U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water
Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act Public Meeting
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Meeting Location: EPA Conference Center
USEPA, One Potomac Yard (South Building)
2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202
1:00 – 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, August 16th, 2012
The public meeting minutes for the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act Public Meeting held on
August 16, 2012 is recorded in this document. This document follows the outline and sequence of
the meeting. The material presented herein is based on the proceedings.
The notes include both the presentations and question and answer sessions that followed them. The
notes are as close as possible to the actual dialog from the presenters, panel, and commenters but
have been edited for clarity where possible. Edits can include items such as: grammar correction, and
rephrasing to clarify a point. This level of detail has been included because of audio problems
encountered for the webinar participants of the meeting.
PRESENTERS/PANEL MEMBERS
PRESENTERS/
PANEL MEMBERS
Pamela Barr
Eric Burneson
Ernest Elliot
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi
Jeffrey Kempic
Barry O’Brien
Heath Sharp
Paul Singarella
Vanessa Speight
Lynn Thorp
ORGANIZATION
Acting Director for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) at USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OGWDW
Ernest Elliot, Watts Water Technologies, Inc.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OGWDW
Maryland Department of the Environment
Reliance Worldwide Corporation
Latham & Watkins LLC
Latis Associates (Facilitator)
Clean Water Action
ATTENDEES
ATTENDEE
John E. Arnett
Benjamin Bahk
Bridget Berardinelli
Bill Bergum
Scott Biernat
Jan Boyer
Kevin Bromberg
Greg Cathell
Leslie Darman
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
ORGANIZATION
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
EPA
Water Metrology
Badger Meter
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Badger Meter
SBA Office of Advocacy
Sioux Chief Manufacturing OR Cathell Associates
EPA
1
August 16, 2012
Final
ATTENDEE
George DeJarlais
Franco DiFolco
Jerry Ellis
Paula Engeman
Robert F. Engeman Jr.
Robert F. Engeman III
Dana Erickson
Pierre R. Erville
Peter Greiner
Kristine Heine
Michael E. Heintz
Rachel Herbert
Rachel Herbert
France Lemieux
Kenneth Lepage
ORGANIZATION
Badger Meter
CSA Group
USEPA
Simmons Mfg. Co. Inc.
Simmons Mfg. Co. Inc.
Simmons Mfg. Co. Inc.
USEPA
Lead and Healthy Housing Division
NSF Water Treatment and Distribution Products
Kohler Co
Association of Public Health Laboratories, Inc.
EPA
USEPA
Health Canada
Watts Water Technologies, Inc.
Carmen Liang
National Center for Healthy Housing
Jean McMahon
IntelliTech Systems, Inc.
Suril Mehta
US Environmental Protection Agency
Alan Morrissey
EPA
Andre Noel
Neptune Technology Group Inc.
Darrell Osterhoudt
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Aaron Parker
IntelliTech Systems, Inc.
Russ Perkinson
US EPA
Dave Purkiss
NSF Water Treatment and Distribution Products
Jennifer Baker Reid
Masco Corporation
Jacelyn Rice
US EPA, ORD
Alan Roberson
American Water Works Association
Matthew Robinson
USEPA
Stephanie Salmon
Plumbing Manufacturers International
Paul Schwartz
Water Alliance
Craig Selover
Masco R&D
Nicole Shao
US EPA
Lameka Smith
US Environmental Protection Agency
Lois Starkey
MHI
Jim Taft
ASDWA
Jim Taft
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Megan Toparlak
Master Meter, Inc.
Steve Via
American Water Works Association
Pat Ware
BNA
There were 168 registered Webinar attendees.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
2
August 16, 2012
Final
Proceedings
Vanessa Speight welcomed all of the presenters and participants, briefly discussed the agenda and then
introduced Pam Barr of the USEPA as the first speaker. Ms. Barr introduced herself as The Acting
Director for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) at EPA and explained that the
purpose of the meeting was for the Agency to listen to stakeholder concerning potential implications of
the Lead Free Act. She thanked the attendees and then briefly discussed the Lead Free Act.
Pam Barr: This law is meant to address lead, which is probably one of the better-understood
environmental contaminants out there. It does have very significant health effects. I think most of us
know about the health effects on infants and children, but depending on the level of exposure, lead can
have health effects on the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and
development systems, and the cardiovascular system. The most common are the neurological
development issues in children, and the cardiovascular effects in adults. And for children, I think most of
us have heard about behavioral problems and the learning deficits from lead from exposure in infants and
young children.
This Federal Law, or the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, was signed January 4, 2011. It
becomes effective January 4, 2014. When we first took a look at it, we really thought it was a pretty
straightforward law. Take out 8.0% put in 0.25%; it is pretty easy. Even with our extensive processes, we
should be able to do that easily. As we talked about it more amongst ourselves, and as we heard from
some of you, we realized that it is not quite as easy as it looked at first blush. In fact, it is not really that
easy at all. That is what we want to hear from you today, as we talk about different approaches and
different ideas that we’ve come up with. We would like to hear what you think the implications of those
approaches are. We would also like to hear about other ideas and approaches that people feel should be
considered as we work on this issues that will also meet the letter and spirit of the law.
As we looked at it more, we do think that it likely will require rule making, and our plan on that is we
would include it in our revisions to our Lead and Copper Rule that we are currently working on. That is
scheduled to go out early next year, and that is probably the quickest way for us to get a rule out there on
this issue in the fastest timeframe. It is no quite as easy as a simple modification of take out this and put in
that which is what we wanted. We do realize that for the plumbing material manufacturers, you’re going
to have to make some changes in your production processes and inventories, and that will need to be done
by 2014. So you know that this is not going to be easy, and that is why we want to hear from everyone
today.
We have got a range of folks who will be speaking and presenting to you and also giving us ideas to give
us some perspective. From the environmental and consumer communities we’ve got Lynn Thorp from
Clean Water Action. We have got Barry O’Brien from the Maryland Department of Environment Water
Supply Program, and he is going to be providing us the perspective from a state that has implemented a
similar reduction of lead in drinking water program. We have Stephen Estes-Smargiassi from the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, my hometown, and he will give us a perspective from the
water industry. Then we have three people who will give their perspectives from the industry, and they
are Paul Singarella from Latham & Watkins, Ernest Elliot from Watts Water Technologies, and Heath
Sharp from Reliance Worldwide Corporation. We thank all of you for taking the time to put together your
thoughts and presenting them to all of us for consideration.
Before they speak, I want to introduce Jeff Kempic, who is to my right. He is our lead staffer on lead. He
has really been looking at this law and trying to figure out what the implications might be and what the
approaches are, and I am sure others have spoken to him about this recently. He also has extensive
experience on the Lead and Copper Rule and is working on the revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule. He
has been providing technical assistance to third-party certification organizations like NSF International,
and of course they have a standard for “lead-free” so he has lots of experience with that. I would like to
thank you all for joining us, and I will turn it over to Jeff.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
3
August 16, 2012
Final
Presentation by Jeff Kempic, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OGWDW
I would like to provide a brief overview of both current requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
well as the Lead Free Drinking Water Act. Some of the challenges that come up with regard to the new
Act deal with how it interplays with sections of the Act that have been in place for a while. I am also
going to talk about some next steps at the end.
One of the first requirements deals basically with the “use prohibition” that says you can’t use any pipe,
plumbing, fittings, or fixture in the installation or repair of any public water system, but, in addition, it
also applies to residential and nonresidential facilities providing water for human consumption. In
addition, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the definition of a public water system is not simply just the
distribution system but also includes the treatment, the storage, and any collection systems. So really this
lead-free requirement is going to go from source to tap. So it will cover all plumbing materials from
source to tap. Second, one of the prohibitions is sort of the introduction into the Commerce Provision.
This is in 1417(a)(3), and this deals with what you can’t introduce in the commerce products that don’t
meet the definition of lead free. Subparagraph (A) covers the requirements that relate to pipes, plumbing,
fittings, and fixtures, and then (B) and (C) deal with solder. Subparagraph (C), we are going to come back
to, because it is actually a labeling requirement that is written into the Act dealing with solder being used
for a non-potable purpose. The other requirements deal with the enforcement of the requirements. 1417(b)
requires the states to do the enforcement of the use prohibitions. This is the repair or installation
prohibition, and they should enforce that through state or local plumbing codes or other means of
enforcement that the state may determine to be appropriate. The Act also has the penalties; where if, the
administrator determines that the state is not enforcing the requirements of this subsection, that the
administrator can hold up to 5% of the federal funds for the state’s program grants.
This is the current definition of Lead Free right now in 1417(d), for solders and fluxes. It is limited to no
more than 0.2% lead. Right now, for pipes and pipe fittings, it is no more than 8.0% lead. For plumbing
fittings and fixtures, it refers to plumbing fittings and fixtures that are in compliance with the standards
that are in accordance with subsection (e). This was basically recognized in 1997 Federal Register notice
that Section 9 of the NSF/ANSI Standard 61 met the requirements. So this is basically a lead-leaching
requirement, where plumbing fittings and fixture products need to meet the lead-leaching requirement,
but the other two are actually a lead content requirement.
I am now moving on to what revisions introduced by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of
2011 are. It is basically amending this section and making a couple of big changes to it. First, it changes
the definition of lead free from 8% to not more than 0.25%, and, in addition, it expands it to cover both
the plumbing fittings and fixtures. So there is no more lead-leaching requirement in the Act for these
products; it is now for all plumbing fittings and fixtures, pipes, and pipe fixtures. It is now a lead content
requirement that it that cannot be more than 0.25%. One of the other things it does, it actually creates
some exemptions. There is some language adding exemptions to products covered by the Lead Free Act.
There is also a statutory requirement for how the lead calculation will be done, to determine if a product
meets the 0.25% on the wetted surface material. The Act becomes effective 36 months from signature,
and that will be January 4, 2014.
As I mentioned, there are two exemptions to 1417(a)(4). The first one is the more complex one, and we
are going to come to it during another area of discussion. This exemption is for the pipes, pipe fittings,
plumbing fittings, and fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for non-potable
services; and I highlighted that, because it is going to be critical for discussion, such as manufacturing,
industrial processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or other uses where the water is not anticipated to be
used for human consumption. The language in the Safe Drinking Water Act was modeled after the
California legislation. This language is different. This is used exclusively for non-potable services is not
something in the California law but is in this one. The other exemption under (a)(4)(b) is actually
exempting specific products and doesn’t have this other language that is used exclusively for non-potable
services. It is primarily shower valves, tub fillers, service saddles, and water distribution main gate valves
that are 2 inches in diameter or greater. One of the other things about the exemptions is that they are
basically exempted from meeting any definition of lead free. So any item covered by these exemptions
can have any amount of lead. The change actually took in 1417(d) under the definition of lead free; going
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
4
August 16, 2012
Final
to no more than .25% lead to be used with respect to the wetted surfaces of the pipes and other fittings
and fixtures. You have a calculation procedure, and what was (d)(3), which had that lead-leaching
requirement, was not retained in the revisions.
Another key revision is the effective date. It is January 4, 2014, and this applies to both the use
prohibition in (a)(1) as well as the introduction into commerce prohibition in (a)(3). So a product to be
legally introduced into commerce on January 3, 2014, cannot be legally used in the installation or repair
of the Public Water System or residential or nonresidential application providing water for human
consumption. So you have this lack of a staggered effective date affecting a much broader range for the
stakeholders, who usually aren’t affected by drinking water regulations. It affects plumbers, retailers,
developers, schools, and water systems and any of them who have a back inventory of products that does
not meet this new definition of lead free that is going to be potentially impacted after January 2014.
Now we are going to get to some of the issues that we have identified as to how we are going to
implement the requirements of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. The first deals with
demonstrating the products that are lead free. The question is, “Should manufacturers and employers be
required to demonstrate that their products are lead free and if so how?” And if so, then we have
identified a couple of potential approaches that could be used to demonstrate this lead-free requirement.
One would be to require manufacturer have the product certified by a qualified third party utilizing the
NSF/ANSI Standard 372 that does have the same calculation procedure as the SDWA lead-free
calculation. Another approach would be to have the manufacturers self-certify and make publicly
available documentation of their calculations and tests.
The second issue deals with the scope of that first exemption, the 1417 (a)(4)(A) exemption, that is used
exclusively for non-potable surfaces. So the question here is, “To qualify for the exemption, must a
product be physically incapable of use in a potable services application, or could it be physically capable
of use but labeled as illegal for use in potable services?” So the potential approach we have identified here
is allowing the product line in potable or non-potable products that are interchangeable, if the non-potable
version of the product is labeled as not for potable purposes. Or all the products that are interchangeable
with a potable counterpart must meet the lead content requirement, because they are not used exclusively
for non-potable purposes. So the one there is potable and non-potable and the other there would only be
lead free, even if the use is non-potable application as well.
