Correspondence among

FYI

Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 10:02:09 AM Article revisions-O001 Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group To the National Drinking Water Advisory Council xxxEND_PAGE:deq02_b059_2121_2121_1

Article Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group To the National Drinking Water Advisory Council i 4 xxxEND_PAGE:deq14_b0106_0286_0286_1

Client Privilege Work Product 11-16.docx xxxEND_PAGE:deq25_b049_0732_0732_1

Importance: High We need to have ¢ new list of objectives for this week that we will submit to the Governor next week, George L. Krisztian Flint Action Plan Coordinator Laboratory Director Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Desk ph (517) 204-6779 | Cell ph | PPI j

For your review/changes/comments. The plan is to attach supporting documentation as Attachments.

Importance: High Need help on this one. You don’t want me doing this alone ©.

Date: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:12:00 AM Importance: High Need help on this one. You don’t want me doing this alone ©.

Date: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:12:48 AM Importance: High Need help on this one. You don’t want me doing this alone ©.

Here's my best guess fram a review of my calendar and my emails. e August 10-— 7 hour August 12 -~ 2 hours August 14 — 7 hour August 17 ~ 7 hour August 24 ~ 2 hours Asigust 28 ~ 2 hours August 31 ~ 4 hours Senternber 2 ~— 2 hours September 2 ~- | hour Genmtermber 4 ~~ ¢ hour Senternber 8 ~ 2 hours Sentermber 9 - 2 hours Senternber 10 ~— 5 hours Senternber 11-4 hours Senterber 15-3 hours Senternber 16 ~ 4 hours September 17 ~ 4 hours September 16— 7 hour Septernber 21-5 hours September 22 ~ 4 hours Septernber 23 ~ 4 hours September 24-9 hours September 25 —3 hours ® &® @ © © @ © © © © © & © © & © & SF 8 FB Total before last pay period: 64 hours

FYI J.iane J. Shekter Smith, P.E., Chief Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 517-284-6543

Attached is VA Tech’s ppt discussion of the corrasion concerns in Flint and the comparison to Detroit water regarding corrosion. It would be more helpful to see the methodology of the study, actual data, and how samples were collected. Michael Prysby, P.E. District Engineer Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance S17 290-8817

While Pat has put together a more complete document, I’m suggesting we share something like the attached as a summary of what the protocol should contain. Your thoughts? This e-mail is DRAFT DELIBERATIVE AND NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA. xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b062_1921_1921_1

Importance: High E wasn't sure whe all will need this so please forward as oppropriate. The department weuld like to capture our costs releted to the Flint situation. The below project number has been established. You ean use This with any account ceding The? you would normally be using for DCDS or travel expenses. As Eunderstand 4, we alse want to go back and camture ag much ag we can prior to This date, Tf you would process payroll corrections to acd this praject number, that would be helpful. Tf there is trevel, let us know so we con carrect We cari aise de the DCDS corrections far you Hf you pravide the dates and hours that should be charged, xxxEND_PAGE:deq16_b5_0892_4900_0005 With year-enc, the gooner the betrer. Thanks

Date: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 8:42:00 AM l’ll let you know when | know who to contact to see if we can get information about school sampling efforts/programs in other states.

Date: Monday, October 05, 2015 2:22:45 PM The Good to Grow pilot program, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, was a partnership between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Calhoun County Public Health Department (CCPHD) that had funding provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for lead monitoring of potable water in schools and childcare facilities that are on municipal water. It is loosely based on the EPA’s 37s for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools. \n addition to the water sampling, the project was designed to also develop tools to identify and remediate identified lead hazards found in schools and childcare facilities. The lead sampling protocol for determining compliance of community public water supplies has a focus of identifying system-wide lead issues rather than issues in individual buildings. The Lead Copper Rule for public water systems has a lead action level of 15 ppb using 1 liter samples collected at high-risk residences. The action level of 15 ppb can be viewed as a trigger for treatment rather than an exposure level. On the other hand, the lead sampling protocol for schools and childcare facilities used in this study focused on pinpointing lead issues in specific fixtures. It recommends outlets with lead results over 20 ppb be taken out of service or go through remediation. The following link takes you to a summary of the “Good to Grow” program on the Calhoun County website. This website has other links including EPA’s “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools” and “Drinking Water Best Management Practices — For Schools and Child Care Facilities Served by Municipal Water Systems.” There is also a link to AWWA’s “Assisting Schools and Child Care Facilities in Addressing Lead in Drinking Water” that | believe already has a lot of information that Pat and Mike may be able to incorporate into a strategy for other schools facing questions about lead exposure. | believe this pilot concluded earlier this year. | will be contacting Calhoun County to see if some additional information may be available. xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b034_1886_1886_1

Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:19:25 AM Importance: High

Sorry this reply is so long. | dicin’t pian to de so, but | wanted to provide you with same information in case you feel the need to reply in part today. Brad, Mike Prysby is on annual leave for a counle of weeks, Steve Busch was in his Jackson office today and probably on his way home new, Liane tock this afterncon off to attend to personal business in Marshall, and Pat Cook is gone for the day. Do you need an answer today? Since this memo is based on the unofficial draft report, do we want to comment? We should probably meet to discuss before anyone responds. AS you know, we have agreed to disagree with EPA on a couple of the issues raised by this meme covering an unofficial EPA report. To begin, when the lead and copper rules (LOR) were first implemented, large oysterns were allowed to collect two sets of lead and copper samples in consecutive 6 month monitoring periods and if their 90" percentile lead level was within & milligrams per iter of the lead level in their source water, they did nat have to further “optirnize’ corrosion control treatment Vhen Flint changed water sources from the Great Lakes to an Inland river and employed water treaiment that was significantly different (orecipitative soffening vs. direct filtration} than that supplied by Detroit, we granted Flint as @ “new supply’ ihe same consideration to determine # their treatment already provided optimal corrosion control AS you know, their first @ month monitoring resulis complied with the Action Level for lead and were clase to demonstrating optimal corrosion control treaiment (OCCT), Since the city would be averaging resulfs from the two consecutive monitoring periods for the purnoses of OCCT determination, we awaited thelr second set of results fo see what they would reveal. After getting the second sei, it was determined that Flint was again in compliance with the iead and copper Action Level but they did net qualify as already practicing OCCT, Under the original requiatory schedule for implementing OCCT, a community serving more than 50,000 pecple was given a year to conduct treatment studies and submit them to DEQ. We then have 6 rnanths to review thelr stucies and designate thelr OCCT. They then have 2 years to install that treatment. During all that time, no monitoring is required, Our response to the concerns raised in thai memo bul siso more significantly, in formal discussions with Region & EPA Managers, was fo encourage Flint to not take the time we believe they were entitied to have for this process but to rave 2s quickly as possible to implement sarne OCCT. Second, we cantinue fo disagree with EPA on sampling protocols. We have attempted to ensure compllance with EPA guidance (| believe it was provided in the preamble to their lead and copper regulations} that said that household use should be “typical” for a rasicential customer on the day before sarnple collection for lead and copper. Early in the implementation of the LCR, we had encountered too many situations where compliance samples had been collected from kitchen and bethroom taps that had not been used in days and in SOMG CASES, even weeks, resulting in excessively stagnated water and correspondingly high lead levels that did not represent typical exposure expected afler overnight stagnation. Further complicating this issue was the media spectacie thet was arising over EPA's direct implemeniation of the LCR in Washington, D.C, where lead results were not always being included in compliance calculations and subsequenily, invalidation 1 xxxEND_PAGE:deq14_b0416_1610_1611_1 of samples was becorning more difficult. in order to avoid thet coriplicated process, we devised our currerit recornmendations for ensuring appropriate but net excessive stagnation for LCR monitoring. We continue to believe itis appropriate fo flush these taps the day before sample collection to simulate and/or ensure typical household use before ine tap is allowed to sit overnight to achieve the expected stagnation time the regulation stioulates (~8 hours} prior to collecting the first draw sample. The LCR does not say the result should represent the “absolute worst case” condition ~ it taiks about sampling the highest risk locations dead plurnbing, lead service lines, high lead content scider piping, etc.) after overnight stagnation and then collecting a first draw sample so as nol to flush elevaled lead from thal tap al that point in time. Unt EPA changes this rule, we are satisfied with our sampling protocol. larn leaving now, so you can use this information as you see fit, or walt until tornorrow fo discuss with Steve, Liane, Pat encime. We have an all-day ODWMA managers meeting starting at 9 AM Thursday, although Liane is also attending a meeting first thing In the morning with Jim Sygo, Bob Wagner and Jon Aden. Richard

