joe. “The light is better here,” is the reply.
(Evidently, this is a joke that has been featured in many comic strips and newspapers
over the years as seen in the Mutt and Jeff comic below.
In addition, this joke has been used over and over as an allegory for biased scientific
inquiry and logic -- http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/11/better-light/.)
It is time to revisit the definition of corrosivity of water and find a way to introduce these
complexities effectively into the new LCR.
The following documents explain the issue in more detail. The NDWAC proposal is
included as the final document in this file.
608-233-3911
P.O. Box 5593
Madison, WI 53705
www.processresearch.net
[email protected]

June 4, 2015

Mr. Gary Burlingame, Laboratory Director
Philadelphia Water Department
Bureau of Laboratory Services
1500 East Hunting Park Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19124-4941

Dear Gary,
As we have discussed, proposals for copper in the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) are contrary to my observations of
copper release in water distribution systems and premise plumbing. The data to which I refer include results from
long-term monitoring with a standardized monitoring station apparatus similar to an AwwaRF pipe loop and other
investigations in water distribution systems as well as investigations of premise plumbing water quality. The data
come from numerous water systems over a time period of 2002 to present. I am in the process of writing articles on
my methods and resultant data for peer review so that others can see this information. In the meantime,
recommendations must be made by the NDWAC sub-committee on copper by the end of June.
I am writing to encourage your committee to hold off on the copper aspect of the Rule until all factors can be
considered. Otherwise, the Rule, as proposed for copper, is heading for a number of unintended consequences.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LCR
I presented my general concerns in a 2014 Water Quality and Technology Conference (WQTC) presentation and
have attached a copy to this letter. In the presentation, it is shown how the original Lead and Copper Rule, focusing
on lead, was based on a theoretical lead carbonate solubility model. The model proved over time to be missing not
only key components of lead solubility, but also ignored other significant mechanisms of lead release and transport.
The current proposal for copper regulations is being based, once again, solely on a carbonate solubility model. When
I compare 13 years of various water system data against that simple model, the model shows itself to not be
predictive of copper release. Based on the experience with the lead issue, it is logical to assume that there are
components missing from the model. My studies have identified some of the missing components. In the realm of
copper solubility, the chemistries of chlorides and sulfates are missing; they form copper compounds that are many
magnitudes more soluble than copper carbonates or oxides and can perpetuate uniform corrosion of copper. In
addition, copper is highly susceptible to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC); this mechanism of corrosion
should not continue to be ignored in water distribution systems, as it is a significant contributor to metals release.
DETAILED COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LCR
To discuss this topic in more detail, a diagram of the proposed Rule for copper regulations is attached to this letter.
Refer to the numbered diagram as you read the corresponding numbered specifics below:
Page 1 of 4
1. The proposed Rule begins with a definition of water that is not aggressive to copper. As stated in the WQTC
presentation, this is overly simplistic and there are many observations to negate the definition. The
definition is a false premise upon which the subsequent regulations are based.
2. The proposed Rule encourages public water systems (PWSs) to assume copper release based on the false
premise. Therefore, using this definition, some PWSs, thinking that they do not have aggressive water, will
be ignoring elevated copper issues.
3. The proposed Rule encourages PWSs to change the alkalinity and/or pH of the water to fit the false
premise. Some unintended consequences of this are as follows:
a. These PWSs may now find themselves, as stated in No. 2, ignoring elevated copper issues.
b. A small increase in pH in high alkalinity water can cause excessive precipitation of calcium
carbonate that clogs up meters and valves around the distribution system. This is because these
high alkalinity waters typically are accompanied by high calcium and magnesium concentrations.
(Data are available to demonstrate what happens to a distribution system when this precarious
balance of water quality parameters is altered.)
c. An increase in pH towards and above 8 in water systems using the disinfectant, free chlorine,
lowers the ability of the disinfection to fight against excessive microbiological growth. This can lead
to MIC of copper and, therefore, higher copper levels in more locations in the distribution system.
4. The proposed Rule gives PWSs with alkalinity and pH combinations defined as aggressive by EPA an
option to sample in new copper plumbing systems to prove that the water characteristics are not aggressive
and do not need to be altered. This puts the onus on these PWSs to spend time and money to prove that a
false premise is false. (The PWSs most affected by this are groundwater systems in locations such as
Wisconsin and Minnesota.)
5. The proposed Rule does acknowledge that MIC might be found in some houses sampled. The Rule
invalidates such a regulatory sample and has a new house selected for sampling. This assumes that MIC is
not prevalent in new houses; however, I have found that it is prevalent because modern plumbing design
has many features that increase residence time of water in premise plumbing and encourages excessive
growth of microorganisms which leads to MIC and elevated copper concentrations. Details are described in
the booklet, What’s Bugging Your Pipes. In addition, an investigator must properly determine if MIC is
occurring. For example, the adenosine triphosphate test (ATP) should be run on stagnation samples along
with metals scans in both cold and hot water systems. Some researchers are using qPCR analyses to
quantify microbiological populations, but this only quantifies a subset of bacteria. The ATP test quantifies all
microorganisms (except viruses).
6. The proposed Rule also allows the use of a copper pipe loop-type apparatus for determining copper release
in lieu of residential sampling. This option also puts the onus on certain PWSs to spend time and money to
prove that a false premise is false. In addition, the Rule does not consider that MIC might also occur in the
apparatus. Based on past pipe loop-type data, it certainly does occur; microbiological populations must also
be measured in these studies as well as in residential sampling. This omission exemplifies the problem with
the AWWA copper corrosion literature. That is, the microbiological factor has not been measured and it is
unknown to what degree many past investigations and experiments were actually influenced by MIC versus
purely chemical interactions.
7. Water may be proven to elevate levels of copper release, but it is just as important to determine time of
passivation. In pipe-loop type studies, every copper test chamber/pipe loop acts as new copper piping as
has been corroborated by actual analyses of chemical compounds that have developed on the copper
surfaces. Copper is released at higher levels at first but a noticeable drop to a relatively steady state of
copper occurs. In most systems, this passivation occurs within four to six weeks. In some systems, it is
longer but just by a matter of months and not years. When copper becomes elevated after the
establishment of steady state, it is typically because of other reasons outside of carbonate and oxide film
passivation.