Sort of a subset of that first issue is if we are to take the approach of allowing a dual product line, then
how do we make that label requirement? There are a number of ways to label it. One would be to look at
the labeling requirement similar to the one that’s built into the Act for lead solders that actually have a
label on the package saying it is illegal to use the solder for the installation and repair in plumbing for
providing water for human consumption.
Another approach could be to require labeling on the product, since products can get separated from the
packaging, which would have the potential that purchasers would be unaware of the use restriction. One
of the challenges of labeling the product is that it would be limited in terms of the size of the message,
and they may have to develop some sort of symbol or something else to indicate the product is not
intended for potable use.
The third alternative could be labeling the package as well as the product.
The third issue is identifying lead-free products. How can consumers know if a product meets the revised
lead-free definition? Some labeling of the products that meet the lead-free definition could help
distinguish between back inventory that does not meet the 0.25% requirement and products that do meet
the 0.25% requirement. The potential approach here would be to require the independent certification
against the NSF/ANSI Standard 372, which would include a certifier’s mark. Another approach would be
to require manufacturers that don’t go through the third-party certification to have some sort of label as
well that indicates the product meets the lead-free requirements. Or, a third alternative could be to not
require labeling of lead-free ones, and relies essentially on the label for non-potable product lines for not
allowing any interchangeable non-potable products.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
5
August 16, 2012
Final
The fourth issue deals with how we calculated the lead content under the new law. The language indicates
that the lead content must be calculated for each wetted component, and the lead content of the material
used to produce the wetted components shall be used to determine compliance with the 0.25%
requirement. So the question here is what constitutes the lead content of the material used to produce the
wetted components?
Some potential approaches here would be to look at the lead content of the surface of the product for this
calculation. Another approach would be to look at the lead content of the alloy used to produce the wetted
component rather than just the surface layer. One of the issues that comes up with just looking at the
surface layer is that acid washing can be used to remove surface lead, however higher layers could be
exposed, as the product is used due to erosion/dezincification. Coatings are another potential mechanism.
It could also wear off over time and expose the brass/bronze and have higher lead levels there as well.
The approach of using the content of the alloy is consistent with the way the calculation is done for
California as well as NSF/ANSI Standard 372. There acid washing and coating are not used under either
one of those two approaches.
The fifth issue deals with repairing and returning products to service. 1417(a)(1) prohibits the use of items
that are not lead free in the installation or repair of a public water system or any plumbing in a residential
or nonresidential facility that is providing water for human consumption. So the question for this one is,
“Can the product in the system or facility be repaired using lead-free component parts and returned to
service, even if the other component parts that are not repaired do not meet the meet the definition of lead
free? We get a lot of calls on this one related to water meters. Does the entire meter have to be replaced or
can a component part of the meter be replaced as part of the work? So the potential is for the entire unit to
be replaced to meet the 0.25% lead requirement, or another potential approach would be that only the
components being replaced would need to meet the 0.25% lead content requirement. Both of these
approaches assume that the component part being sold separately meets the 0.25% lead content
requirement. This in itself might be an issue if some of the parts may not be able to do that on their own.
This may be another issue that changes this issue as well.
Next Steps: We are hoping to get information from the stakeholders for the process, in the terms of the
questions on the approaches that were laid out, and we are going to evaluate that information. As Pam
mentioned, we are looking to revise the three requirements that are in 40 CFR part 141.43. We are
looking to revise that, as a part of our Lead and Copper Rule Long-Term Revisions. Those revisions are
not likely to be promulgated before the January 2014 effective date. So one last question in our next steps
is what, if any, interim guidance may be needed to help with implementing as of January 2014?
Presentation by Barry O’Brien, Maryland Department of the Environment
I would like to thank the EPA for allowing us to present our position and to be a part of this workshop. It
is a great idea to share the knowledge as we are moving forward. I work for the Maryland Department of
the Environment, and we are the primacy agency for the Safe Drinking Water Act implementation. Just to
tell you a little bit about us, we have 473 community water supplies; 550 non-transient/noncommunity
water supplies; and 2,404 transient noncommunity water supplies. I am not a plumbing expert, and I don’t
have the answer to everything. We have been active with changes to the Federal Lead-Free Definition,
and that was passed in 2010 and effective in 2011. It mirrors the federal definition of a 0.25% lead wetted
perimeter in pipes and solder and the 0.2% which we already had. In 2012, it was slightly revised, and the
main purpose of that was to make it clear that each department did not apply to existing plumbing rules. It
is already in place. So the law was put into the part of the statute that is enforced by the Department of
Licensing and Regulation, and it requires the Plumbing Board to come up with regulations to support the
law. So these regulations are being adopted right now by the State Plumbing Board. We also have a
couple other complications, in that there are three different plumbing laws in the state of Maryland. So the
State Plumbing Board is adopting regulations in Oliver County, which has a separate plumbing code that
is adopting regulations, and WC, which has a separate plumbing code for adopting regulations. So it is a
little bit complicated. The key point here is that none are with the Maryland Department of the
Environment, which is the primacy agency.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
6
August 16, 2012
Final
So our experience so far is that we haven’t experienced everything, but we are still in the transition
process. With that said, water systems may not know this is coming, and we found that out ourselves. I
think the state of Maryland could have done a better job educating the water systems of this law prior to it
becoming effective. So we need to educate water systems early and often. We have had a number of
complaints of water systems that have large inventories of plumbing supplies that were not compliant, and
some of them were able to sell them back at a pretty reduced rate. That will become an even bigger issue
when it becomes a national law, because it will be even tougher to sell it back, as there is not too much
use for these plumbing supplies except for non-global situations or maybe overseas. The other
recommendation is that the primacy agency really should have a lot of communication with the particular
agency responsible in that state for enforcement. Other state concerns, this one that has already come up,
the primacy agencies do not have direct control over requirements of the new Federal Lead Free
Definition, and they do not have control over plumbing codes or over enforcement. The primacy agency
does not have permitting authority over installation of meters, plumbing, and a lot of distribution
improvements that are made that could also come under the jurisdiction of these lead-free requirements.
These two concerns go hand in hand. We are already experiencing trouble keeping up with the current
Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The big question is what are EPA’s expectations of us, as far as
ensuring the new lead-free requirements are being met? We really don’t know what that is going to be,
and we are all a little bit nervous about that. I will say, up until now, our experience with Region 3 EPA
and the enforcement of the lead solder ban has been a reasonable approach. If that approach continues,
then that will lessen the burden on the states. But, for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, it is difficult
for us to ensure that lead-free devices or devices that are not lead free are not installed. States are
expecting we will have to change our laws and change our regulations, but since enforcement is not under
our authority, we have concerns about being able to fully comply with that.
Some states have a lengthy rule adoption process, and they are concerned that they may not be able to
have laws on their books before 2014. So, we have questions: Will there be extensions allowed by EPA?
States will need to specifically update any part of their regulations that refer to certain part of NSF
standards. Effects on water system include the loss of inventory and cost of lead-free compliant plumbing,
which is likely to go up. Maybe when it comes at a national level, it will level out a little bit. As Jeff
mentioned we have concerns about having the meters replaced, or inspections or repair, and if a repair of
a meter causes them to have to replace it, is that going to have a negative effect on maintenance, will they
be less likely to go out and repair meters.
A quick summary: States are concerned about the burdens, particularly because we don’t have control
over all of it. Also, it really depends on what the EPA expects us to do to verify that plumbing and water
systems are compliant with lead-free requirements. For water systems, too, we are concerned about the
costs and loss of inventory. Thank you.
Vanessa Speight opened the floor to questions for the first two speakers. We have some microphones
coming out.
Bob Engeman: I’m a Simmons manufacturer, and we are a manufacturer of plumbing valves for water
systems. Our biggest concern is with the rulings: When they will take place and when we will find
something out, because you discussed the supply chain. When we look at our wholesalers we sell to, and
they sell to contractors, they are going to want to stop by and look at inventory in June of next year. As a
manufacturer, we have raw components, we have finished components, and we are also buying parts right
now for 6 months down the road. So if we are going to have to start labeling products lead free, we really
need some fast input, because we are going to have to start in a few months, as far as our full supply chain
from start to finish goes. We already have lead-free products, but lately if you are talking permanent
third-party certification; it takes months for foundries to change patterns on all our casting equipment. My
biggest concern for manufacturers is the time frame for getting information and being able to put out a
compliant product by January. So I guess that’s not a question, but rather input for discussion. Thank you.
Unidentified Speaker: Along those lines, something I forgot to mention is that labeling is very confusing
right now, because there is not a standard method of labeling. If it is labeled on some boxes, but then you
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
7
August 16, 2012
Final
take the product out of the box, you can’t tell if it is lead-free compliant. Some say lead free; some have
symbols on them. That is an issue that we are experiencing right now.
Greg Cathell:, with Cathell Associates, a manufacturer rep. for several manufacturers in the D.C. area.
My question is for Mr. O’Brien. You expressed concern with respect to how Maryland is going to enforce
or how EPA expects the states to enforce the laws, if Maryland is a microcosm of the U.S. having already
implemented its own law. How is Maryland expecting the different jurisdictions to do enforcement?
Barry O’Brien: Well, there is a process in place for most of what this law effects, and that is that there
are plumbing boards or plumbing inspectors, and they are the same ones who are also enforcing the lead
ban requirement on solder. So that process is in place, and we let the other jurisdictions work out the
regulations for that. What may not be covered by that process are components within the distribution
through the water system, because that is not affected by these plumbing codes. So, right now, we really
don’t have an answer for that. I guess we are counting on suppliers to provide lead-free requirements to
the water system first, but they are not covered under the plumbing codes.
Greg Cathell: So unfortunately it is jurisdiction by jurisdiction for now.
Barry O’Brien: Yes.
France Lemieux: I sit on a plumbing standards committee that is a harmonized standard for both U.S.
and Canada. The 112.18.1/CSA B125.1 is a really long name, but it deals with supply fittings. And we
agreed as a joint technical committee to go forward with the low lead requirements under those standards,
with that particular standard, and we are moving towards the other harmonized standards as well, is cited
under our national plumbing code. And from what I understand, I don’t know if the versions, per se, are
cited in the UPC, the NPC and the IPC should capture at least part of that from a plumbing standpoint, so
hopefully that helps ease in things from the U.S. side.
Jan Boyer: I have a question for Mr. O’Brien. You mentioned that Maryland revised the law in 2012, so
you clarified that it was meant to apply to items that were already installed or in existing in plumbing.
Can you just expand on that a little bit, are you referring to water meters or plumbing that already exists?
Did you clarify that it didn’t apply to existing plumbing?
Mr. O’Brien: It was revised to clarify the confusion over that, which basically means it applies to
existing plumbing that is not being repaired or replaced. The federal law applies if something is being
repaired or replaced.
Ms. Boyer: How do you handle things that are being repaired or tested? Let’s say you have to test an
existing water meter.
Mr. O’Brien: Well, we in the Department of Environment are not handling it. This is done through local
plumbing codes and inspections.
Kevin Bromberg: This is a question for Jeff. I’m asking about the January 2014 effective date; the
introduction to commerce prohibitions. So you can make a part on January 3, and on January 4 it has to be
compliant. So for example, it has to be compliant with the 0.25% requirement for content, and we are not
even sure how we are supposed to measure that. What portion of the component etc. It appears to me that
this will create a large problem with the manufacturers not being able to make compliant parts well in
advance of January 4. What is EPA’s experience with being able to waive, under enforcement discretion,
of parts that will not be in compliance as of January 4? There will be lots of parts in this pipeline.
Eric Burneson: Kevin, I’ll take that question from you. We are really not in a position to state what our
enforcement experience on this has been. We recognize that guidance is needed. We are working to try
and get information out that will propose some approaches to this. We recognize that the regulations more
than likely will not be in place at the point in time when the law goes into effect, so one of the reasons we
are talking to folks now is to see what sort of needs are out there, and we have heard the point about some
need for some enforcement discretion and guidance, but we don’t have a decision for you at this point in
time.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
8
August 16, 2012
Final
Webinar Submitted Question: Kevin Wong with the Canadian Water Quality Association - Is there a
threat of product dumping in Canada, and I would extend that to other countries, because of the changes
going on in the U.S.?
Jeff Kempic: I don’t think that is something we are in the position yet to respond to. I think what we are
trying to do with this is get an idea of how to handle the exemptions and how to deal with the products in
terms of how they will meet the requirements. That’s what I think we are hoping to get out of this
information that will help us inform how we deal with the implementation of our Act here.
Webinar Submitted Question: Charles Hedrick – Can Jeff repeat some of his comments about the repair
parts, because the audio wasn’t working well. This is a key issue, which the plumbing manufacturers
disagree with in California.
