Correspondence among

Ineed a comprehensive picture of lead and copper tesis, please. At the plant tap, in the lines, figures we got from the city during the L&C rule tests. Everything. Thank you. )

{received a capy of Cangressinan Kilded's etter from Jordan as well, (attached). Stephen Busch, PE. MDE Lansing District Coordinator Office of Drinking Water ari Municipal Assistance Lansing and Jackson: District Sumervisar S17-643-2314 buschs@michizgan goy

Congressman Kildee Letter on Lead in Flint Water.pdf; ATTOO0005.htm Liane, need your team's help. We'll need a draft response, and possibly a briefing for the director tomorrow. I'll find you in the morning. Thanks! b Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

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

if he needs to talk to someone here, Mike Prysby was the one who contacted Flint officials to learn what was decided at the meeting held Tuesday between the city and their consultant to discuss a number of issues including the possibility of optimizing their treatment for corrosion control. Mike provided an update that | forwarded to Region 5 EPA as they were asking about the status. But this information is best obtained from the city officials that Mike contacted to learn what was discussed. Richard

Date: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:20:00 AM If he needs to talk to someone here, Mike Prysby was the one who contacted Flint officials to learn what was decided at the meeting held Tuesday between the city and their consultant to discuss a number of issues including the possibility of optimizing their treatment for corrosion control. Mike provided an update that | forwarded to Region 5 EPA as they were asking about the status. But this information is best obtained from the city officials that Mike contacted to learn what was discussed. Richard

Brad: Can you heip re with some information from the DEQ regarding this arnail, sent by the LS. EPA enforcement team leader in Region S? fi seems to say the U.S. EPA has offered the city the assistance of a lead expert arvi sent the Infarmation to the DEC as weil ?m following up the a PR contact at the U.S. EPA on this and about the more general federal interest in the lead in water igsue in Flint. Thanks, Ron Fonger MLive Media Group Renorter mobile z email [email protected] address 540 S. Saginaw St. #101, Flint MI 48502

Date: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:18:20 AM And also, this. b

Date: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:18:20 AM And also, this. b

’ What do we want to do with this today? Seems Steve's outta here. b

Date: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:16:11 AM What do we want to do with this today? Seems Steve’s outta here. b

Date: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:16:11 AM What do we want to do with this today? Seems Steve’s outta here. b

Date: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:12:06 PM We are aware that Virginia Tech researchers are now testing water at various Flint homes for lead levels in their plumbing. First, we want to be very clear that the lead issue in Flint, to the extent there is one, is not from the source water or the plant or even the transmission lines. The river has no detectable levels of lead in it, and treated water from the plant has not detectable levels of lead in it. The issue is how, whether, and to what extent the water is interacting with lead plumbing in people’s homes. It does not appear their research lab is certified, and we can’t speak to the whatever sampling methods are being employed to achieve these results. The results reported so far fail to track with any of the lead sampling done by the DEQ for the past 25 years (since 1991), or the blood lead levels testing regularly conducted by the state department of community health. That said, we do appreciate that Virginia Tech’s team is working on this issue because it brings the public spotlight on an important fact: if you have lead water pipes in your home, or a lead service connection to the city system, it is very likely you are ingesting some level of lead. That’s just a fact, and in the City of Flint that fact affects 15,000 or more residences. The state’s monitoring program, which uses certified laboratories and a standardized, federal testing protocol, looks specifically at the homes in communities most likely to experience lead problems. Our results, obtained from two separate rounds of testing over the past year, concluded that the mean average of lead in Flint drinking water, meets state and federal safe drinking water standards. That said, the state is pushing Flint to ‘optimize’ its water, which means addressing additives that can minimize the extent to which the water interacts with lead plumbing in homes. While statute allows several years for an operator actually undertake this process — Detroit took five years to complete its water optimization work — we are encouraging Flint water system operators to take these steps immediately and we are encouraged by the conversation so far. Any resident who has concerns about lead in their drinking water should have their water tested and get professional consultation on how to address it. The leading cause of lead poisoning is known to be lead paint and, in some areas, environmental legacy hot spots where lead is present in soils. However, | will say it again: when homes are fitted with lead plumbing pipes, homeowners should assume there is some varied level of interaction between water and pipes that means exposure. xxxEND_PAGE:deq02_b049_2109_2111_1