Page 2 of 4
8. The proposed Rule suggests the prohibition of copper piping in cases where water is considered aggressive.
Based on this discussion, there is question as to whether or not the water is actually aggressive and, if it is,
whether the real cause of the copper release has been determined. Therefore, eliminating copper piping is
a dramatic choice in solving copper issues. It would be better to try to solve the MIC issues and the
elevated chloride and sulfate issues rather than eliminate such a well understood and useful material.
Pushing water systems to materials that we do not know as much about, such as plastics, is not a proper
solution to this problem. Copper is not like lead where there should be no exposure to humans at all. If one
understands the nature of copper release, it is possible to control the release at low health-risk levels.
9. The proposed Rule also allows the regulatory authority to require the addition of phosphate as a copper
corrosion control method in waters considered aggressive. Again, based on this Rule, it will be questionable
as to whether the water is actually aggressive or whether the real cause of the copper release has been
determined. Some unintended consequences of misapplication of this chemical is that the addition of
phosphorus, which is a nutrient for microorganisms, can push some PWSs into a situation of excessive
growth of microorganisms leading to MIC and elevated copper levels. For all PWSs using a phosphate
corrosion control chemical, there are environmental repercussions at the wastewater treatment plant with
phosphorus discharge and for any drinking water running directly to natural bodies of water.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
The big question is: how should the regulation on copper be written? At this point in time, it is not technically possible
to state parameters that deem water aggressive or non-aggressive to copper. There are four steps that could be
taken at this time:
1. Set up a lab experiment using synthetic water to measure copper release under completely sterile conditions
so that microbiological interactions are eliminated. Chemical factors to vary should be alkalinity, pH,
chloride and sulfate. A time factor for passivation should also be included. Questions to investigate are:
a. At what minimum pH does copper release at elevated concentrations (>1300 ug/L) for each
alkalinity level?
b. Do the combinations of alkalinity and pH produce the predicted copper release from the EPA
copper solubility model? If so, further experimentation needs to be done to create the water
chemistry of high alkalinity, lower pH groundwater to determine if other chemical factors in the
water prevent the predicted elevated copper release, as has been observed.
c. How does a decreasing ratio of alkalinity to chloride concentration affect copper release?
d. How does a decreasing ratio of alkalinity to sulfate concentration affect copper release?
2. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers understand and are encouraged to monitor
and control the biostability of the water. Biostability is the balance of factors in a water system that
encourage the growth of microorganisms balanced against factors that discourage their growth. Factors that
encourage growth are nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon nutrients in the water and also high water
age/residence time. Factors that discourage growth are disinfection, biofilm cleaning, nutrient control, and
system and tank operation to lower water age. Water Research Foundation is currently publishing
biostability research reports.
3. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers and the public understand the
repercussions of the choices that are made in modern plumbing design. See What’s Bugging Your Pipes for
details of modern plumbing design that increase residence time in plumbing systems resulting in elevated
copper and other metals in the drinking water. Also, address the role that long construction times can have
on creating the environment for excessive microbiological growth, MIC, and elevated copper concentrations
– also discussed in the What’s Bugging Your Pipes booklet. This is to say that informed property owners
can make better choices of plumbing features to lower the risk of MIC.