Sorry this reply is so long. I didn’t plan to do so, but! wanted to.provide you with some information in case you feel the need to reply in part today. Brad, - Mike Prysby is on annual leave for a couple. of weeks, Steve Busch was in his Jackson office today and - probably on his way home now, Liane took this afternoon off to attend to personal business in Marshall, and Pat Cook is gone for the day. Do you need an answer today? Since this memo is based on the unofficial draft report, do we want to comment? We should probably meet to discuss before anyone responds. As you know, we have agreed to disagree with EPA on a couple of the issues raised by this memo covering an unofficial-EPA report. To begin, when the lead and copper rules (LCR) were first implemented, large systems were allowed to. collect two sets of lead and copper samples in consecutive 6 month monitoring periods and if their 90" percentile lead level was within 5 milligrams per liter of the lead level in their source water, they did not have to further “optimize” corrosion control treatment. When Flint changed water sources from the Great Lakes to an inland river and employed water treatment that was signifi cantly : different (precipitative softening vs. direct filtration) than that supplied by Detroit, we granted Flint as a “new supply” the same consideration to: determine if their treatment already provided optimal corrosion control. As you know; théir first 6 month monitoring results complied with the Action Level for lead and were close to demonstrating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). Since the city would be averaging results from the two consecutive monitoring periods for the purposes of OCCT determination, we awaited their second :set of results to see what they would reveal. After getting the second set, it was determined that Flint was again in compliance with the lead and copper Action Level but they did not qualify as already practicing OCCT. Under the original regulatory schedule for implementing OCCT, a cormmunibe serving more ‘than 50,000 people was given a year to conduct treatment studies and submit them to DEQ. We then have 6 months to review their studies and designate their OCCT. They then have 2 years to install that treatment. During all that time, no monitoring is. required. Our response to the concerns raised in that memo but also more significantly, in formal discussions with Region 5 EPA Managers, was to encourage Flint to not take the time we believe they were entitled to have for this process but to move as quickly as possible to implement some OCCT. Second, we continue to disagree with EPA on sampling protocols. We have attempted to ensure compliance with EPA guidance (I believe it was provided.in the preamble to their lead and copper regulations) that said that household use should be “typical” for a residential customer on the day before sample collection for lead and copper. Early in the implementation of the LCR, we had encountered too many situations where compliance samples had been collected from kitchen and bathroom taps that had not been used in days and in some cases, even weeks, resulting in excessively stagnated water and correspondingly high lead levels that did not represent typical exposure expected after overnight stagnation. Further complicating this issue was the media spectacle that was arising over EPA’s direct implementation of the LCR in Washington, D.C., 1 xxxEND_PAGE:deq27_b197_0925_0926_1 where lead results were not always being included in compliance calculations and subsequently, invalidation of samples was. becoming more difficult. In order to avoid that complicated process, we devised our current recommendations for ensuring appropriate but not excessive stagnation for LCR monitoring. We continue to believe it is appropriate to flush these taps the day before sample collection to simulate and/or ensure typical household use before the tap is allowed to sit overnight to achieve the expected stagnation time the regulation stipulates (~8 hours) prior to collecting the first draw sample. The LCR does not say the result should represent the “absolute worst case” condition — it talks about sampling the highest risk locations (lead, plumbing, lead service lines, high lead content solder piping, etc.) after overnight stagnation and then collecting a first draw sample so as not fo flush elevated lead from that tap at that point in allan Until EPA changes this rule, we are satisfied with our sampling protocol. | am leaving now, so you can use this information as you see fit, or wait until tomorrow to discuss with Steve, Liane, Pat and me. We have an all-day ODWMA managers meeting starting at 9 AM Thursday, although Liane is also attending a meeting first thing in the morning with Jim Sygo, Bob Wagner and Jon Allen. Richard

