Lead Service Line Replacement Research Articles

Planning for Service Line Material Identification and Lead Service Line Replacement Costs

Key TakeawaysA utility survey was performed to gather cost data and information on identification and verification methods.In compiling a service line inventory, water utilities need to account for using multiple verification methods at some locations to improve accuracy.Costs vary significantly between verification methods for developing accurate service line inventories and should be accounted for in a water system's planning efforts.The costs for lead service line replacements are estimated to be higher than originally reported when accounting for auxiliary costs to utilities.

Exploring the Impacts of Full-Scale Distribution System Orthophosphate Corrosion Control Implementation on the Microbial Ecology of Hydrologically Connected Urban Streams.

Many cities across the nation are plagued by lead contamination in drinking water. As such, many drinking water utilities have undertaken lead service line (LSL) replacement to prevent further lead contamination. However, given the urgency of lead mitigation, and the socioeconomic challenges associated with LSL replacement, cities have used phosphate-based corrosion inhibitors (i.e., orthophosphate) alongside LSL replacement. While necessary to ensure public health protection from lead contamination, the addition of orthophosphate into an aging and leaking drinking water system may increase the concentration of phosphate leaching into urban streams characterized by century-old failing water infrastructure. Such increases in phosphate availability may cascade into nutrient and microbial community composition shifts. The purpose of this study was to determine how this occurs and to understand whether full-scale distribution system orthophosphate addition impacts the microbial ecology of urban streams. Through monthly collection of water samples from five urban streams before and after orthophosphate addition, significant changes in microbial community composition (16S rRNA amplicon sequencing) and in the relative abundance of typical freshwater taxa were observed. In addition, key microbial phosphorus and nitrogen metabolism genes (e.g., two component regulatory systems) were predicted to change via BugBase. No significant differences in the absolute abundances of total bacteria, Cyanobacteria, and "Candidatus Accumulibacter" were observed. Overall, the findings from this study provide further evidence that urban streams are compromised by unintentional hydrologic connections with drinking water infrastructure. Moreover, our results suggest that infiltration of phosphate-based corrosion inhibitors can impact urban streams and have important, as-yet-overlooked impacts on urban stream microbial communities. IMPORTANCE Elevated lead levels in drinking water supplies are a public health risk. As such, it is imperative for cities to urgently address lead contamination from aging drinking water supplies by way of lead service line replacements and corrosion control methods. However, when applying corrosion control methods, it is also important to consider the chemical and microbiological effects that can occur in natural settings, given that our water infrastructure is aging and more prone to leaks and breaks. Here, we examine the impacts on the microbial ecology of five urban stream systems before and after full-scale distribution system orthophosphate addition. Overall, the results suggest that infiltration of corrosion inhibitors may impact microbial communities; however, future work should be done to ascertain the true impact to protect both public and environmental health.

Safe home water access for low-income families with young children

Background: From 2015-2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found 7,463 public water systems serving 51 million people in the U.S. reported at least one health-based violation. Communities across the United States have unsafe drinking water due to aging public water supply infrastructure and home wells with unsafe levels of contaminants like arsenic and nitrate. Aim: This presentation describes the costs, population reach, and considerations for local and state policies and programs that can ensure safe water access for pregnant people and low-income families with young children. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods analysis including legal review, case interview, and economic evaluation to identify the activities, resources, and costs associated with actions to provide more equitable access to safe home drinking water strategies for low-income families with children aged 0-5. Results: Researchers identified six strategies used in state and local settings to improve access to safe drinking water at home via home water quality testing, home well water treatment device installation, filter pitcher distribution, and lead service line replacement. If implemented over 5 years in their respective geographic areas, these strategies could reach 480 to 135,000 households each with annual costs per household of $75 to $1000 (USD). Conclusions: Opportunities for improving access to safe drinking water at home should be tailored to features of the local water system, water source, and community context. In particular, policies and programs can be tailored to reach pregnant people and low-income families with young children, who are most at risk. Keywords: child, infant, drinking water, equity, lead, arsenic, nitrate

Improved Decision-Making: A Sociotechnical Utility-Based Framework for Drinking Water Investment.