Page 3 of 4
4. As part of the regulatory education, require that PWS managers and the public understand that road salt is
increasing chloride levels in sources of drinking water. Many communities have already taken action to use
road salt in a more efficient manner to lower the chloride levels in surrounding waters. It is important for
people to realize that the increased chloride concentration in the drinking water can lead to increased copper
release in the water system. (This is what several monitoring projects have revealed.)
PREDICTED UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CURRENT PROPOSED LCR
The current proposed copper regulation could have the following unintended consequences:
 Some PWSs, thinking that they have non-aggressive water per the EPA’s definition, will overlook elevated
copper issues.
 Some PWSs will adjust their pH per EPA’s definition of non-aggressive water and experience excessive
precipitation of calcium carbonate, clogging meters and valves in the distribution system.
 Some PWSs will adjust their pH per EPA’s definition of non-aggressive water and lower the effectiveness of
their free chlorine disinfection increasing the risk of excessive microbiological growth, MIC, and resultant
elevated copper concentrations.
 Many PWSs with high alkalinity (typically groundwater systems in locations such as Wisconsin and
Minnesota) will be forced to spend time and money to prove that the EPA’s definition of non-aggressive
water, observed to be a false premise, is false.
 Residential sampling results might be misinterpreted as chemically-aggressive water if the building plumbing
is not properly investigated for MIC.
 Copper pipe loops studies might misinterpret results as chemically-aggressive water if microbiological
factors are not measured and considered throughout the study.
 Copper materials could be erroneously banned from water systems and materials with less of a foundation
of knowledge could be used instead, pushing water quality issues into unknown territories.
 Phosphate corrosion control chemicals could be erroneously used in water systems where they could, in
some PWSs, encourage the excessive growth of microorganisms, MIC, and resultant increased copper
concentrations.
 More water systems will erroneously be required to add a phosphate corrosion control chemical which will
place more pressure on wastewater treatment plants to remove the phosphorus before discharge and also
contribute more phosphorus to natural water when drinking water flows directly to the environment.

Given the observations described in this letter and based on existing data, the NDWAC LCR committee should re-
visit the copper issue and prevent the current proposed regulation from being released.

Sincerely,

Process Research Solutions, LLC

Abigail F. Cantor, P.E.
Chemical Engineer
Page 4 of 4
Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Requirements for Copper
1
EPA Definition of Water Not Aggressive to Copper
For any PWS making a Alkalinity <35; pH >7.0
long-term change or 36 <= Alkalinity <=100; pH >7.2
Initially for all PWS adding a new water 101 <= Alkalinity <=150; pH >7.5
source
151 <= Alkalinity <=250; pH >8.0
Choose one of the following actions to demonstrate that the water is not aggressive to copper:
Collect alkalinity and pH data Change pH and/or alkalinity to Perform copper sampling in
Conduct pipe loop-type study
from around the distribution fit EPA definition of water not houses < 2years old with new
using new copper
2 system 3 aggressive to copper 4 copper plumbing 6
5
Is microbiologically
No Does pH and alkalinity influenced corrosion No Copper not elevated No Water considered aggressive.
fall into EPA definition? a factor? over 1300 ug/L? 7
Yes
Yes Yes
Public education required.
Sample is invalid.
Select another house.
Possibly prohibit copper
piping.
8
Water considered non-aggressive.
Choose one of the following actions:
EPA to determine if PO4 is to
be added.
9
Routinely perform copper
Monitor alkalinity and pH and
sampling in houses < 2years
maintain per EPA definition
old with new copper plumbing
This diagram accompanies a letter from Process Research Solutions, LLC to Gary Burlingame of the Philadelphia Water Department regarding the proposed copper regulations.
Summary of Draft
Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group
to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
The NDWAC LT-LCR Working Group has its final meeting in June and will forward its
recommendations to the full NDWAC soon thereafter. The Working Group process does not
constitute a negotiated rulemaking, but we expect EPA to follow the recommendations to the
extent they can be characterized as a broad-based consensus agreement. The following is a
summary of the major elements of the Working Group report, how the Working Group
recommendations relate to policy concerns identified by the Water Utility Council, and
constraints that warrant consideration in evaluating the Working Group recommendations.
In reviewing the Working Group recommendations it is useful to keep in mind the framework
that EPA had in mind prior to this process. EPA wanted to:
1. Continue mandatory in-home tap sampling for lead and copper.
2. Shift in-home lead monitoring to only highest possible risk locations such as limiting
sample to only homes with lead service line in communities with such lines.
3. Revise the sampling protocol to draw water from inside the lead service line.
4. Expand in-home compliance sampling for all systems by requiring new program
targeting copper release at homes with new copper piping.
5. Prohibit all partial lead service line replacements, creating problems for infrastructure
maintenance.
6. Require full lead service line replacements regardless of ownership.

