Darrell Osterhoudt

Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:27:05 AM Good morning state drinking water administrators - One of the LCR topics being considered for the Long Term Revisions (LTR), is lead sampling. The current first draw sample gives an indication of lead in the water but additional samples, collected after this initial sample can yield higher results. The recent NDWAC LCR LTR work group considered the impact of the sampling scheme on the measured lead levels in their deliberations. A webcast early next month will share results of the WaterRF study that examined those lead sampling issues. The important details are shown below. Go to the full announcement for more information. WEBCAST: Evaluation of Lead Line Sampling Strategies Thursday, October 8, 2015 3 pm-4 pm ET (2 pm CT, 1 pm MT, 12 pm PT) Register online to view this Webcast The Webcast is free and open to the public. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b592_7576_7576_1

Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:27:05 AM Good morning state drinking water administrators - One of the LCR topics being considered for the Long Term Revisions (LTR), is lead sampling. The current first draw sample gives an indication of lead in the water but additional samples, collected after this initial sample can yield higher results. The recent NDWAC LCR LTR work group considered the impact of the sampling scheme on the measured lead levels in their deliberations. A webcast early next month will share results of the WaterRF study that examined those lead sampling issues. The important details are shown below. Go to the full announcement for more information. WEBCAST: Evaluation of Lead Line Sampling Strategies Thursday, October 8, 2015 3 pm-4 pm ET (2 pm CT, 1 pm MT, 12 pm PT) Register online to view this Webcast The Webcast is free and open to the public. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b592_7576_7576_1

NDWAC Presentation - 8.25.15 DOH slides.ppt Good afternoon state drinking water administrators - As you know, early last year EPA created a work group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) charged with developing recommendations on long term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule. (LCR LTR). That group has held a number of meetings since then to come up with the attached report to the NDWAC that contains their recommendations. During this process, the work group has been aided by input from state work group members June Swallow (RI) and Derrick Dennis (WA) and presentations by other states (ASDWA, IN, MA, NV) on specific issues. This report represents the work groups thinking on long term LCR issues including lead service line replacement, lead tap samples, corrosion control treatment, water quality parameters, copper monitoring, PN/CCR and other regulatory and non regulatory options. The report is not a consensus document but seems to have support from members representing a wide range of interest groups. In addition to the report itself, I have also attached a presentation given by June Swallow during the recent ORD Small Systems Workshop which highlights key elements of the recommendations. While this is a great start on addressing many of the long term needs of the LCR, there is still a lot left to do before any final rule. The report will be presented to the NDWAC at their next meeting in November. It will have to be approved (and may be modified) by the NDWAC before it goes to EPA. EPA will then need to craft a proposed rule using the final report as a guide. However, EPA is not bound, as it is with a formal advisory committee process, to follow the recommendations exactly. If all goes well, EPA could have a proposed rule before the end of 2016. That will be open for public comment and we expect ASDWA and states to weigh in at that time and as other opportunities arise out of our co-regulator role. Please let me know if you have any questions. There will be some time to discuss this during the State-EPA Roundtable at the Annual Conference. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b281_3601_3601_1

NDWAC Presentation - 8.25.15 DOH slides.ppt Good afternoon state drinking water administrators - As you know, early last year EPA created a work group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) charged with developing recommendations on long term revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule. (LCR LTR). That group has held a number of meetings since then to come up with the attached report to the NDWAC that contains their recommendations. During this process, the work group has been aided by input from state work group members June Swallow (RI) and Derrick Dennis (WA) and presentations by other states (ASDWA, IN, MA, NV) on specific issues. This report represents the work groups thinking on long term LCR issues including lead service line replacement, lead tap samples, corrosion control treatment, water quality parameters, copper monitoring, PN/CCR and other regulatory and non regulatory options. The report is not a consensus document but seems to have support from members representing a wide range of interest groups. In addition to the report itself, I have also attached a presentation given by June Swallow during the recent ORD Small Systems Workshop which highlights key elements of the recommendations. While this is a great start on addressing many of the long term needs of the LCR, there is still a lot left to do before any final rule. The report will be presented to the NDWAC at their next meeting in November. It will have to be approved (and may be modified) by the NDWAC before it goes to EPA. EPA will then need to craft a proposed rule using the final report as a guide. However, EPA is not bound, as it is with a formal advisory committee process, to follow the recommendations exactly. If all goes well, EPA could have a proposed rule before the end of 2016. That will be open for public comment and we expect ASDWA and states to weigh in at that time and as other opportunities arise out of our co-regulator role. Please let me know if you have any questions. There will be some time to discuss this during the State-EPA Roundtable at the Annual Conference. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b281_3601_3601_1