Jeff Kempic: The key issues, with regard to the repair provision deals with the use provisions and the
repair requirements. This deal with one of the interactions between the existing requirements under the
SDWA and how the new Lead Free Definition fits in with the existing requirements. So previously, as
brass met the requirements, this really wasn’t an issue. This is an issue, because of the change from going
from 8% to 0.25%, and now there are going to be existing products that previously met the Lead Free
Definition that will not meet the Lead Free Definition going forward as of January 2014. So the issue is
when we are dealing with that situation. When dealing with a repair of either a water system or a
residential or nonresidential facility providing water for human consumption, you can repair by using
lead-free component parts, and the entity as a whole (say it’s a meter and you are replacing one part of the
meter), as long as the replacement part meets the Lead Free Definition, and the old meter previously met
the Lead Free Definition, but does not meet the current definition, do you have to replace the entire meter,
or do you simply replace the one part that meets lead free to be in compliance with this part of the
requirement of the use prohibition for repair of the product? I did note this approach assumes that the
replacement components would meet the 0.25% lead requirement, and that may also be an issue in terms
of whether manufacturers are looking to have all repair components or pieces sold individually meet the
requirements as well. So this is a two-fold issue that revolves around the repair issue.
Webinar Submitted Question: Derrick Dennis – Are you saying that new components must meet the
new definition, or only the new repair component would be now required to meet the new definition?
Jeff Kempic: This sounds like it is the same question. The issues deal with, does the entire meter or part
need to be replaced, or can simply a component be replaced if the component meets the 0.25%? So those
are the two potential approaches laid out in my presentation that I gave, and it sort of has a peripheral
issue around it as well in terms of whether all the replacement component (given they are intended to be
used in the bigger whole [product]) need to meet the new 0.25% as well. Again, these are some of the
areas we are trying to get more information on, from both manufacturers and water systems in terms of
what their recommendations are in relative to this issue and potential approaches.
Webinar Submitted Question: Art Bukowski – I represent a major water well component manufacturer
in the Midwest with their own foundry. With our current equipment, we are considering having to
outsource most of our parts overseas, since the upgrade costs in the furnace equipment and molding
patterns do not seem to justify manufacturing in the U.S. Are there financial incentives, other than staying
in business, to help with this transition, such as grants?
Eric Burneson: I think at this point, if I understand the questions correctly, we are not aware of nor do
we have any appropriations to provide financial incentives or grants for manufacturers to make these
transitions through the agency’s funding, but that does raise a related point I wanted to make clear that we
asking for input on here. Which is that we understand that this law and the way we interpret this law has
some implementation burden and costs on individuals, so one of the things we are interested in is getting
your input on, is not just what is the most appropriate public health protective way of implementing this
law’s provisions, but what are the associated implementation burdens that go along the lines of changing
manufacturing lines and what is this going to do to overall cost of production and components? So the
short answer to the question about whether there will be funding provided along with the legislation is
none that we are aware of, but we are interested in your feedback on what those costs and impact would
be.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
9
August 16, 2012
Final
Vanessa Speight: Another question for Jeff, asking if you could repeat your discussion about the marks
or symbols.
Jeff Kempic: Essentially there are a number of issues related to this. One deals with the fact that there
could be symbols dealing with products that are exempted. In other words if we are going to have a dual
product line, having some labeling associated with products that are intended for non-potable purposes,
and have some labeling similar to solder, saying it is illegal for use or a stamping requirement on the
product that might require a symbol, that is one issue. The other issue is in terms of identifying products
that meet lead free in terms of consumers. Approaches there that we have identified include utilizing a
third-party certification and the NSF ANSI 372 Process, or having a self-certification and a mark from the
manufacturer along something demonstrating that that the product meets the lead-free requirement. So we
have from this marking/labeling area, there are several sets of issues—one dealing with non-potable
products under the assumption there is a dual product line, and the other deals with identifying products
that actually meet the lead-free requirement.
Webinar Submitted Question: Daniel Gleiberman – Please repeat the discussion about 1417 (a)
(1)(A)(2), regarding the definition of human consumption. Does this 2011 Lead Reduction Act change
that definition in any way?
Jeff Kempic: Basically the areas of the law that changed deal with adding exemptions that are in (a)(4),
and then dealing with the revisions of the lead-free definitions, which are in Section (b). So those are the
two areas of the law where the changes were made. As I said, a lot of the other issues come up from how
the existing language interacts with the new language, especially given the changes in terms of the lead
content requirement, in that the previous definition of lead free that most of the standard alloys already
met. So what we are seeing with the change here is that there are products that previously met the leadfree requirement that won’t meet it in the future and how that plays out.
Webinar Submitted Question: Charles Maddox of Austin Water Utility – Does NSF 61 exempt fire
hydrants? Will they also be exempt from this new Lead Free Definition? Will pump impellers made from
brass be covered? Will chemical feed pumps and equipment in treatment plants be covered?
Jeff Kempic: As I said in the first slide, the treatment facility is covered under the definition of a public
water system. So a public water system under the Safe Drinking Water Act includes both the collection
and reservoir types of things as well as the treatment process itself, in addition to the distribution system.
So it is not simply just from the treatment point and going out into the distribution system only; it is really
going to be from source to tap, in terms of the products being covered. In terms of specific products and
in terms of the fire hydrants, it is not something that is specifically exempted, so it is something we will
have to look at in the future. I would have to look at it as if they interact at all with any of the exemptions
that are in the Safe Drinking Water Act, but the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act in terms of the
public water system is broader than just the distribution system.
Webinar Submitted Question: Jirong Lu – Can I still use existing inventory, that doesn’t meet the new
requirements and just stop using that after January 2014, or should I stop using it now?
Jeff Kempic: Well, the way the law works is that the current law is in effect until January 2014, so the
products can still be legally used until January 4, 2014, and then they can’t be installed after that date.
Webinar Submitted Follow-up Question: Charles Hettrick from Delta Faucet – In the case of plumbing
products, many faucet parts individually do not meet the low lead requirements, but the whole repair
assembly will meet the requirement. That is how we meet the requirement, when the whole assembly will
but not necessarily the individual repair part.
Jeff Kempic: This is what I mentioned when I did issue five. It’s that form of tangential issue that in
some cases the parts may not meet the 0.25%. So how we deal with this repair provision is going to be a
challenge in terms of as a whole, or from a meter perspective, some people may look at it as a part, or in a
faucet situation you may look at it as a whole. This is one of the areas we are hoping to get input from
manufacturers, in terms of looking at the component parts. Is it going to be realistic to make the parts
meet the lead-free requirements? So that will help us inform how we approach this particular issue, in
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
10
August 16, 2012
Final
terms of how we look at the situation for faucet repair or meter repair, or in terms of looking at
components or the entire product itself.
Webinar Submitted Question: Bruce Kiselica – How does EPA ensure that products from overseas fit
the lead-free requirement?
Jeff Kempic: These are some of the issues and approaches we are looking at; potential utilization of
third-party standards or some sort of self-certification/documentation. It is sort of the first issue we are
asking for input on. On the slide it says both manufacturers as well as imports. So it is intended to sort of
get input from not just people in manufacturing here but also from people who import products as well.
Webinar Submitted Question: Keith Morris – I represent a small manufacturer of replacement
components, and it is our understanding that all the components of the pipe, fitting, or fixture do not need
to meet the 0.25% standard as long as the entire product does. However, are you saying that a single
component that can be sold in an original product by itself would not be 0.25% compliant and could not
be used as a replacement part?
Jeff Kempic: So I think the question we are asking with this is that it basically revolves around looking at
this repair. If we have parts or components that are being replaced, can it simply be that in and of itself, so
you are just replacing a component so long as that component is lead free, but the entire part doesn’t need
to be replaced, or do you look at having to replace the entire fitting and fixture and use that to meet the
0.25%?
Eric Burneson: Since this question keeps coming up, and Jeff keeps nobly trying to explain, I’ll try to
answer it. We are looking for input on this particular issue. We are not declaring at this point in time, we
are saying there are multiple ways to interpret this requirement, particularly placing a device back in
service after it has been repaired. So this is one of the key questions we are asking for your input on. How
do we interpret this? Will we look at the whole device being returned to service after it has been taken out
and calculate the wetted perimeter and lead content of the whole perimeter of the device. The other
interpretation is to define that the individual component is being replaced and put in service and is what
needs to meet the definition of lead free, at that point in time. We are seeing it in many ways as an
either/or choices, and we are asking for input. Also what the implications are and the burdens associated
with those interpretations.
Vanessa Speight: We have some quick follow-up questions. [Name and company inaudible.] We
manufacturer a product that is 0.25% or less lead, and one of the components is 3% lead, but it still meets
the lead-free product requirement. So down the road this lead-free product needs a replacement
component that was originally 3% lead, if it is sold as a replacement part. Is the product still lead free,
even though the component was sold on its own at 3%? I think that is the biggest question people are
asking here, because it was a component, and it was compliant once it is installed. So even though it had
3%, can it be sold as a replacement part?
Eric Burneson: You framed the issue we are seeking input on. Again, the perspectives on this are, do
you introduce that replacement component into commerce after you just introduced a device that is going
to have a wetted surface perimeter that needs to meet the .25%? Or the other interpretation could be do
you need to consider the entire device for which it is being installed, in a situation wherein you are not
introducing that entire device into commerce you are introducing a replacement part?
Attendee: Given that you are soliciting input for this, do you have the timeframe by which you expect to
make these decisions and have these down to us to take action on them?
Eric Burneson: That gets into the schedule issue that both Pam and I have acknowledged, at the outset, is
probably not going to be in a timely fashion for manufacturers. We hope to incorporate propose revisions
of this lead free content to the proposed rule in 2013, and then promulgate final revisions at the best case
scenario somewhere around the date at which this goes into effect. That’s the best case scenario.
Attendee: How do we provide our input? Who do we direct it to?
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
11
August 16, 2012
Final
Vanessa Speight: I believe we are going to cover that at the end of the session today, but, of course,
assuming we have time for discussion. There is an email address we will give you. It is also in the email
slides sent to the registered attendees.
Paul Singarella: Paul Singarella with Latham & Watkins on behalf of Watts Water Technologies and
Reliance Worldwide Corporation. With regard to this issue of does the whole product installed one to five
years ago have to come out when there is a need to use a repair kit? Just to frame that out, in terms of an
illustration, some of the units that my clients manufacture are very large units; for example, backflow
preventers. Backflow preventers, when replaced, you can be talking about a $10,000 project involving
cranes and very significant expenses. Not so much to the manufacturer, but to the consumer. So if you
end up with an interpretation of installation that is so broad that when you take the backflow preventer in
my hypothetical out of service, and then you repair it with a $5 to $10 kit or something nominal like that,
and then you put it back into service, if that is your interpretation of installation, I think that is very broad,
obviously. And it also very likely will result in very substantial burdens to the regulated community, and,
in particular, the end user and the consumer of that product. I just wanted to frame that up for you. We
think that is taking it to the logical extreme. That’s probably an unreasonable interpretation. Especially if
you further assume, as the gentlemen from Simmons did, that you are talking about an installed unit that
meets the earlier 8% rule, because the lead content in that particular unit is probably well below 8% as it
is. So for this big expense, where is the benefit? Particularly when you are talking about a unit that is lead
free under existing law.
Attendee: On our favorite topic, the replacement of the component part vs. the entire part, it appears to
me that there are at least two other problems here. One is the plumber going to the house to do the repair,
or wherever, is not going to know if this part has been certified based on the entire part or the component
part, and we don’t want him to have to go back through the records of the company who made the part
and figure out which kind of component he needs. The person repairing the part is not going to know
necessarily the ages of the parts he is looking at, and he is not going to know whether it is the new
component part compared to the old component part. One potential way of resolving the issue might be
that we decide that if he adopts the 8% requirement that it was originally certified under as the entire part,
that any component that would satisfy the old requirement would be OK. That is one potential solution I
had, because I don’t think it is practical to try and figure out what the composition is of the part he is
replacing, whether it is 3% or 2%, or whatever that might be.
Badger Meter Rep.: We are one of the largest meter manufacturers, so I just wanted to expound on what
the gentleman from Watts said. We totally agree with that statement, in that it is going to be a huge
financial burden on utilities. In addition to that, when you were talking about third-party certifications,
many of these items that they are talking about like components and replacements, they can’t use them by
themselves. They can only use them as a total entity, so you need to be a little bit careful, too, if you are
going to impose third-party certification that it doesn’t include all of those service items, because all of a
sudden you have a broad statement that any component on the wetted surface has to be third-party
certified. That would mean that parts, such as chambers or any tiny item that makes up the total unit,
cannot be used by itself would, in fact, need to be certified as well. That would be another financial
burden passed on down to utilities. One of the things that we do, too, is that when utilities are ordering
meters or trying to go out to bid, they include in their specifications that these units actually meet the
provisions of the 2014 Safe Drinking Water Act. It is kind of up to the utilities to include that in their
specifications.