In combination the above changes would place utilities in a difficult position regarding lead
service lines and more systems would be triggered into immediate public education, revision of
corrosion control treatment, and lead service line replacement. Analysis conducted for AWWA
by Arcadis illustrated that changing the sampling protocol could lead to 67 – 83% of community
water systems revisiting their corrosion control practice (WITAF 303). The Working Group
decided that working through the current LCR framework was unproductive. And, in contrast to
the current approach, the Working Group recommendations reflect:
1. A shift from sampling for lead to public education that is strong enough to get customers
to take action on their own or in cooperation with their water utility.
2. A shift from staying with an LCR forever to working towards a day when it will no longer
be needed for lead control.
3. A shift towards a more national communication via a national clearinghouse (which could
have impacts on future regulatory agendas), with education and empowerment of
systems and customers to get the lead out.
4. A clearer reality of how lead control actually works that will be easier to communicate to
the public and easier to talk about in general.
Some of the underlying concerns that shaped the Working Group approach included:
1
1. Recognizing that full lead service line replacement is a shared responsibility involving
both the water system and its customers.
2. Accepting that it was not possible to demonstrate that changing the current LCR in-home
sampling protocol would lead to risk reduction in waters systems that could further
optimize corrosion control.
3. Acknowledging that additional in-home sampling for lead and copper would exacerbate
an already problematic task for community water systems without a clear benefit.
4. Accepting that requiring greater phosphate addition for corrosion control is at odds with
Clean Water Act goals for nutrient reduction in a growing number of surface waters.
Consequently, the emerging Workgroup report is based upon the following major elements:
1. Systems that have three consecutive monitoring periods complying with the lead and
copper action levels can stop in-home compliance monitoring but must continue to
monitor water quality parameters to sustain corrosion control treatment or water quality
conditions favorable to lead control.
2. All systems must pursue the high-level goal of replacing all lead service lines (entire
service line) in their service area by 2050 without penalty if customers do not replace
their portion. System outreach would continue to encourage customer action until all
lead service lines are completely replaced.
3. All systems with leaded plumbing components must enhance their public education and
those with lead service lines must conduct additional public outreach, specifically
focusing on households with lead service lines.
4. All systems must either maintain water quality that is not aggressive to copper or
conduct public outreach to customers with new copper or to all customers.
These four elements reflect the Work Group’s policy priorities by:
1. Providing an incentive to promote additional risk reduction and eliminating the need to
restructure in-home compliance sampling around a more challenging to implement
sampling protocol.
2. Removing disincentives to lead service line replacement and shifting lead service line
replacement to planned capital improvements rather than current LCR triggered-
replacement framework.
3. Ensuring that customers with LSLs receive information to encourage their participation in
full lead service line replacement.
4. Driving additional focus on copper corrosion without mandating corrosion control for all
systems that have water that tends to be corrosive to copper.
The Working Group’s recommendations would significantly change the current paradigm under
which community water systems manage lead, but there is also recognition that it is necessary
to build on the more than two decades of LCR implementation. Therefore, the
recommendations continue to rely upon the current rule construct:
2