To achieve the goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act, state and local water authorities need to make decisions about where to direct limited funding for infrastructure improvements and currently do so in the absence of adequate evaluative metrics. We developed a framework grounded in utility theory that compares trade-offs explicitly and broadens the factors considered in prioritizing resource allocations. Relevant existing indices were reviewed to identify data applicable to drinking water decision-making. A utility-theory-based decision analysis framework was developed and applied to evaluate how different objectives affect funding decisions for lead service line replacement (LSLR) programs in Pennsylvania and Michigan, United States. The decision framework incorporates drinking water quality characteristics with community and environmental quality attributes. We compare additive and multiplicative model structures, different weights, and spatial scales. Our decision framework showed that the inclusion of additional data beyond what is usually considered in LSLR decisions could change the top 10 counties or public water systems prioritized. Further, the counties or water systems in the top 10 were influenced by the model structure and weights. Prioritization changed based on which data were included, and has implications for the use of evaluative metrics beyond traditional water system data.

Halifax Water's Lead Service Line Replacement Program Gets the Lead Out

Key TakeawaysHalifax, N.S., has been addressing concerns over lead in its water supply since the 1940s. Today, there are about 3,500 private‐side lead service lines (LSLs) in Halifax Water's service area.Research findings have guided Halifax Water in examining and modifying its approaches to LSL replacement, corrosion control, and sampling protocol.Motivated by recommended US Lead and Copper Rule revisions, Halifax Water updated its lead removal program and later its Get the Lead Out program to be even more comprehensive.

Compounding Challenges

Protecting public health by ensuring communities have safe, sufficient water isn't easy on a good day, but lately it seems like water and wastewater systems have had an uphill climb. The vital water infrastructure that communities depend on was designed to serve the present day while anticipating future needs. Unfortunately, in many cases the challenges of today are much greater than were imagined decades ago. The foundational issues are still there and water supply and treatment problems still need to be solved, but local and large-scale disasters are happening at an alarming pace, making the estimation of future needs more difficult. At times, we seem to be tracking some of the worst-case projected scenarios. Earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, super high winds, fires, floods, deep freezes, heat waves, (mega)droughts—they're growing more frequent, more intense, and at times, they can follow in succession and even overlap. It isn't just nature that's highly variable these days. Political transitions can shake up priorities, and instability leads to general distrust in government. Anger at the federal and state/province level can carry over to local units, and it seems as if science hasn't been this distrusted in a long time. All of this can make dialog hard and collaboration untenable. Social issues, which go hand in hand with financial matters, are not as straightforward as we'd like to think since they are tethered to politics, too. Community expectations continue to grow, which is great, but it means more time, transparency, and training to properly meet those expectations. With increasing connectedness and technology come increasing security issues, and now bad actors can attack a utility's physical assets as well as its network-based controls and data. How about a global pandemic and all its associated health and safety adversity? Add to that supply chain issues, labor issues, inflation, global conflicts, and more. With so many disasters and difficulties to keep in mind at any one time, it can feel overwhelming. But while the issues are significant, the water industry is working to address them, and water professionals need to consider how systems will respond to a few at once and/or challenges that follow close after one another. Journal AWWA can help by highlighting how utilities are anticipating and responding to the many challenges facing them and their communities. This month's Journal AWWA features timely topics, including lead service line replacement, water quality modeling, and mitigating climate change. Please consider sharing your perspectives and experiences with water professionals everywhere by writing me at journaleditor@awwa.org.

Full Lead Service Line Replacement: A Case Study of Equity in Environmental Remediation

In the U.S., approximately 9.3 million lead service lines (LSLs) account for most lead contamination of drinking water. As the commitment to replace LSLs with safer materials grows, empirical evidence is needed to understand which households are benefitting most from current replacement practices. This exploratory study analyzes factors predictive of whether an LSL was replaced fully (from water main to premise) or partially (only the portion on public property). Conventional ordinary least squares, negative binomial, and geographically weighted regression models are used to test the hypothesis that full lead service line replacements (LSLRs) were less common in lower-income, higher-minority neighborhoods under a cost-sharing program design in Washington, D.C. between 2009 and 2018. The study finds supportive evidence that household income is a major predictor of full replacement prevalence, with race also showing significance in some analyses. These findings highlight the need for further research into patterns of full versus partial LSLR across the U.S. and may inform future decisions about LSLR policy and program design.