Date: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 6:36:27 PM Sorry this reply is so long. | didn’t plan to do so, but | wanted to provide you with some information in case you feel the need to reply in part today. Brad, Mike Prysby is on annual leave for a couple of weeks, Steve Busch was in his Jackson office today and probably on his way home now, Liane took this afternoon off to attend to personal business in Marshall, and Pat Cook is gone for the day. Do you need an answer today? Since this memo is based on the unofficial draft report, do we want to comment? We should probably meet to discuss before anyone responds. As you know, we have agreed to disagree with EPA on a couple of the issues raised by this memo covering an unofficial EPA report. To begin, when the lead and copper rules (LCR) were first implemented, large systems were allowed to collect two sets of lead and copper samples in consecutive 6 month monitoring periods and if their go" percentile lead level was within 5 milligrams per liter of the lead level in their source water, they did not have to further “optimize” corrosion control treatment. When Flint changed water sources from the Great Lakes to an inland river and employed water treatment that was significantly different (precipitative softening vs. direct filtration) than that supplied by Detroit, we granted Flint as a “new supply” the same consideration to determine if their treatment already provided optimal corrosion control. As you know, their first 6 month monitoring results complied with the Action Level for lead and were close to demonstrating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). Since the city would be averaging results from the two consecutive monitoring periods for the purposes of OCCT determination, we awaited their second set of results to see what they would reveal. After getting the second set, it was determined that Flint was again in compliance with the lead and copper Action Level but they did not qualify as already practicing OCCT. Under the original regulatory schedule for implementing OCCT, a community serving more than 50,000 people was given a year to conduct treatment studies and submit them to DEQ. We then have 6 months to review their studies and designate their OCCT. They then have 2 years to install that treatment. During all that time, no monitoring is required. Our response to the concerns raised in that memo but also more significantly, in formal discussions with Region 5 EPA Managers, was to encourage Flint to not take the time we believe they were entitled to have for this process but to move as quickly as possible to implement some OCCT. Second, we continue to disagree with EPA on sampling protocols. We have attempted to xxxEND_PAGE:deq02_b353_3613_3615_1 ensure compliance with EPA guidance (I believe it was provided in the preamble to their lead and copper regulations) that said that household use should be “typical” for a residential customer on the day before sample collection for lead and copper. Early in the implementation of the LCR, we had encountered too many situations where compliance samples had been collected from kitchen and bathroom taps that had not been used in days and in some cases, even weeks, resulting in excessively stagnated water and correspondingly high lead levels that did not represent typical exposure expected after overnight stagnation. Further complicating this issue was the media spectacle that was arising over EPA’s direct implementation of the LCR in Washington, D.C., where lead results were not always being included in compliance calculations and subsequently, invalidation of samples was becoming more difficult. In order to avoid that complicated process, we devised our current recommendations for ensuring appropriate but not excessive stagnation for LCR monitoring. We continue to believe it is appropriate to flush these taps the day before sample collection to simulate and/or ensure typical household use before the tap is allowed to sit overnight to achieve the expected stagnation time the regulation stipulates (~8 hours) prior to collecting the first draw sample. The LCR does not say the result should represent the “absolute worst case” condition — it talks about sampling the highest risk locations (lead plumbing, lead service lines, high lead content solder piping, etc.) after overnight stagnation and then collecting a first draw sample so as not to flush elevated lead from that tap at that point in time. Until EPA changes this rule, we are satisfied with our sampling protocol. | am leaving now, so you can use this information as you see fit, or wait until tomorrow to discuss with Steve, Liane, Pat and me. We have an all-day ODWMA managers meeting starting at 9 AM Thursday, although Liane is also attending a meeting first thing in the morning with Jim Sygo, Bob Wagner and Jon Allen. Richard