Meeting Break
Ms. Speight introduced Paul Singarella to begin the manufacturer’s perspective discussion.
Presentation by Paul Singarella, Latham & Watkins
Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you to the agency for inviting us here to make this panel presentation. My
name is Paul Singarella I am a lawyer at Latham & Watkins, and I am here today on behalf of my two
clients Reliance Worldwide Corporation and Watts Water Technologies, Inc. On the panel with me is Mr.
Ernie Elliott. Ernie has been with Watts Water Technologies since 1986, so he has years of experience in
this business, and he is an executive vice president at Watts and has been for many years. Next to Ernie is
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
12
August 16, 2012
Final
Heath Sharp. Heath is the president at Reliance Worldwide Corporation and has over 20 years of
experience in the business. He is a mechanical engineer and actually started his career designing valves
and other devices. So many years of experience here in the industry on our panel.
Before I launch in, I do want to say that we are very much in favor of the agency issuing guidance, in the
months ahead, and particularly since there will not be a final rule until perhaps well after the statutory
phase in January 2014. We think that guidance is very important, and I think you can hear that from some
of the questions in the audience. There are very material implementations, and phase-in issues that are
facing the industry right now, both on the manufacturing side and the distribution and inventory side. So
guidance, guidance, guidance; please give us guidance. We certainly plan to productively and
constructively engage with the agency and all the other stakeholders as we move ahead.
Today, we are going to focus on the bottom three bullets here on our Agenda. I’m just going to spend a
minute. I know we have about 20 minutes, so I am going to try to watch my clock here, but these issues
are key issues. What I want to do on this first slide is to simply introduce our jargon. We have been living
with this law for a while now, and we have developed a little bit of jargon. If we are going to
communicate with the agency and other stakeholders, it is important for us to explain ourselves, and for
us to explain to you, what we mean by some of these terms.
The first substantive bullet here is that lead content requirements should be introduced in two steps over a
period of years. We think that ultimately getting to a single inventory world might be the optimal end
game, both for the regulated community and for EPA, from an enforcement perspective, but we know that
there is a substantial road ahead. In the interim, we think that it makes a lot of good sense for the agency
to begin things in 2014 with a dual inventory world. So what do those two terms mean? Well, dual
inventory to us means that you make a product, a ball valve, a flexible connector, or whatever it is, and
you can make that exact same product, both in a traditional fashion, with lead content perhaps of a couple
percent, but certainly over 0.25%, while at the same time you can manufacture that exact same device
lead free. You could distinguish the one from the other, with what is happening today in California versus
the rest of the country, with labeling that goes onto the package. That is what we are talking about here
under dual inventories. We think it is basically the world as we know it today, after California enacted the
0.25% rule, effective in 2010.
In the future state, and in that future state there are a lot of things that would need to fall into place for that
future state, but that future state would be the single inventory phase. We are not talking about
manufacturing with one single alloy or one single material. We understand that there is a lot of product
that is being developed out there. We are not suggesting there be any constraint on that. What we are
suggesting is that if you went to a single inventory world, where that same product as before was
manufactured, both lead free and traditional, if now you manufacture it as only lead free or if you
manufacture it only as traditional, the world is simplified. The great advantage we see in that world is that
this whole notion of labeling and marking, and maybe even other things, such as dying and color coding,
would be avoided. So that’s our jargon on dual versus single. One final point on this is, although it is a
two-step process we are suggesting, we understand the world is going lead free in January 2014. What we
are talking about are two different interpretations of what that means and to sequence them temporally.
Our third bullet point here on our agenda is mandatory third-party testing and certification should be
required. There has been a lot of talk about certification and testing, and to us I think we are all talking the
same language here. This is to rely on an extrapolation or evolution of systems that are already in place,
where there are qualified third-party certifiers for different plumbing products. There are state agencies as
well. The idea would be to deputize them upon approval by the agency, to certify the lead content of the
material. It is not a leaching issue. It is a simply a lead content issue, and we think the agency, as we will
describe, has the authority to require third-party testing and certification. And we also think that a
component of that has to be an EPA backstop, not only approving the certifiers but also doing its own
independent testing of a small subset of products in commerce.
Our last bullet point is what we have spent a fair amount of time talking about. The application of lead
content calculation to replacement parts should be addressed. Here, our jargon relates to the words in the
statute “entire product,” which is a term of art in the calculation; “methodology,” enacted in the new law
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
13
August 16, 2012
Final
versus “component,” another term that is used in the calculation definition. We think that Congress was
obviously talking about the entire product on the one hand and components on the other, and we think
that largely replacement parts are just components of the entire product, which gives the agency a fair bit
of discretion here. So who are we, the companies? We are two companies that have partnered together to
address the Lead Free Law. Some of you may know us. We sell thousands of skews in the United States,
and obviously we are currently taking steps to ensure compliance with the Lead Free Water Law. The
agency in California is doing some of the spot testing, and we are proud to report that we are 100%
compliant in California, per DTSEs, which is the California agency’s testing. So we are the leaders in not
only the residential but also the commercial water product markets. Our revenues are significant, we have
a very significant domestic footprint and an overseas footprint, and those in the industry will find those
products to be pretty broad and representative.
So what I’m going to do now is I am going to become the page turner, and Mr. Elliott is going to pick it
up here on Slide 34.
Ernest Elliott: We have been working on how to implement this change in the law for the last couple of
years, and during that process we have had several significant questions, some of which have been raised
today already, so we started asking and working on them. Our recommendation, as Paul mentioned on the
inventory on the material use, has evolved from when we first looked at this saying we are going to have
two sets of inventory, depending on product application, traditional and lead free. Then as we got into it
from both the commercial aspects and what it meant to us and our machine shops and foundries, as well
as the questions raised by EPA and others, I would say for the long term we are starting to move to a
recommendation of moving to a single material byproduct and product application.
Obviously, anyone in the manufacturing field knows that there are efficiencies of scale, and in a shop or a
distribution channel for that matter, and having double inventories in our case for many of our products,
certainly is not a traditional way of manufacturing those for market. So there is a commercial aspect for
us. Then we were also asked to consider how would the industry enforce proper use of what we would
call traditional products, if they are still available in the market, either by mistake or intentional misuse,
because there is a cost differential between these products going forward. And also what would help the
industry to enforce the proper use of the products?
So that got us into thinking of those questions as well as our own needs to transition our company. And
we have evolved over to long-term recommending and looking seriously at moving toward a more single
inventory type of position. In order to do that, there are a couple things we do need from the industry. One
of them is clarity: What is in the scope of lead free and what is not? And you could say the simplest way
in Watts’ perspective is a product with a hose thread on it. When we first looked at this law, we said, OK,
the stream of the hose thread is not part of the drinking water system, with the possible couple of
exceptions that we know of. Then we looked at the wording of the law, and it says “anticipate.” Now, can
we sit here and anticipate that someone is going to drink out of a garden hose? Yes. I think we all have
done that. So from a manufacturer’s perspective, we said we can anticipate that someone is going to use
that and drink that, so what is our legal liability if they do? So we have moved from making anything with
a hose thread on it, from traditional leaded material to lead free, because we had to make a decision, the
law is coming upon us, and we have lead time to produce stuff. And from a liability perspective, we could
anticipate that it could be used for drinking water.
So those are the kinds of questions we need, as far as defining what is in and out of scope. There is one
possible way that we might recommend of doing that, and that is an industry consensus organization. I
wouldn’t sit here and say that we are going to recommend one to you, but the industry does have a wide
variety of organizations that work on coming up with a consensus and making recommendations. If that
could be worked through, then you could codify it. It would be of help for companies struggling with the
same kind of decisions we have to make.
As far as when will the industry be ready to move to more of a single material for a product series goes,
there is going to have to be time allowed for that. It is not something that can be done quickly. First, we
would have to determine the scope, and then manufacturers would have to have time to revamp product
lines and production facilities, depending on what that scope meant to them. We would have to sort out
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
14
August 16, 2012
Final
inventories that do exist and then use those up. What we are recommending is that the dual inventory
approach is definitely a good bridge to that long-term recommendation of a single material by product.
We think the packaging and labeling would be sufficient during that bridge period, to transition to the
single material future. One thing we do recommend against, since it was raised for us to consider, and that
would be color coding, dying, or painting of potable products to make it easy to differentiate which pieces
were compliant lead free. We did analyze this in our two companies, and we found it to be prohibitively
expensive. Is it technically feasible? Sure. Is it very, very expensive to do in a real-world application?
Yes, it is. I think that is one of the reasons that brought us to our thoughts of going to one material that is
lead free for anything probably associated with potable water, rather than going to some sort of painting
or dying. The other thing we would like to recommend is that we do come up with, as an industry,
whether we do it through consensus organizations or another venue, a standardized packaging label or any
other type of labeling that is required. I think it was already brought up. There are a variety of them out
there right now, and it can be confusing. I don’t think it would be that difficult if we all put our minds to
it.
So I think with that, Paul you were going to talk about a little of the legal aspect of these dual inventories.
Paul Singarella: Sure. We have done our analysis of the statutory scheme and the legislative history, and
we think it is quite apparent that this would be a lawful and permissible program with a permissible
bridge to a single inventory future. Whether it takes a few years or even longer, that remains to be seen.
As some of the aspects of the single inventory regime that Mr. Elliott identified are dealt with, we are
asking the agency to make a legal determination that the dual inventories approach is permissible. We see
strength not only in the new law but also in the historical law going back to 1996, because in the original
law, the concept of manufacturer intent was right in the statute, an important part in the statute.
Manufacturer intent to us is a signal to the regulating community to manufacturers that you can
manufacture both a traditional product and a lead-free product. Of course, a lead-free product back then
was a percent or less, because if it is up to the manufacturer, it is what the manufacturer intended. The
manufacturer can express its intent through product labeling, packaging, and express its intent to the
stream of commerce that I am making this one for a non-potable application, and I am making this other
one for a lead-free application. We don’t see any indication that Congress intended to eliminate dual
inventories, or that Congress intended to take the manufacturer’s intent out of the statute. We understand
the different verbs are used now in the current law, but it is also very important that the new federal law is
intended to mirror the California law. That word “mirror” is right out of legislative history and to create a
national standard. “National standard” is right out of the legislative history, in essence by extending the
California regime across the country. That is a very reasonable interpretation, of the law and legislative
history. And, of course, it is pretty clear at this point that that the California law allows for dual
inventories. On top of that, you have all these new exemptions that say there will be a world in which
there are products manufactured with traditional materials and products manufactured, lead free.
In terms of a two-step road ahead, we are aware that we are talking about two interpretations of the same
statute, but there is nothing shocking or original about that. There’s ample case law that supports the
proposition that EPA can start in one place and then change its mind and go in another place some years
ahead. We aren’t even talking about that. We are talking about the agency appreciating its discretion
under the Chevron Step 2, given that this is an ambiguous statute, and a fortiori, saying, right here that we
need to go with the dual inventories approach initially, because that is where things are already with the
California statute and the roll out from that. But in the future, we see the benefits of going to single
inventories. So, the last bullet point on this slide, the Two Step Approach, we think is a prudent policy
choice given that industry provides dual inventories to comply with the California Lead Free Law.
Ultimately, a single inventories regime is preferable, provided it is implemented appropriately. That is
where the time sync is hidden in our approach.
With that I would like to turn it over to Mr. Sharp.
Heath Sharp: I would now just like to cover the last two points on our presentation. The first is in regard
to third-party testing. Certainly our position would be to suggest strongly that there is a need for
mandatory third-party testing and certification of products. I think you might feel it is a little unusual for
manufacturers to be pushing for regulation, but, in this case, the cost and disruption involved, from a
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
15
August 16, 2012
Final
manufacturer point of view and from the supply chain to get this done, is really quite significant. The
logical final step to ensure the intent of the law is being complied with is to have some form of third-party
testing and certification.
I think if you look at the plumbing industry, perhaps it is unique among other industries. There is quite a
strong mechanism already in place, by the UPC/IPC and similar product standards that demand already
third-party certification, as I understand it, for all products which are installed in plumbing installations. It
has been done before. I can certainly see it being done again, to bring together the relevant parties with
the code bodies, the EPA, and the product standard organization, to bring this requirement for lead-free
materials to product approval, which is then brought through the product code for installation. I think this
could be used to achieve this goal for third-party testing and certification. Additionally, we would really
like to see some form of random testing or spot testing, by EPA or appropriate party, for products in the
field. I guess we come to that conclusion with what is happening in California, where testing is certainly
done on an annual basis. What seems to have come out of that is a list of products that have been tested,
and given a yes or a no, for or against a part, and I haven’t seen any further action from there. This seems
to dilute the impact of the code in the first place.