The 117th Congress

From infrastructure to assistance for low-income customers to regulation mandates, the 117th session of the US Congress is shaping up to be busy for the drinking water community. A key driver has been the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic havoc it has caused. Investment in infrastructure is a traditional government strategy during economic slumps, and investment in water infrastructure has the added benefit of protecting public health and the environment. Hence, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021, enacted last spring, provided US$10 billion to invest in water, broadband, and health sector infrastructure. The challenge for our sector was the broad strokes Congress used to paint this legislation and the fact that the water infrastructure provision channeled funds through city governments and failed to account for the regional nature of many water systems. This use of infrastructure investment to kick-start economic growth appeared again this fall as Congress considered two pieces of legislation in tandem: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework (BIF), or H.R. 3684, and the ambitious Build Back Better Act, or H.R. 5376. The BIF would reauthorize the drinking water and wastewater state revolving loan fund programs, reauthorize the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, and provide $15 billion for lead service line replacement. It also would extend the “buy American” requirements for manufactured products to projects receiving federal support. The Build Back Better Act would provide an additional $9 billion to address lead in drinking water, either by replacing lead service lines in economically distressed areas or by replacing lead pipes and fountains at schools and day care centers. AWWA has developed a very conservative estimate that it will cost at least $60 billion to replace all of the service lines that will likely require replacement under the upcoming revised Lead and Copper Rule. That means the money in this year's legislation would be a nice down payment on that effort, but not a cure-all. The economic stress the country felt this year also gave new life to efforts to create an assistance program for customers having difficulty paying their water bills. An omnibus federal funding bill passed last December provided $638 million to help low-income customers pay their water bills. ARPA provided another $500 million. The BIF would mandate a study of the needs of low-income water customers and create a pilot grant program involving up to 40 water systems. The Build Back Better Act would provide $250 million for low-income customers. If these two bills pass, we will be studying how customer assistance programs work while at the same time rolling out more money for the programs. That's a reflection of how some members of Congress aren't sure how such programs should be structured, while others are adamant that low-income customers need help now. AWWA and its partner water organizations typically are not involved in defense legislation. However, there have been recent attempts to force regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water via the annual legislation authorizing programs at the US Department of Defense. Each year, these bills are called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A bonus for the water community last year was NDAA's requirement for better reporting of PFAS discharges by industry. In this year's NDAA deliberations, the House version of that legislation would require drinking water regulations for two PFAS compounds, which may be irrelevant since the US Environmental Protection Agency is well on track to do that anyway. The Senate version would not have that requirement, but would do something beneficial for drinking water providers: require US defense facilities to notify nearby water systems when PFAS are detected on or near their sites. A House–Senate conference committee will iron out a single NDAA and AWWA will be communicating its members’ concerns to conferees. Another topic to watch in the NDAA deliberations is cybersecurity. Requirements to report certain cyberattacks at critical infrastructure facilities—and that obviously includes drinking water systems—are in the House version and may end up in the Senate bill. AWWA and other organizations are communicating with Congress on such a program should be structured. As we approach 2022, expect deliberations on infrastructure, customer assistance, cybersecurity, and the pace of regulatory development to continue. Then add to that upcoming deliberations for the next version of the five-year Farm Bill. In the last Farm Bill, AWWA was successful in getting agricultural conservation programs to do a better job of protecting sources of drinking water. We will want to keep that momentum going and possibly make some administrative tweaks. The 117th Congress will be one to remember. Tommy Holmes is director of legislative affairs at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected].

Measurements and modeling of lead reduction strategies

AbstractThree strategies for reducing lead in water and blood lead level (BLL) were evaluated. Approximately 2,500 lead samples from 112 homes were analyzed to estimate lead reduction from full lead service line replacement (FLSLR). Corrosion‐control changes were evaluated using data from more than 20,000 community water systems (CWSs). The reduction in first‐liter median lead for utilities changing corrosion‐control treatment (CCT) to drop the 90th percentile from 15 to 10 μg/L was 0.4 μg/L, while the reduction in lead for the highest 10% of the population in those communities was 3.7 μg/L. Lowering the goal to 5 μg/L resulted in the median and top 10% lead reducing by 0.4 and 4.5 μg/L, respectively, although more utilities and hence children are impacted by the lower goal. The median home had a first‐L and profile average lead reduction of about 2 μg/L following FLSLR. Ten percent of the homes saw a reduction in profile average lead of over 17 μg/L after FLSLR. These reductions in lead were converted to changes in BLL, including the percentage and total number of children with BLL values above 3.5 and 5 μg/dl. Those results show that the reduction in total number of children above these targets is noticeably higher for the 5 μg/L goal due to the difference in impacted population. LSL replacement provides the greatest reduction in number of children above these two candidate target values of BLL.Article Impact StatementThe largest reduction in BLL resulted from FLSLR. This is consistent with NDWAC report that FLSLR has a larger impact than improving CCT.