Good morning state drinking water administrators - Analysis by the special work group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) considering Lead and Copper Rule Long Term Revisions (LCR LTR) is getting to a critical stage and we want to let you know how its going and get your feedback on where some of these issues appear to be headed. Update: The work group is finally beginning development of their report after many meetings and webinars spent exploring the issues. June Swallow (RI) and Derrick Dennis (WA) are the state drinking water program representatives on this group. Now that the group is closer to making its recommendations, many members serving on the work group are making more specific proposals. The attached summary attempts to provide some insight into the major agreements and remaining controversies, and how various members, representing specific interest groups, may want to go with the work group's recommendations. Over the next 2-3 months, the work group will develop a draft report and submit it to the full NDWAC for their consideration. Need for input: We have two excellent reps on the work group, supported by a small team of state LCR experts, who are doing a great job providing a state perspective on these issues. However, it is difficult to completely represent state interests without gathering some broader input at key points in the process. This is one of those times. We would like your feedback on the important LCR issues described in the attached summary. Are some of the proposals reasonable from a state implementation perspective or do you see problems that need to be xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b256_3545_3546_1 addressed? Are there alternatives that the group may have missed? There are some questions listed in the attachment for each major issue but don't feel limited to those specifics. We really want you to be as open as possible in your response. Deadline: To adequately prepare the state reps to provide early input to the work group recommendations, we need the state feedback by March 13 if possible. Input after that date will still be valuable, so if you can't get us something by that time, please still respond. Anything you want to share should be sent to me and I will compile it for use. If you want to explore these issues in more detail directly with June and Derrick, you can contact them at Derrick. [email protected] Or Thanks for your help. We will keep you informed about progress on the work group recommendations and we may ask for additional input on issues as we see clearer choices emerge. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b256_3545_3546_2

Good morning state drinking water administrators - Analysis by the special work group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) considering Lead and Copper Rule Long Term Revisions (LCR LTR) is getting to a critical stage and we want to let you know how its going and get your feedback on where some of these issues appear to be headed. Update: The work group is finally beginning development of their report after many meetings and webinars spent exploring the issues. June Swallow (RI) and Derrick Dennis (WA) are the state drinking water program representatives on this group. Now that the group is closer to making its recommendations, many members serving on the work group are making more specific proposals. The attached summary attempts to provide some insight into the major agreements and remaining controversies, and how various members, representing specific interest groups, may want to go with the work group's recommendations. Over the next 2-3 months, the work group will develop a draft report and submit it to the full NDWAC for their consideration. Need for input: We have two excellent reps on the work group, supported by a small team of state LCR experts, who are doing a great job providing a state perspective on these issues. However, it is difficult to completely represent state interests without gathering some broader input at key points in the process. This is one of those times. We would like your feedback on the important LCR issues described in the attached summary. Are some of the proposals reasonable from a state implementation perspective or do you see problems that need to be xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b256_3545_3546_1 addressed? Are there alternatives that the group may have missed? There are some questions listed in the attachment for each major issue but don't feel limited to those specifics. We really want you to be as open as possible in your response. Deadline: To adequately prepare the state reps to provide early input to the work group recommendations, we need the state feedback by March 13 if possible. Input after that date will still be valuable, so if you can't get us something by that time, please still respond. Anything you want to share should be sent to me and I will compile it for use. If you want to explore these issues in more detail directly with June and Derrick, you can contact them at Derrick. [email protected] Or Thanks for your help. We will keep you informed about progress on the work group recommendations and we may ask for additional input on issues as we see clearer choices emerge. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b256_3545_3546_2