The second point, and I suspect this is probably the more interesting one, based on the questions we’ve
already received, and I’m glad I got to present this is the issue of the replacement of parts. I segregate it
out into two groups. First are new products which are certifiable and listed as our lead-free products, and
then existing products that have already been installed made from traditional material. From my point of
view, if you go through the process of submitting a product to check for lead free to meet lead free
requirements, at the same time you could simply list off the replacement components, which are relevant
for that product. By virtue of the product certification or listing, those components become available for
sale as replacement parts for that product. The bullet point we have on our presentation here is really to
show that repair parts must be evaluated within the context of the product to be repaired. I think the issue
that becomes far more interesting is the issue relating to existing products. We talked a little bit about this
before with the backlog example, do you trash a $10,000 backflow device for the sake a $5 component. I
don’t think that would be sensible, and that wouldn’t be our proposal. The alternative would be for you to
provide a lead-free component for that device. The challenge there is that we need to consider is that may
invalidate the approval of the product. If a product was tested and approved as a product, not for lead free
but as a product itself in the first instance with the components made of traditional material and then you
introduce a lead-free component, you may invalidate that approval. That is something to consider. We do
not have the ultimate answer here, but what really our position is, is that we move on in whatever
direction is set. We are fairly flexible on this issue, and I guess what we are after is clarity.
To wrap up briefly, it is certainly our desire to do everything we can to comply with this regulation. We
want to do it as efficiently and be as cost effective as we can. And certainly it is important for us that
there are uniform laws that keep the playing field level for everyone involved. I guess that is what leads
us to our position of single inventory instead of dual inventory, in the long term. When we balanced that
cost to manufacture old products from lead-free material, as opposed to potentially the cost for dying and
painting products, it clearly came down in favor of lead-free material, as opposed to dying and painting,
which was a large part of our decision to lean toward single inventory, as opposed to dual inventory.
Again, we certainly are in favor of the third-party certification of lead-free products, and ultimately we
need to address the spare parts. For the new product, I think we can cover that with lead-free parts. I think
we can cover that very easily, perhaps working with similar or the same parties that bring together the
codes and regulations for addressing replacement parts at the same time. I have a final comment (and
other people have brought this up) which is timing as a major issue for meeting this requirement. My
position is that it is already too late, in terms of January 2014. Right now, we are manufacturing and
distributing product that we believe is in accordance with the requirement of the law. Certainly the
products are less than 0.25% wetted perimeter lead. In terms of packaging, labeling, and marking, we
have made our best interpretation of what is required, and we are applying that right now. Also, we are
dealing with customers who produce catalogs for businesses now, which will be published in March and
will run from March 2013 through March 2014. So they are absolutely dealing with this issue right now.
So I would say in virtually every case, manufacturers are making and distributing, and retailers are buying
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
16
August 16, 2012
Final
and stocking products with the requirements here. Any changes with regard to labeling, marking, and so
on needs to be taken into account, and there needs to be a transition period for that.
Vanessa Speight: We are going to move into our next presentation, which is the Drinking Water Utility
perspective with Steve Estes-Smargiassi. He does not have PowerPoint, so we will have to go back to the
“old school” method of listening to a speaker. So those of you on the computer, this is all you are going to
see.
Presentation by Steve Estes-Smargiassi, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
I don’t have PowerPoint slides, because I am not sure it is complicated enough to justify a couple of
dozen PowerPoint slides. It is not clear that everyone else has that same opinion. I am Director of
Planning at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which is the largest drinking water utility in
New England serving about 2.5 million people, in 51 communities, in the Greater Boston Area. I am here
representing my utility and the AWWA.
I am going to start with saying the AWWA and my utility clearly support the efforts to get the lead out.
We’ve been there for many years, the EPA staffers have heard us many, many times, at stakeholder
meetings saying we need to find ways to get the lead out of all aspects of plumbing. That is the way we
are going to get to reduced exposure for our customers. This is great; we went to Congress to advocate for
this. We are pleased that it is there. Having said that, I don’t think we anticipated that it was complicated,
and we hope that it won’t be going forward. I personally want to say, it is great anticipating the ability to
talk to our customers about lead free. One of my personal frustrations that I have expressed repeatedly is
if the mother of a small child calls and says, “I think the lead levels are elevated in my home. What can I
do?” I have not had useful advice for them. I could not say, well you have a faucet that might be
contributing lead, so go buy a new one, because I couldn’t tell them how much lead would leach out of
the new one. I knew that it was going to meet a standard, but I also knew that number was too large if it
was above zero. It was a significant number. So this is good, and utilities are very much in favor of
finding ways to make this work, make it work quickly and make it work simply. It is going to be good for
us. We have our own little piece of that. It is going to be good for our customers.
Having said all that, there is a good system in place. There has been for decades, to implement what we
used to call “lead free” in drinking water. That included state and local plumbing boards. It included state
and local primacy agencies, almost every one of which requires that we install fixtures and appurtenances
in our systems that meet federal regulatory requirements. It includes our own procurement. Someone has
already mentioned they see every specification that comes out from a utility saying they have to meet the
Safe Drinking Act requirements. It meets our operational procedures that are in place. We have something
in place that we have been using for 20-some years, which has worked well. Let’s see if we can’t find a
way to keep the course on that, with these new, what I think of as tweaks, to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
We do need clarity, as soon as possible. I think everybody else has said that. As a utility, I have put out
notices to the 51 communities that buy water from me that may need to be paying attention. They need to
be running down their inventory, but I can’t tell them which things need to be lead free and which thing
don’t, until such time as EPA is able to issue some guidance to say a fire hydrant is, or is not, subject to
this. I believe a fire hydrant is not intended for human consumption, but let’s come up with an answer, to
what we can buy and know if we need to get rid of that inventory.
The Safe Drinking Water Act has provided exclusions for some kinds of products. Some of them are
clear. We are not going to worry about bidets, we are not going to worry about urinals; however, there is a
lack of clarity about a number of things that either we will be asked specifically, because maybe we have
a say in what is being installed in compliance with our own rules, or because a customer and our
plumbing boards are going to be worried about fire suppression systems, hydrants, backflow devices,
interior piping, meters for non-potable systems used for fire suppression. I think those are not intended for
consumptive use. Let’s see if we can be clear on that. The Act is pretty clear on things that are not
intended for consumption, but let’s go through SIC Codes. We can be clear on these things. Food
manufacturing plumbing should be lead free. If you are making some sort of widget, perhaps your
plumbing doesn’t have to be lead free unless it is used for human consumption. Backflow devices for
industrial areas, air conditioning, makeup water, wash down of vehicles – there are lots of places where
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
17
August 16, 2012
Final
there may be products used for multiple purposes. Let’s be clear which is which. Let’s get some clarity on
that. Other examples could include irrigation; inside and outside and so on. I think there were some
interesting questions around recycled water, reused water, and waste water. Most of us think of those as
being non-potable uses, but there might be some places in the country where they are not. We may need
some clarity on that, sooner rather than later.
Water utilities want to be out in front on this. We’ve been talking about getting the lead out. I’ve been
talking to my customers. AWWA has been urging our member utilities to do our part in reducing the
amount of lead that is exposed to water somewhere between the source and the ultimate consumption. We
know our customers have a piece, we’re glad to see they will be able to buy something that is labeled
“lead free,” and we have our part in corrosion control. But as soon as we can be sure that we are doing
things that are considered part of the solution, the happier we will be. The sooner that we are correctly
specifying things the better off we will be. Manufacturers have a several-year life cycle, to be able to get
things from concept to the actual point of sale. If I am going to the back of our yard, there are crates of
lots of things made out of brass. Every water supplier does that. We don’t buy 10, we buy 100, or we buy
1,000. We need to make sure we are running down that inventory and that the things we are buying will
be in compliance with the law, and are reducing the amount of lead that our customers see, and we are in
compliance with the law. I don’t want to have to be seen having an argument in public that I am doing the
right thing, but that I got a citation, because I didn’t have a marking or something. Let’s make sure we are
clear on that.
There is a lot of current practice in place that has been in place, in some places, long before the Safe
Drinking Water Act. What constitutes use, installation, and repair? We’ve got those since the ‘96 and ‘86
drafting of the legislation. Let’s work through it. There is some substantial history of water systems
meeting those standards. Let’s see how we can tweak that process to meet this new standard. Let’s not
throw out, just for the sake of changing, all of that history. Tweak it, if necessary; modify it, if necessary;
but let’s not start from scratch. It takes a long time to train up systems in thousands and thousands of
small utilities across the country. If we can use something that’s in place, people are likely to comply.
Since everybody else has talked about repair, I just want to say a couple of words. I don’t think Congress
intended for things that we bought, or a consumer bought, in 2010 or 2012 will be scrapped, if they need
to have a small repair done in 2014. That is a place where we are all going to look like we have pointy
heads, if we try to explain that. I don’t want to go to my Board of Directors and explain that we are
buying a lot of new stuff, because the old stuff can’t be repaired. That is not going to play out well. We
need to think about what Congress intended. There are a lot of analogs in the current statute and codes,
and practice, as to how you think about this. My house is not in compliance with current building codes.
If I make a 50% modification, I have to bring the whole thing up to code. If I paint it, if I change the front
door, if I make small modifications to it, the building department does not make me rip out my old stairs
and my old wiring, and replace it wholesale. They understand that it is a process, to move to eventual
compliance. I think that we have those analogs in current law and current practice around the country.
Let’s try to find a way to use those, to come up with a common sense approach that both reduces the
amount of lead that is in contact with our water but that does not lead us to conclusions that will have the
public throw up their hands and say we’re crazy.
So, in conclusion, from the water utilities perspective we need, clarity, simplicity, and we need it sooner
rather than later. All of us need to know what we are going to be doing a couple years out sooner. As
someone already said, it is too late, but let’s get it done quicker. I do think we are going to need some
guidance or something on paper, or we all will be trying to do our own thing, and if we all end up doing
our own thing, then EPA is going to have to find a way to let us have done our own thing, because there is
going to be a big gap between if you issue something in late 13’ or 14’, you can’t expect us to be in
compliance with it until 15’ or 16’. Sooner, clearer guidance, and you be will less likely run into a real
mess of having to do some sort of enforcement discretion. We don’t want to go there, and you don’t want
to go there. Delay or complexity in this is likely to result in delay in actually getting the public health
benefit we are trying to get to.
Presentation by Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
18
August 16, 2012
Final
I’m the National Campaign Coordinator at Clear Water Action. We’re a national environmental and
health organization. We work on a wide range of issues, but one of our particular areas of focus is
drinking water. We are happy to be here today to talk to you. Our 40-year history has seen a lot of change
in the approach to lead in the environment, including in water. To state the obvious, it is good today that
we didn’t have to debate any of this. Our organization has been concerned about lead, and it is, of course,
a great human health concern. You all know it is a public health priority and why, and it continues to be.
We agree with Steve that getting the lead out has been a goal across a number of areas of our work, and,
of course, you knew when we got to this, it would be complicated. It is still a positive step. There are
some unique considerations here that I wanted to mention, because we talked so much about some many
of the details and technical and inventory questions. This is one of the few things I can think of in Safe
Drinking Water Act implementation, where we are talking about stuff the consumer and the public are
going to do and be very aware of. In our work on the Safe Drinking Water Act, we are also working on
things to do that almost entirely have to do with public water systems in states. Consumers don’t know
about most of it. They can learn, but they are not engaged in it. Here we are going to be dealing with what
the consumer and public can know and do. That adds a level of complication. It’s another consideration. It
has been our experience that the public and consumers remain somewhat confused and concerned. Yes,
concerned, because, they know the health implications. I mentioned earlier, confused, because if you ever
found lead paint in your house you know what I am saying. It’s hard to know exactly what to do and get
the right advice. And so here, on the other end of things in plumbing, fixtures, and things, people are
already not always sure of what is going on. Another thing we have run into which is worth mentioning is
that it surprises people who might have purchased products that are labeled as “lead free” could have
bought something that’s not necessarily free of lead. We are moving closer to a better reality there, but
those are complications that we think about, when we think about implementing the new law. Obviously,
we are bringing principles to the table that guides our work. Our thinking on this is related to reducing
public health risk, addressing contamination at the source, and we are always looking to increase
consumer awareness and understanding, so that they are less confused and can make good choices.