Water Utilities Should Not Be Strangers to WIFIA

Thanks to the labors of my predecessor, Tom Curtis; other volunteer leaders; and sustained advocacy by AWWA members at the grassroots, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) became law in 2014. It has been a smashing success, yet drinking water utilities have been slower to participate in the program compared with utilities managing wastewater, combined sewer overflow (CSO), and water reuse projects. This trend seems to have been reversing itself lately, but there are still too many missed opportunities for drinking water funding through WIFIA loans. Drinking water systems will send in a letter of interest, but then drop out of the running for reasons still unclear. WIFIA is a federal credit program that provides long-term, low-cost loans with fixed interest rates to creditworthy utilities. The program offers an extended repayment term of up to 35 years from completion of construction (usually five more years), deferred interest, and “sculpted” rates to match revenues with utility expenditures over the life of the loan. Other features such as the “drawdown” and prepayment enhance its attractiveness. It is also a great deal for the taxpayer. The WIFIA portfolio of loans generates US$100 of infrastructure spending for every $1 appropriated to the program by Congress. WIFIA loans finance up to 49% of approved projects, thereby stimulating other investments from tax-exempt bonds, state revolving funds (SRFs), or private equity. In 2021 alone, WIFIA will be able to lend approximately $5 billion. WIFIA is managed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which has done an outstanding job with setting up this new finance program. To date, it has closed on 49 loans totaling $9.3 billion (as of April 2021) to finance systems serving 31 million Americans. Various projects are eligible for WIFIA funding (see www.epa.gov/wifia), including the usual suspects such as treatment, storage, consolidation, water security, energy efficiency, and many more. Basically, anything eligible under either the Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act SRFs is fair game if the applicant is a public water system. Further, WIFIA loans fund not only projects, but ongoing programs such as lead service line and distribution system replacements—two areas of particular interest to drinking water utilities. While WIFIA has yet to fund a land-based source water protection project at scale, there is no reason a utility could not fund protection of a headwaters forest or deployment of easements and management practices on agricultural lands to protect the utility's reservoir or other source water. USEPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has identified a 200-year average cycle for replacement of distribution lines in the water sector. While one does not automatically replace, say, a 100-year-old line, postponing renewal for two or three centuries is not an asset management model that utilities should practice. Utilities often pay for distribution line renewals from their operating revenue on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than using debt financing with the cost spread over multiple years. WIFIA offers a means of getting ahead of the curve and reducing risk for current and future generations. Funding wastewater, CSO, and reuse projects is important and will continue to be a big part of the WIFIA program, but it would be ironic if drinking water utilities did not take advantage of this marvelous program that AWWA labored so hard to create, fund, and protect over the past decade. WIFIA and drinking water utilities should not be strangers to each other. G. Tracy Mehan III is executive director of the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at tmehan@awwa.org.

Developing and Verifying a Water Service Line Inventory

Key TakeawaysA complete and accurate water service line inventory goes beyond regulatory requirements when used in conjunction with a lead service line replacement program.Absent accurate historical records, it's likely several sources of information will be needed to complete a lead service line inventory.The inventory data must be maintained as a living document so they can be used to help respond if an exceedance occurs.

Get Started Yesterday

In March 2020 I reviewed the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) revisions by stating that it is “critical to the water community's ongoing efforts to protect consumers from the risk of lead in drinking water. The revised rule is an important step and there are several opportunities to make it better.” On Jan. 15, 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published the final LCR. Yes, the Biden administration delayed the effective date. Yes, there are multiple parties that have filed petitions in the US District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Yes, the Biden administration is seeking a stay of ongoing litigation to allow it to review the rule. Still, none of these actions change the fact that water systems and state regulators are required to meet the compliance deadlines in the final rule as published—we should get started now. The standard of care that USEPA incorporated into the final rule for virtually every action required by water systems will be challenging to meet. Given the public health and political significance of lead, water systems must do more than simply comply with the letter of the law. Large and midsize water systems face the most severe hurdles, particularly if they are behind the curve and must take additional actions because they have exceeded the lead action level or the new trigger level. AWWA and USEPA have different estimates of how many systems will be required to engage in mandatory lead service line replacement and mandatory revision of corrosion control practice. An initial estimate is that 40% of larger systems with lead service lines will be undertaking both these activities. The sector knows from experience that when systems rush into corrosion control revision and lead service line replacement programs, they can end up in very challenging implementation circumstances and sustain substantial loss of public confidence. Water systems often can rely on states for counsel in times of crisis. In this instance, however, states are trying to determine how to manage the workload associated with the rule while providing oversight for hundreds if not thousands of systems. While deadlines are now three and four years away, when they arrive, states will be dealing with a deluge of service line inventories, lead service line replacement plans, revised sample plans, exceedances, tier-1 public notifications, and then the follow-through on those exceedances. There will not be an opportunity to learn from the successes and mistakes of others unless water systems start now and take the steps necessary to comply. The LCR revisions are the most effective and most expensive Safe Drinking Water Act rulemaking since the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The revised rule is arriving as water systems face revenue shortfalls from the impacts of COVID-19, and they are unable to engage their communities and community leadership in person. It's challenging to focus on a rule with compliance dates several years away, but focus we must without delay. Systems that have lead service lines, galvanized service lines preceded by lead pipe, and service lines of unknown material will face an arduous rule framework come January 2025. Taking steps appropriate to your community to address these lines—removing those that need to be removed, characterizing those that are uncharacterized, reaching consensus on how lead services on private property will be managed in your community—will pay dividends in public confidence. Legwork accomplished now on inventories, protocols, outreach materials, and intra-agency planning can facilitate hitting the ground running when pandemic restrictions ease. Steve Via is director of federal relations at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at svia@awwa.org.