Date: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 6:36:00 PM Sorry this reply is so long. | didn’t plan to do so, but | wanted to provide you with some information in case you feel the need to reply in part today. Brad, Mike Prysby is on annual leave for a couple of weeks, Steve Busch was in his Jackson office today and probably on his way home now, Liane took this afternoon off to attend to personal business in Marshall, and Pat Cook is gone for the day. Do you need an answer today? Since this memo is based on the unofficial draft report, do we want to comment? We should probably meet to discuss before anyone responds. As you know, we have agreed to disagree with EPA on a couple of the issues raised by this memo covering an unofficial EPA report. To begin, when the lead and copper rules (LCR) were first implemented, large systems were allowed to collect two sets of lead and copper samples in consecutive 6 month monitoring periods and if their go" percentile lead level was within 5 milligrams per liter of the lead level in their source water, they did not have to further “optimize” corrosion control treatment. When Flint changed water sources from the Great Lakes to an inland river and employed water treatment that was significantly different (precipitative softening vs. direct filtration) than that supplied by Detroit, we granted Flint as a “new supply” the same consideration to determine if their treatment already provided optimal corrosion control. As you know, their first 6 month monitoring results complied with the Action Level for lead and were close to demonstrating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). Since the city would be averaging results from the two consecutive monitoring periods for the purposes of OCCT determination, we awaited their second set of results to see what they would reveal. After getting the second set, it was determined that Flint was again in compliance with the lead and copper Action Level but they did not qualify as already practicing OCCT. Under the original regulatory schedule for implementing OCCT, a community serving more than 50,000 people was given a year to conduct treatment studies and submit them to DEQ. We then have 6 months to review their studies and designate their OCCT. They then have 2 years to install that treatment. During all that time, no monitoring is required. Our response to the concerns raised in that memo but also more significantly, in formal discussions with Region 5 EPA Managers, was to encourage Flint to not take the time we believe they were entitled to have for this process but to move as quickly as possible to implement some OCCT. Second, we continue to disagree with EPA on sampling protocols. We have attempted to xxxEND_PAGE:deq02_b352_3610_3612_1 ensure compliance with EPA guidance (I believe it was provided in the preamble to their lead and copper regulations) that said that household use should be “typical” for a residential customer on the day before sample collection for lead and copper. Early in the implementation of the LCR, we had encountered too many situations where compliance samples had been collected from kitchen and bathroom taps that had not been used in days and in some cases, even weeks, resulting in excessively stagnated water and correspondingly high lead levels that did not represent typical exposure expected after overnight stagnation. Further complicating this issue was the media spectacle that was arising over EPA’s direct implementation of the LCR in Washington, D.C., where lead results were not always being included in compliance calculations and subsequently, invalidation of samples was becoming more difficult. In order to avoid that complicated process, we devised our current recommendations for ensuring appropriate but not excessive stagnation for LCR monitoring. We continue to believe it is appropriate to flush these taps the day before sample collection to simulate and/or ensure typical household use before the tap is allowed to sit overnight to achieve the expected stagnation time the regulation stipulates (~8 hours) prior to collecting the first draw sample. The LCR does not say the result should represent the “absolute worst case” condition — it talks about sampling the highest risk locations (lead plumbing, lead service lines, high lead content solder piping, etc.) after overnight stagnation and then collecting a first draw sample so as not to flush elevated lead from that tap at that point in time. Until EPA changes this rule, we are satisfied with our sampling protocol. | am leaving now, so you can use this information as you see fit, or wait until tomorrow to discuss with Steve, Liane, Pat and me. We have an all-day ODWMA managers meeting starting at 9 AM Thursday, although Liane is also attending a meeting first thing in the morning with Jim Sygo, Bob Wagner and Jon Allen. Richard

Heads up b

Did you all see these on-line articles? Jennifer

Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:10:15 AM Did you all see these on-line articles? Jennifer