We agree there is a steady history of progress in getting the lead out. We are glad to see that, while this is
not the last thing, it is an important piece, and we are aware there are complications to be dealt with. So I
have a few thoughts from the human health point of view and you will see our presentation has a lot of
questions for EPA, because we aren’t sure how EPA is interpreting the law, and we aren’t entirely sure
how to go further, until we hear discussions like the one we are having today. We do find the two types of
exemptions separated out in the statute to be curious at first. We thought that this had to do with generally
things that could be interchangeable and those that could not. However, that is not the case. We continue
to be concerned how implementation will play out, given the A and the B list. Obviously, we remain
concerned about how consumers will be able to tell the difference between different components if there
are different components. For example, on shelves in stores, and particularly where there are potentially
interchangeable parts. We would lean toward saying where there are possible interchangeable parts, and
they could come in contact with each other in a potable water situation, they should meet the lead-free
definition. We can’t think of any other way to work that.
On the definition, we do think there is something to be learned from the states represented: California,
Vermont, and Maryland. So I hope that wherever we are concerned about what the definition really
means, we take a look at the state experience up until now, the complications they’ve run into, and the
unintended consequences.
One thing we wanted to comment on was the calculation. There has been some helpful discussion on that
here today. We are curious whether states have faced implementation challenges, from the calculation.
We definitely think in terms of, I believe this is the case in California, that in terms of whether you are
calculating based on the surface, or whether the alloy content itself, you have to base your calculation on
the content of the alloy, not on any washes or surface coatings, or anything like that. That is the main
calculation question I’ve run into, and as I said, I think that is how California is doing it. There may be
others on there.
On certification, we are interested in third-party certification and any experience over time up until now. I
think we would agree with what Steve said that in a lot of aspects in implementing the new Act, there is a
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
19
August 16, 2012
Final
lot of experience from implementing the ‘86 and ’96 Amendments, etc., and we should know by now if
third-party certification is the way to go. It seems to us, it has worked so far, and it is the right approach.
Again, if there is experience suggesting otherwise, especially in the three states who have gone with a
new definition, we would like to know about that. We are also concerned about some sort of monitoring
for compliance for the California testing, and we are also aware that there is a cost to that, so there will
need to be some sort of confirmation.
We understand the timing considerations as well. A provocative question we have is around whether this
has to be tied to the Lead and Copper Rule. That doesn’t really solve the problem, because we learned
there would still be timing issues. We are interested in guidance or other steps the EPA can take, so we
can basically get rolling here to maximize the ability to reduce public health risk and provide clarity to
consumers and work with what is already out there. There are a lot of engines driving this, including
market trends and manufacturing trends, and the states who have moved ahead. So what can we do to
keep it moving, and not, of course rush, so that we have unintended consequences? This is always a
problem. So we will be looking at all the details here, and looking at reducing the public health risk, and
on removing sources of lead, as quickly as we can and as much as we can because in the end, with a
contaminant like lead, every little bit counts. That is what we will be looking at, recognizing there are
complications. We do really agree that public and consumer confidence and clarity is really important
here, and it is our opportunity here, as Steve mentioned, to say, yes, you can make a purchase that we
think can make a difference in your home. This is a real opportunity, and we don’t want to mess it up.
Continued public awareness of the issues around this change isn’t a bad thing. I think it is a good thing,
and, again, I want to reiterate, this is a place where we need the public to see there is opportunity and
responsibility, and is not something we consider day to day when we are implementing most aspects of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. We want to be thinking about; the role of labeling, not labeling, different
kinds of advice that systems or states might be giving to the public, and lots of other ways that people will
come in contact with information. It may be useful for them in other aspects, such as thinking about their
home, and the plumbing on their premises and lead. I think that’s all.
Vanessa Speight: Thank you. This is the point where we want to move into a panel discussion. Can I
have Barry come back up here, in case there are questions for you?
Please feel free to ask questions of any of the speakers, and we will continue our discussion from this
morning. The floor is open.
George DeJarlais: I have two points that I want to raise. I hope I can do all at once. The first one point
relates to discussing the possibility of inadvertent use of the discussion about two phases, where in phase
one, there are parallel lines of potable, water-compliant and non-potable water compliant products in the
marketplace, and phase two, where that wouldn’t be the case. I’m just trying to see the ramification of
that. For example, I could easily see where that could be taken as if there will truly be only one product in
the marketplace, that would mean no one could make a three-quarter inch ball valve intended for HVAC
or pneumatic system or for some other non-potable system, because of the chance that the three-quarter
inch ball valve might be used in water. Is that where we are really heading?
Ernest Elliot: Depending on what your end objective is, that could be a consideration. That would
minimize the risk of misuse of the product without a doubt. That would be the intention or one of the
primary goals of a single material; you could take it there. The second area you could look at is
developing a model that would be strictly used for anything in contact with potable water. That would not
be as clear, as far as how products could be utilized, but it may be a compromise position.
Jeff Kempic: That is also not an issue that is part of the proposal that we are suggesting the agency
contemplate, but we anticipate that there will be legal boundaries around how far the Reduction of Lead
in Drinking Water Act of 2011 could go.
Eric Burneson: Just to clarify from Jeff’s presentation earlier, we were seeking input on a dual product
line approach that would allow both products to be introduced with some kind of labeling, color coding,
painting, something along those lines to distinguish those products. We are also seeking input on what is
referred to as the single product line, and then they have now suggested a hybrid of those two, the initial
dual product line phasing into a single product line approach. But, yes, under a single product line
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
20
August 16, 2012
Final
approach, that would be designed to prevent the misapplication and any inappropriate installation of that
ball valve meant for an HVAC system into a potable water system which is physically capable of an
interconnection.
Pam Barr: Is there a way to define it? Is it your suggestion that if we didn’t want to… It strikes me that if
there is something that is almost never used in water, but that could possibly be, [it] ends up getting
captured. I think that is what the gentleman in the audience was also asking. Was your suggestion the way
you think you could get around that capture?
Ernest Elliot: I think that is the other aspect of what this whole program would be. You would have to
define what is in scope and clearly define what is going to be part of this first part of the water lead-free
application, and then how far you want to take it. So I think the first thing is to say, OK if a majority of
backflow preventer products are used in water lines, should we consider that they all be made lead free. If
the answer comes back from the consensus of the industry as “yes,” then that would go into the bucket of
all backflows that would be lead free. Now ball valves are certainly generic type products that are used
across several different industries. Now that may have to be looked at in a different way. That we make a
ball valve in a manufacturing style or labeling that is for potable water, and then there are other
applications for which can be used. Now technically, could it fit in a slot as a part of a water ball valve?
Yes, most likely. It all depends on exactly how far we want to take recommendations to prevent misuse of
a product that wasn’t intended for a potable water system. We looked at it based on some questions and
comments that came to us, and if you really wanted to minimize the amount of potential risk for misuse
combined with an ease of enforcement, then dictate that everything needs to be made lead free. That is the
simplest way to do it. Is it 100% practical in every single possible product application? It may not be, but
certainly, for the two companies represented here, the bulk of our business is associated with potable
water. So from our perspective we could probably do it with a lot of our product lines. I’m not saying that
it is something that everybody is going to be comfortable with, that is why we are recommending it
become a discussion point to get to an industry consensus organization, rather than a couple of companies
that are primarily related to potable water.
Heath Sharp: To that point, certainly we are not putting ourselves up here as representatives of all
manufacturers in the U.S. by any stretch of the imagination. We definitely come from a plumbing
industry, and our views and opinions are slanted because of that. The point Ernie [Watts] made during the
presentation is quite important. Our view has evolved quite a lot. When we first hit this independently, a
couple years ago I guess, we approached it as: this is California’s [standards] essentially going on across
the whole country. We would simply make a large number of our products in both standard material and
lead-free material, label it accordingly, as not for use in potable applications, and alternatively on the
other, and distribute them appropriately. Some of the wording in the federal law, as Jeff pointed out, is
quite different from the California law. Some of the issues that were raised during the many conversations
we had, in terms of how to visibly mark a product that is intended for a potable application as opposed to
a product that isn’t, to us is really quite concerning. There certainly is a cost basis to mark some products.
Some of the products we looked at in our range, we simply do not know how we could mark those
products if it came down to a, color coding, dye, or painting. So, for us, the lesser of two evils, if you look
at it from a manufacturer’s point of view, is to just go across the board as lead free. Again, based on our
experience and our duty in the plumbing market, knowing that at some point there had to be a limit to
that. We are not talking about oil and gas [products] and so on. How we define that limit has to be
worked on.
Bob Engeman: I believe it was during the presentation that Stephen did on exemptions where mentioned
other products that needed to be addressed. It was kind of vague on whether they would be exempted.
One of the products not mentioned was frost-proof yard hydrants. It is a product we make. We stated it is
for outdoor watering, livestock, and fire protection. We also stated it is not for potable water, because a
frost-proof yard hydrant has a drain below the ground, and ground water can get into the pipe and crosscontaminate. In Vermont state law, they specifically exempted hydrants because of some confusion on
whether or not that item was for drinking water. As Ernie pointed out, it has a hose fitting on it for a
garden hose, so technically, someone could drink out of it, but we state it is not for potable water. So that
is another product that needs to be addressed in your exemptions. Thank you.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
21
August 16, 2012
Final
Craig Selover: I’ve been a member of the NSF 61 Joint Committee since 1984, when it started. So I’ve
been around for a while. For the questions about where you go to find out what is included and what is
not, my suggestion is to go to the NSF Joint Committee, which covers Standard 61 and also 372, because
Jeff Kempic sits on the committee. There are other state and local regulators, also water utilities,
manufacturers, and pretty much all third-party certifiers participate on that committee. So that would be a
good group that already exists, to come and talk to and ask questions about what we should include and
what we shouldn’t. I think EPA put up the seed money to start that whole effort in the beginning; it would
be a good place and a good sounding board for some of those types of discussions. It might be real helpful
to EPA, from that standpoint. I would suggest that both from a Simmons standpoint and from the
coalition standpoint.
As far as third-party certifications you mentioned in your presentation, needing to think about: Should
EPA certify third-party certifiers or approve them? I would argue against that. All of the third-party
certifiers have been functioning for many, many years, in the plumbing industry in particular. They have
been functioning very successfully. All of NSF 61 is incorporated in pretty much all of the product
standards, which are more product performance [based], but also in the Case of Standard 61 and 372, [the
standards] cover material performance. Those are all included in those standards, and we all certify
voluntarily through the plumbing codes to those standards. They are ANSI–accredited, third-party
certifiers. I don’t think it makes sense to me at this point to burden the EPA necessarily to have to monitor
all that, since there is already an independent mechanism in existence.
Webinar Submitted Question: Charles Maddox, Austin Water Utility – Is stamping, etching, casting the
letters, and NL meaning non-lead or other method out of the question for water utility components, such
as meters, corporation stops and valves? The package and product are often separated in the warehouse or
in the field by our staff. Is there a way to do this? Is it impossible to do?
Eric Burneson: I will start with this. It is a question we are asking for input on. We would like to know
about labeling the packaging, and we would like to know about labeling the product, stamping the product
or color coding the product, is one way of labeling the product, but I will let Ernie talk about this.
Ernest Elliott: I will talk about the products at Watts Manufacturing. I won’t talk about the meter
companies or anybody else. Yes, we are, in most cases, on our products, in one fashion or another, putting
some type of permanent mark on the product, wherever it is practical. Now that is kind of a statement that
has to be interpreted. On most reasonable-size products, you can either cast or stamp or put a permanent
name plate on. There are a couple of areas where you do have to be cognizant. It may be a mark, but it
may not be apparent to a consumer. And that would obviously be products that have for aesthetic reasons
have polished finishes or something, where it is just not practical to do it. Also in very, very small wetted
water components like fittings that a significant mark may not be practical, or may interfere with the
product’s performance or the way it is utilized. Generally, in our company, we do mark those or have
begun marking everything as lead free. I may be able to read it, but a consumer may not, because there is
just no room. It is something simple. In general, can it be done? Yes, but there is a cost to everything and
for most products we do. I won’t speak for all the other manufacturers, and Heath can speak for his
company. There are a few exceptions. You do the best that you can with it, but it may not be 100%.
Heath Sharp: Yes, we stamp or etch virtually every product, and some of them the markings are quite
small. I guess initially that was for internal purposes as a way to recognize which product was made from
which alloy. That is something that certainly concerns us. If there is going to be a standardized form of
markings whether it is the letters LF or a star or whatever, then, again, the timing issue becomes quite
important.
Eric Burneson: I would add for those listening and for manufacturers in particular, that information
around costs associated with stamping, dying, painting would be very helpful to the agency as we weigh
this particular decision. The degree, to which you could tell us what this does to the product cost, would
be very important. If people don’t want to tell us the actual cost, if they could give us a marginal cost
increase that would also be informative.