Impact of service line replacement on lead, cadmium, and other drinking water quality parameters in Flint, Michigan

This study elucidates the short- and long-term impacts of lead service line replacement in Flint homes following a corrosion event.

Detroit's Robust Full Lead Service Line Replacement Program

Key TakeawaysIn 2018, the state of Michigan implemented a revised Lead and Copper Rule that required replacement of all existing lead service lines.Given Detroit's unique financial challenges, significant efforts were made to ensure swift compliance with new standards without the need to raise rates.Expert teams in Detroit developed standard operating procedures to ensure efficient processes that are successful and have broad customer acceptance and compliance.

Safety and Affordability Are Vital for Lead Service Line Replacement

An Ohio water utility made lead service line replacement affordable for its customers and established procedures to keep its field crews safe during replacement projects.

What Keeps Utility Leaders Up at Night?

Key TakeawaysIn December 2019, AWWA held a full‐day workshop with water utility leaders in Chicago on legal challenges in the water sector.Lead issues are still top of mind for utility leaders, including lead service line replacements, sampling protocols, corrosion control, and customer communication.Aging infrastructure is an ongoing concern for many utilities, looming as a potential emergency that affects public health, customer supply, and utility finances.PFAS, and how to sample for it and communicate about it, is a newer concern among utility leaders.

Customer Engagement Is Key to a Successful Lead Service Line Replacement Program

With an aggressive plan to replace 18,000 lead service lines in three years, officials in Newark, N.J., needed renters’ participation in post‐service line testing. The city partnered with a digital water platform company to gain cooperation and increase the return rate of water‐testing kits.

Central Arkansas Water's Lead Service Line Replacement Program: Investigation, Communication, Implementation

Key TakeawaysNews coverage of elevated lead levels has caused widespread concern among consumers about lead in their drinking water.In 2016, a multidisciplinary team of Central Arkansas Water (CAW) employees developed a lead service replacement program to improve public health protection.In a concerted effort that included stakeholder engagement, transparent communication with customers, and a deliberate inventory and replacement process, CAW effectively reduced customers’ exposure to lead in drinking water.

Tracking reduction of water lead levels in two homes during the Flint Federal Emergency

A Federal Emergency was declared in Flint, MI, on January 16, 2016, 18-months after a switch to Flint River source water without phosphate corrosion control. Remedial actions to resolve the corresponding lead in water crisis included reconnection to the original Lake Huron source water with orthophosphate, implementing enhanced corrosion control by dosing extra orthophosphate, a “Flush for Flint” program to help clean out loose leaded sediment from service lines and premise plumbing, and eventually lead service line replacement. Independent sampling over a period of 37 months (January 2016–February 2019) was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia Tech to evaluate possible human exposure via normal flow (∼2–3 L/min) sampling at the cold kitchen tap, and to examine the status of loose deposits from the service line and the premise plumbing via high-velocity flushing (∼12–13 L/min) from the hose bib. The sampling results indicated that high lead in water persisted for more than a year in two Flint homes due to a large reservoir of lead deposits. The effects of a large reservoir of loose lead deposits persisted until the lead service line was completely removed in these two anomalous homes. As water conservation efforts are implemented in many areas of the country, problems with mobile lead reservoirs in service lines are likely to pose a human health risk.

Understanding the Proposed Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule

Key TakeawaysIn November 2019, the USEPA published the revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule with seemingly small changes that could have significant implications.The proposed revisions will require water systems to immediately prepare a lead service line (LSL) inventory and an LSL replacement plan.The proposal would expand the current public education requirements to include sampling for lead at schools and childcare facilities.The proposal would require Tier 1 notification of lead action level exceedances; it also would require active outreach to customers when lead service lines are replaced.