We are aware that Virginia Tech researchers are now testing water at various Flint homes for lead levels in their plumbing. First, we want to be very clear that the lead issue in Flint, to the extent there is one, is not from the source water or the plant or even the transmission lines. The river has no detectable levels of lead in it, and treated water from the plant has not detectable levels of lead in it. The issue is how, whether, and to what extent the water is interacting with lead plumbing in people’s homes. it does not appear their research lab is certified, and we can’t speak to the whatever sampling methods are being employed to achieve these results. The results reported so far fail to track with any of the lead sampling done by the DEQ for the past 25 years (since 1991), or the blood lead levels testing regularly conducted by the state department of community health. That said, we do appreciate that. Virginia Tech’s team is working on this issue because it brings the public spotlight on an important fact: if you have lead water pipes in your home, or a lead service connection fo the city system, it is very likely you are ingesting some level of lead. That's just a fact, and in the City of Flint that fact affects 15,000 or more residences. 1 xxxEND_PAGE:deq25_b074_0784_0797_11 The state’s monitoring program, which uses certified laboratories and a standardized, federal testing protocol, looks specifically at the homes in communities most likely to experience lead problems. Our results, obtained from two separate rounds of testing over the past year, concluded that the mean average of lead in Flint drinking water, meets state and federal safe drinking water standards. That said, the state is pushing Flint to ‘optimize’ its water, which means addressing additives that can minimize the extent to which the water interacts with lead plumbing in homes. While statute allows several years for an operator actually undertake this process — Detroit took five years to complete its water optimization work — we are encouraging Flint water system operators to take these steps immediately and we are encouraged by the conversation so far. Any resident who has concerns about lead in their drinking water should have their water tested and get professional consultation on how to address it. The leading cause of lead poisoning is known to be lead paint and, in some areas, environmental legacy hot spots where lead is present in soils. However, | will say it again: when homes are fitted with lead plumbing pipes, homeowners should assume there is some varied level of interaction between water and pipes that means exposure.

Yin unt 4:30 today and then out until Tuesday, sa now is the time. Stephen Busch, PLE. MDEQ Lansing District Coordinator Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Lansing and Jackson District Supervisor 547-643-2314

Okay, friends. Time io compase ail we've been discussing. Pi working up something for the Flirt Journal. Mike, please continue to not engage this one until we've formally responded. Then we can use you and Steve to bat cleanup on any questions Fonger may have. Steve, nave you got afew minutes for re to bounce some stuff off you today?

Liane / Steve, can you look into this situation as a priority? Everyone else -- just got this from the ACLU. Call me if you have questions / counsel. Thanks. b Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

Richard, | agree and the wording of Item #2 in the FOIA reads that way to me. Michael Prysby, P.E. District Engineer Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance 517 290-8817 Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:03 PM

Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:08:21 PM Richard, | agree and the wording of Item #2 in the FOIA reads that way to me. Michael Prysby, P.E. District Engineer Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance 517 290-8817

Mike, When we discussed this matter earlier, | believed the request was limited to correspondence generated between January 1 and June 30, 2015, that met the conditions spelled out in their FOIA request. In reading your message below, | now suspect that they want any correspondence (with the designated entities) that is in regard to the lead and copper results from samples collected between January 1 and June 30, 2015, even if - the correspondence was generated after that time frame. It appears to me the dates are bracketing the period of time for the lead and copper monitoring, not the time frame for correspondence regarding those results. So if we have correspondence with these entities (electronic or otherwise) dated this month (July 2015) that addresses results from samples collected in the first six months of 2015, we should provide them with a copy. Richard

Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:03:00 PM Mike, When we discussed this matter earlier, | believed the request was limited to correspondence generated between January 1 and June 30, 2015, that met the conditions spelled out in their FOIA request. In reading your message below, | now suspect that they want any correspondence (with the designated entities) that is in regard to the lead and copper results from samples collected between January 1 and June 30, 2015, even if the correspondence was generated after that time frame. It appears to me the dates are bracketing the period of time for the lead and copper monitoring, not the time frame for correspondence regarding those results. So if we have correspondence with these entities (electronic or otherwise) dated this month (July 2015) that addresses results from samples collected in the first six months of 2015, we should provide them with a copy. Richard