Paul Schwartz: I really want to thank everybody, the EPA and others for putting on this discussion. I
want to talk about two issues. One is that if you are speeding in the wrong direction, speed is not
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
22
August 16, 2012
Final
necessarily the right value to look at. So what I want to say is, if we can get the overall level of lead use
down uniformly across the country, and it takes a little bit longer to get there, that might not be a bad
thing. The purpose of the LCR and this revision and the intent of Congress is to reduce the overall burden
of lead in the public health arena, and [reduce] the use, mining, manufacturing, and disposal of lead as
well. This leads me to my second point, which is that although the point of LCR and the OGWDW is a
sort of a public health protection through drinking water, the pathways for lead into the environment and
into humans is multiple and go beyond just the drinking water arena. In the procurement, manufacturing
and disposal of both lead and these products we are talking about, the overall reduction in use I think is an
ancillary but a very important multimedia type of consideration to take into account. From a justice
perspective, if you were thinking of crowds that don’t normally make it into rooms like this, like farm
workers who may not have drinking water sources in agricultural work, they may be drinking from places
we don’t think of or recommend as potable water sources. So I would ask us to think, using that as an
example out of the box, about those types of circumstances and constituencies and to put an
environmental justice angle on thinking about the development of this rule as well.
France Lemieux: As a member of a committee dealing with a harmonized standard between the U.S. and
Canada, one of the questions I have both from the Canadian and U.S. members on this committee is about
the marking issue. I am also getting feedback from U.S. colleagues and the general public as to whether
or not there will be a common marking to identify low-lead product. And I guess the question I have to
ask EPA, and maybe the manufacturers as well, is there, for lack of a better word, an appetite to look at a
common marking, and, if so, could manufacturers be looking at that as well as a potential way to identify
their products? And I guess the question the EPA is asking is what is the marginal cost associated with
something of that nature? I know from the general public standpoint, if they are looking for a product that
is low–lead, it is not always clear to them. It could be that it is certified to ASB 112.1.18.1, but the
average person on the street does not have a clue as to what that means. It is integrated into that standard
or it will be soon, but they don’t know that. So something simple, straightforward, not complicated would
definitely be of interest, but then I guess that is what EPA is asking here. Is that something people would
be interested in doing, and the associated costs are what you are looking at as well?
Jeff Kempic: Yes. Question number 3 in the presentation I had was in terms of marking of lead free
[products]. That is one of the issues we are looking at. Even with third-party certification, certifiers may
have different marks, so it may also be difficult to understand and know what the mark means in terms of
lead free. So is there a need for some sort of standardization of a mark that would indicate lead free, that
could be used in conjunction with the third-party certification or separate from it? That is a question, and
then what are the practical limitations of that marking? Is it size dependent in terms of looking at the
marking on the product or packaging, or some sort of combination? That is sort of what information we
would like to get information on, in terms of this meeting and the comment period that follows as well.
Webinar Submitted Question: Andrew Grandow – Many valve and fitting standards contain material
requirements. Are you suggesting that all standards that cover products that could be used in potable
water be converted to lead-free materials, so the single inventory approach can be achieved?
Heath Sharp: Yes.
Eric Burneson: And EPA is asking for input on that particular issue, as to whether or not a dual product
line or a single product line is the best approach.
Webinar Submitted Question: Mark Anderson, Ford Meter Box – Regarding the single inventory
approach that is eliminating the exemptions, some products, such as water main service saddles, are
exempted, due to structural limitations of the lead-free cast brass alloys for that application. It is
recommended before product exceptions are removed that the original reason for the exemption be
evaluated for product application.
Jeff Kempic: Sounds logical. This is Jeff Kempic with EPA. That falls under the “other” exemption, the
(b) Exemption, for specific products, so it is separate from the one with dual product lines, because it is
used exclusively. It is actually exempt directly under the second exemption.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
23
August 16, 2012
Final
Jennifer Reed: My name is Jennifer Reed, and I represent Masco Corporation. I am a little confused on
timing. If you could help me understand why it is necessary to push this in with the Lead and Copper
Rule? We are 18 months after the law was passed. Many folks, as we have already heard, have started
their manufacturing processes. So I’m trying to wrap my head around, how it is that you need public input
by the end of this month, which is less than 30 days, in order to have a proposed rule out early next year,
because it is a part of the Lead and Copper Rule. Can you help me understand why we can’t do a separate
proposed rule with a 30 to 60-day public comment period as usual and issue a final rule? I’m not sure why
we are complicating the process. It is complicated enough already, really.
Eric Burneson: The answer to that is we could do a separate rule, and I could say with a fairly high
degree of certainty it would take longer for us to propose and propagate a separate rule. Our approach of
incorporating it into the Lead and Copper Rule is actually, as strange as it might sound, to expedite the
process, by which we can incorporate these revisions. 1:53:21
Jennifer Reed: Can you help us understand why that would take longer?
Eric Burneson: So the timing and the processes by which the agency both develops and receives the
necessary input on federal regulations has already been undertaken to a large degree on the Lead and
Copper Rule, so we are taking advantage of that by incorporating these revisions here. If we had to start
over again, we would have to initiate all of those processes right from the start. I don’t want to give a full
lecture on federal regulation promulgation. I am sure it is longer than retooling a manufacturing process.
Steve Via: I have a quick follow-up question. I more than appreciate the length of time it takes to get a
regulation out the door, but I wanted to ask specifically what particular elements in the slide show Jeff
presented require a rulemaking on the part of the agency?
Jeff Kempic: As Pam mentioned in the opening statement, we looked initially at what might just be a
simple codification, but any of the areas where we would be looking at making requirements, like looking
at labeling, in terms of what the label consists of, all that information would end up having to go through
a whole rulemaking process. So when you are looking at making a label: using solder as an example,
there is specific language that the label must state with regard to solder. There is no such language in
there in terms of what a label must consist of if we are looking at a dual product line, in terms of a nonpotable product label must state. Any of that stuff would have to go through the rulemaking process to
create that sort of standard, and what that label must consist of. When looking at product coverage and
how the exemptions would work, how a product would be exempted, all that will need to be laid out for a
rulemaking process.
Jan Boyer: We’ve talked a lot about service parts, but my question is something else you may want to
look into. It is in regards to testing and calibration. Let’s say a meter is required to be tested on an
intermittent basis, every 10 years or whatever, what will be the ruling on that as far as when you pull out a
meter [for testing]? It might have been pulled out and taken into the factory or utility to be tested? Can it
be reinstalled? You also have instances where you might have a summer home, where you pull a meter
when you are shutting down the cottage at the end of the summer, and you are pulling a meter then
putting it back in when you return. Is that allowable? Reinstallation versus installation?
Jeff Kempic: This sort of relates to issue number 5 that we put up there regarding repair and installations
with regard to the approach we should take for products under that requirement. That again is what we are
seeking input on, in terms of to helping us to inform our decisions on how we approach that. Clearly that
is an example of repairing the meter and meter calibration, and the meter is being taken out and
reinstalled. How does that fall in terms under the installation and repair and use prohibition?
Eric Burneson: I want to clarify with a question to you. The way you framed that question, I believe you
are suggesting that, that should not be considered a new installation and should not be subject to the leadfree requirements. Am I interpreting what you are asking correctly?
It is the interpretation of reinstallation not installation, and it is not the initial sale, so you are not entering
into commerce. So I’m just putting it out there, because it is separate than repairing or replacing a
component. It is just pulling something up that is required by state law to test, and then are you able to put
that same meter in, because you didn’t do anything to it. You just put it back into service.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
24
August 16, 2012
Final
Steve Estes-Smargiassi: This is really an important question, because the alternative is that utilities may
choose not to follow what is in a lot of state laws, which is that they need to periodically test meters to
ensure accuracy. You generally test a small fraction of each class of meters on a regular basis. We don’t
want to discourage people from ensuring the accuracy of meters; we are heading down that path. Again, if
we are taking something that is 5 years old with a 25-year life and suggesting that because we are pulling
it out to test it, and then [not] reinstalling it [because it doesn’t meet the standard] so essentially everyone
that gets tested gets discarded [should be carefully considered]. From an environmental perspective, I
don’t like throwing away something that has a useful life. We need to find a way to sort of balance that
out. I think a frame of reinstallation might be a useful way of distinguishing between an original purchase
and installation or reinstallation. Also, for us that live in the north and have places where it is cold, we
routinely take out meters in summer homes. That’s a big deal, if they don’t have to be thrown away. Some
meter manufacturers could be really happy, but the utilities would be really unhappy with the financial
burden with a relatively smaller public health payback.
Kevin Bromberg: This is for the single inventory group. We think about small business, and the first
thing that comes to my mind was antitrust. So if I’m the three large firms that make the lead-free version
of the product, and there are two small guys who make non- lead-free versions of the product but have
dual use, I would be very happy to make sure that lead free is the only OK and approved version, and I
would make sure that that product line becomes part of the single inventory approach. How does EPA
make sure that their antitrust concerns are being addressed, in the selection of this product mix?
Paul Singarella: You are asking us how the EPA is going to address antitrust concerns? We are not
actually offering advice on behalf of the agency, but I think the background, as you presented it, is not
quite what we are dealing with here.
We are actually are manufacturers that manufacture in both potable and non-potable markets. So we are
experiencing a financial cost, in both the dual and single inventory regime. The actual reason for that,
which is gravitating us toward single inventory, was engaging with the agency and hearing about on the
one hand of dying, marking and coding, which your other guy in your scenario may be faced with as well,
and also with EPA’s issues on enforcement and enforceability. We thought that single inventory, if given
enough time to transitions to that, and with clear boundaries to address some of the other issues that have
been raised, is overall better for regulators, better for industry, in general, and better for the public. So I
am not an antitrust lawyer, so I don’t have any comment on that. I just wanted to offer you some
perspective on the scenarios we described.
Kevin Bromberg: Let me reframe the issue a little bit. Yes I understand they are potentially going to
save costs, if you make both, but there are people who will unfortunately only make one version. The
other problem is that large businesses have often found in other markets that it is better to impose costs on
everybody in the industry. But, due to the economy of scale, the large businesses would have an
advantage, because the additional costs for them would be less than the additional costs for the small
ones. I’m saying there is a multiplicity of fact patterns (and we need an antitrust person, and I’m not an
antitrust person) to look at these scenarios. It is awfully complicated. In effect antitrust policy can bless
private industry consensus under certain circumstances. You would probably be looking at a Department
of Justice lawyer who will want to have buy-in to these discussions when you start.
Eric Burneson: Not having been briefed by counsel on antitrust responsibilities that I now shoulder, I
want to be clear that we are asking for input on this issue of dual product lines or single product lines
from all manufacturers. We have engaged our colleagues over here, because they have some perspective
on this, and because they have clearly thought about it, but we are interested in everyone’s perspective,
both small manufacturers and large manufacturers. So if there are implications here that impacts a
particular manufacturer ability to compete in the market that is important and relative information for us
all.
Webinar Submitted Question/Comment: Mark Anderson, Ford Meter Box – What consideration has
EPA given to the product marking, to avoid scrap stream cross-contamination? Many manufacturers are
already marking their products now with a code to identify lead-free items. It is recommended those
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
25
August 16, 2012
Final
unique markings already in use remain at the discretion of the manufacturer, to avoid costly component
and pattern changes.
Stephanie Salmon: I’m Stephanie Salmon, and I am with the Plumbing Manufacturers International.
Thank you for holding this meeting today, and I appreciate your PowerPoint slides, which raise a lot of
good questions. Going back to this August 31 deadline to get the comments in, I think that even if you
had 15 more days, to September 15, you would get better quality comments and allow people a little bit
more time to respond to you. Secondly, I noticed that we are supposed to email those back to a person.
Are those comments going to be posted in the docket or some format, so that it is a transparent open
process, so we can see what people are putting in? So I just want a clarification on that.
Eric Burneson: I am hearing a request for time, and I am also hearing a request for a docket. I want to be
clear that there will be subsequent rule making when we propose there will be a formal request for
comments, so this does not represent the last time we will be asking for input on this particular issue. I
think we can contemplate providing some more time on this issue, and we also have been encouraged to
get guidance, guidance, guidance out there sooner rather than later. So, I am trying to reconcile those two
needs. I’ve heard a definitive proposal for 15 more days, which puts us to September 15, and what I can
say is that we are not necessarily going to ignoring comments if they come in late. I think we have a
desire to get your input in, so we can start formulating the proposals we are putting together and run them
through the processes. We run them through, before we can formally propose them. I think we could also
agree that we are putting together a record of this meeting, so the input we get on this we can also try to
include; not in a docket, because we are not in that rulemaking phase, but I think we could certainly make
that input available on the website along with the record of this meeting. So we are willing to do that. I
would say I encourage everybody to get their comments in by August 31, and I am also saying comments
that come in after that timeframe we will consider them as best we can, as we start to formulate the
policies that we will try to make proposals on. There will be another formalized comment period when we
propose actions, so you are not reacting to us saying these are a myriad of things we could do, what do
you think? Then we will be saying, here is what we think we should do, give us feedback.