Good morning state drinking water administrators - We finally know more about EPA's position on the issues in the new Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. They have just posted their long promised Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on their website. They will be accepting comments until June 21 and then revising as appropriate and re-posting after that time. We encourage you to make comments, especially if there are issues that EPA has missed or not adequately addressed. The announcement, with web link, is copied below. lam writing to ask for your input on Draft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, located on the agency web site at: The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act will become effective on January 4, 2014. We prepared these FAQs to assist states, water systems, plumbing product manufacturers, distributors and plumbers in their efforts to comply with the Act. The Draft FAQs express EPA’s interpretation of the statutory requirements as of this time. We are interested in input on the usefulness and completeness of this document as a whole and our answers to the FAQs. We are notifying you of these draft FAQs based upon the interest you have expressed to us on this topic through your inquiries, comments or participation in our August 16, 2012 Stakeholder meeting. Please send your comments or questions regarding the FAQs to:[email protected] by June 21, 2013. We will re-publish the FAQs after consideration of any comments received on this draft document. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b155_3346_3347_1 Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b155_3346_3347_2

Good morning state drinking water administrators - We finally know more about EPA's position on the issues in the new Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. They have just posted their long promised Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on their website. They will be accepting comments until June 21 and then revising as appropriate and re-posting after that time. We encourage you to make comments, especially if there are issues that EPA has missed or not adequately addressed. The announcement, with web link, is copied below. lam writing to ask for your input on Draft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, located on the agency web site at: The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act will become effective on January 4, 2014. We prepared these FAQs to assist states, water systems, plumbing product manufacturers, distributors and plumbers in their efforts to comply with the Act. The Draft FAQs express EPA’s interpretation of the statutory requirements as of this time. We are interested in input on the usefulness and completeness of this document as a whole and our answers to the FAQs. We are notifying you of these draft FAQs based upon the interest you have expressed to us on this topic through your inquiries, comments or participation in our August 16, 2012 Stakeholder meeting. Please send your comments or questions regarding the FAQs to:[email protected] by June 21, 2013. We will re-publish the FAQs after consideration of any comments received on this draft document. Darrell Osterhoudt Regulatory Affairs Manager xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b155_3346_3347_1 Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 1401 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1225 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 812-9508 Fax (703) 812-9506 [email protected] xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b155_3346_3347_2

Good afternoon state drinking water administrators - As you know an EPA work group, including states (MA, IN, MO, NC, WA), is currently working on "long term" revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). One of the major issues the group is trying to address is how to handle copper. The work group is considering many alternatives and the states on the group would like some feedback from you so they can present a reasonable alternative that reflects state interests. Lead and copper behave differently in water systems yet are treated the same by the LCR. A summary of the issues and relevant research is included in the attached white paper on Copper. | have also attached some slides from last year's stakeholder meeting that briefly describes what the work group is considering. See slides 15 and 16 for the copper information. For the benefit of the states on the work group, please share you thoughts on how copper might be handled in new rule revisions. First, how significant is copper for you under the current rule - action level exceedances compared to lead, etc. If the monitoring were to change to capture more sensitive sites for copper, would you expect a significant increase in work load.? Second, how would you suggest managing copper to improve public health protection? Some questions to consider here include: Does it need to be addressed separately

Good afternoon state drinking water administrators - As you know an EPA work group, including states (MA, IN, MO, NC, WA), is currently working on "long term" revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). One of the major issues the group is trying to address is how to handle copper. The work group is considering many alternatives and the states on the group would like some feedback from you so they can present a reasonable alternative that reflects state interests. Lead and copper behave differently in water systems yet are treated the same by the LCR. A summary of the issues and relevant research is included in the attached white paper on Copper. | have also attached some slides from last year's stakeholder meeting that briefly describes what the work group is considering. See slides 15 and 16 for the copper information. For the benefit of the states on the work group, please share you thoughts on how copper might be handled in new rule revisions. First, how significant is copper for you under the current rule - action level exceedances compared to lead, etc. If the monitoring were to change to capture more sensitive sites for copper, would you expect a significant increase in work load.? Second, how would you suggest managing copper to improve public health protection? Some questions to consider here include: Does it need to be addressed separately