Webinar Submitted Question: Charles Hettrick, Delta Faucet – I am confused about the one lead-free
material. Since the materials are matched to the forming process— forging, extrusion, machining, casting,
etc.—and each has its individual characteristics, are you recommending one material or a group of
materials? His second question is in regard to the Intended for Human Consumption Definition. Will that
be aligned with the definitions in NSF 61 Section 9.1.1?
Ernest Elliot: The answer to the first question is that it would be any material that meets the 0.25%
criteria. We are not recommending a single material specification by any means. As far as the second, I
don’t think I’m sure exactly what all those are…
Vanessa Speight: That is probably more for Jeff and Eric. Regarding the definition of Intended for
Human Consumption, are you going to look at the NSF 61 definition for that?
Paul Singarella: I think also Vanessa, I am not sure, we spent all our time talking about single
inventories, and maybe it is just me getting defensive here, but we really don’t think of ourselves as the
single inventory lobby, and we did spend a considerable amount of time explaining that. We really see
this as a two-step approach. I think the reason that has attracted so much attention is really just the basic
fact that California has brought in this dual-inventories regime really nationally. So maybe this is
somewhat catching people by surprise. We actually anticipated most people would be thinking about the
federal law as simply an extension of the California law, and our thinking has obviously evolved beyond
that, but we are not staked out here on a flank alone, with hand grenades. We are not religious about
single inventory, and we think it needs to be considered in the complexity of statute in the two-step
approach we are suggesting.
Jeff Kempic: The language on the exemptions is different, in that it doesn’t say “intended for use,” which
I believe is the language in the California law. This has language that is used exclusively for non-potable
purposes and not anticipated to be used for human consumption. So the language for the Act is different,
and as a result that adds to the why we ask the questions, in terms of the scope of that exemption. So the
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
26
August 16, 2012
Final
language is not the same as maybe in the past, and it is not the same as that in the California law, so
therefore it makes this dual-inventory issue a bit more complex than maybe it is in California.
Heath Sharp: Just to follow up on what Paul said, I am not defensive at all about our position. If we
ended today, knowing absolutely it was going to be somewhat controversial, we would feel comfortable
with that. But we also ended this meeting knowing that the EPA was genuinely wanting input, and
genuinely considering the single-inventory and the dual-inventory approach as options. That is actually on
one of Jeff’s slides. That said, we are also equally aware that we do not have all the answers by a long
shot. A lot of questions that have come from the meter manufacturers are issues we haven’t thought of at
all, and don’t need to, I guess. If the outcome of this is that a lot more people are getting engaged, because
the EPA wants input, and we are looking at it very differently from the California law, then more people
get engaged and we can form a consensus or whatever the approach is. If that is where we get to today,
that is a good outcome for us. We will be happy with that. If that happens to be dual inventory, we’ll play.
If it happens to be single inventory, we’ll play. We’ll do whatever we have to do to comply with the
regulations. If throwing this out there stimulates more interest, then it’s a good day.
Vanessa Speight: Jeff, could you just maybe follow up on the alignment of the Intended for Human
Consumption Definition with NSF 61?
Jeff Kempic: I’m not quite sure of the language in the NSF Standard although the people from NSF are
here, but as I said, the language in the exemption does not use that [NSF] language. The language in the
exemption is saying “used exclusively for non-potable purposes,” and it doesn’t say “not intended for
use”; it says “not anticipated for use for human consumption.” So there are some difference in the
language both between the Federal Act and the California Act, and also maybe some of the language in
the NSF standard as well. So how we approach that is where we are seeking input, in terms of the best
way to approach that.
Eric Burneson: I think it is also worth reminding folks that one of the provisions in the Act was that it
eliminated the reference to the voluntary consensus standard that is the NSF 61 standard under the
definition of lead free. So that is not on board right now. So the new Act does by reference incorporate the
NSF 61 standard, which we have identified as the voluntary consensus standard.
Webinar Submitted Question: Derrick Dennis – What is EPA’s timeline/goal/target for guidance to
states? And sort of another follow on would be, what is the expectation for states or primacy agencies to
implement this? We have continually shrinking budgets, and we also have schedules for our own
regulatory changes that take a significant amount of time. We will need info ASAP on what we are
expected to do to be able to make those changes.
Eric Burneson: There are a lot of ways to interpret this question, because we talked about guidance in a
couple of particular areas. If we are referring to the guidance, guidance, guidance that was asked for in
some of the comments that were made earlier—which I believe is a request to have something out in
advance of the January 2014 timeframe—that would be guidance to states, manufacturers, water systems,
and consumers, if the agency decides to go forward and put that out. If the question is in regards to
guidance associated with a rulemaking on lead—and, as we said, the Lead and Copper Rule is the
regulatory vehicle we are using for this—well, the timeframe for putting the guidance out, we would
propose the Rule in 2013 we would promulgate the Rule in 2014 at the earliest. Then the Act actually has
its three year implementation period, before the regulations are put into effect, so that puts it into 2017.
Then the agency provides guidance —state implementation guidance—to be put in that first year. Now
that is what I am referring to: primarily the guidance associated with the Lead and Copper Rule revisions,
which would have to do primarily with the regulatory requirements under public water supply systems
and some states. So I am trying to answer this question of guidance in both contexts, so that there are two
scenarios of guidance that we are discussing here. One would be following rule promulgation in roughly
in the 2014 to 2015 timeframe, and the other, if we heed the requests made here today and put something
out in advance, that would be made presumably in 2013.
Webinar Submitted Question: Charles Maddox – For water systems that meet the Lead and Copper
Rule and have noncorrosive water, would they be exempt from the 0.25% lead component requirement?
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
27
August 16, 2012
Final
Jeff Kempic: No. This is going to apply to all systems and will be broader than just systems it applies to
residential applications, nonresidential applications, and any water being used for human consumption. So
this will be the law of the land in terms of 0.25% on January 4, 2014.
Bob Engeman: Eric, I’m not sure if I misunderstood you. This is Bob Engeman with Simmons
Manufacturing. On the ruling you mention in 2017, is that just for the Lead and Copper Rule?
Eric Burneson: Yes. That is a very good point. So obviously the law does go into effect, and there is no
regulation we can use to change the effective date of the law. So the law goes into effect January 4th,
2014. I was trying to understand the scope of the question that came in from the state. We are going to
make these revisions as part of the national primary drinking water rule, and that particular
implementation model goes is, three years after we promulgate that regulation, it goes into effect.
Bob Engeman: Does that mean that this law is being implemented as a part of that, and would we have
an exemption in the timeframe?
Eric Burneson: It does not. I want to be clear that the new definition of Lead Free goes into effect
January 4, 2014, irrespective of when we promulgate regulations. I am confusing this issue, by trying to
answer a question about state guidance about the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, which would be a
national primary drinking water rule that affects treatment techniques that are applied to public water
supply systems. I apologize for the confusion I created, but maybe Leslie can help me get out of the hole I
dug.
Leslie Darman: I am in the Office of General Counsel and work on Safe Drinking Water Act issues. Eric
is correct that there is a delayed effective date, when we are talking about national primary drinking water
rules, which is what the Lead and Copper Rule would be. I think the rule that EPA chooses to do under a
different section of the Safe Drinking Water Act to implement the changes in Section 1417 would be a
different rulemaking that may not require that long-delayed effective date. One caveat, I haven’t
researched this question prior to coming here, but I am pretty sure that is correct. Also, just to clarify the
point of whether EPA has to do a rulemaking: there is no requirement in the changes to Section 1417 that
say EPA must do a rulemaking. However, a lot of questions have been raised about what Congress
intended when they made these changes, and I have heard folks want guidance, but we can’t make
anybody do anything in a guidance document. If folks do want some shared set of requirements that go
beyond the statutory language, we would need to go through a notice and comment rulemaking.
John Arnett: I don’t mean to keep returning to the dual inventory/single inventory issue, but I was
confused about one thing. The law as it reads now specifically prohibits the use of products that aren’t
lead free under the definition of 0.25%. This specifically was a change from the 86’ amendments, which
prohibited the introduction into commerce. I am curious about how the EPA can make any regulations.
You can’t make a regulation prohibiting any product that doesn’t meet the lead free standard, it seems to
me, under that law—or can you? So if you take product A and you conclude it can only be used for
potable water, can the law that prohibits the use of any product that doesn’t meet 0.25% translate then into
the agency being able to make regulations that prohibit manufacturer or introduction into commerce? I
think that under a single inventory system, that is what you would have to do. I mean that is what you are
trying to get toward. Whether you can make a regulation that says, OK, you cannot produce any product
that doesn’t meet the lead free standard.
Jeff Kempic: What we are trying to do with the single/dual inventory relates to the scope of that
exemption, in terms of meeting the requirements of the law in terms of demonstrating “what does used
exclusively for non-potable services” mean. So that is what we are seeking input on. What is the best way
to meet the requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act regarding how that exemption is written, and
how we do that and bring it into implementation.
Eric Burneson: So John, to further Jeff’s point, what we are saying is one interpretation of “using
exclusively for non-potable devices” means you can’t physically interconnect it. You cannot take that
device and put it in a potable water system. The other interpretation is, if it is clearly labeled or stamped,
or otherwise somehow denoted, even though it is physically possible to be connected to that system. That
is the other interpretation. So that is why we think some potential regulatory clarification is needed.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
28
August 16, 2012
Final
John Arnett: Okay. Thank you.
Webinar Submitted Question: Derrick Dennis – Can anyone speak to the recertification or
grandfathering of existing products manufactured by the industry, whose products met the new standards
back when they were originally tested, because they have been going toward this lead free already. Does
EPA or NFS have any plans to offer that?
Jeff Kempic: I am not 100% sure I understand the question, but if it is products that already meet the
0.25%, I don’t think you are directly affected. Maybe it is coming into sort of a labeling question, in terms
of Question #3 of how we might have some sort of labeling issue so people could identify that. Again,
that is what we are seeking input on. Is there a way to look at a standardized label? Obviously, a
standardized label would be going from some point forward, and if we are trying to require it as part of
the regulation and say all products that meet this Lead Free Definition have some sort of standardized
“LF”, or Star, or whatever it is—this is something we are looking for in term of the regulatory process
and that would have to be done through the regulatory process—to say this is the standard symbol that
would go on a product, stamping, packaging, or both. That would be done through the regulatory process
in terms of making that standardization. Now if we are meeting the requirements and we have been them
in the past, then there is not a particular problem.
Webinar Submitted Question: Andy Granzallas, Zipco – Why is there an exemption for a 2 inch [and
larger] main gate valve, but no other valve in the water supply piping?
Eric Burneson: That is the legislation. There wasn’t much in the way of legislative history explaining
exemptions to us. We could speculate, but we frankly don’t know.
Steve Estes-Smargiassi: Just to be clear the questioner shortened what was in the Act. It is 2 inches or
larger. So it’s only less than 2 inches, which I don’t think there are a large number of, which are included.
Webinar Submitted Question: Len Swatkowski – If you replace a part in the NSF 372, which is lead
free 0.25% wetted surface compliant assembly with an exact replacement part regardless of the lead
content, will that be acceptable?
Jeff Kempic: Again, this is the sort of question like Question #5 that we raised in dealing with repair
requirements under the use prohibition, in terms of how to do it and in terms of looking at it as a part—is
it the replacement component alone—is it practical to have the replacement component meet it? This is
where we are seeking input from manufacturers, water systems and other stakeholders, as to which is the
best approach when looking at this issue. It is not clearly defined, and we are seeking input to come up
with the best practical solution for it.
Vanessa Speight: A follow-up on the state implementation question from Derrick Dennis: Based on what
Eric answered, it would be unlawful for systems to use anything that does not meet the new definition,
but the states would not have to implement and enforce that until EPA adopts a rule?
Eric Burneson: It would be unlawful to enter a device into commerce or service, if it does not meet the
definition of lead free as of January 4, 2014. The states also have the responsibility of enforcing that
definition of lead free, as of that date as laid out in the law. The guidance I was referring to is the
guidance related to the Lead and Copper Rule. It is related rulemaking but the timeframe on that would
apply to the Lead Free Definition.
Bob Engeman: Obviously with the rulemaking and the timeframe involved, we are going to be real close
to the January 2014 date or possibly after, as you stated. So as a manufacturer on that date, if we don’t
know what to do, what are we supposed to do? Is it possible in your rulemaking that you are going to
have these rules, that we have to be 0.25% by January 2014, but will you be offering extensions for
certification, if you put in certification? If you require markings, will you offer extensions to do those
markings? As manufacturers we can’t put something in place if we don’t know what to put in place yet,
and even if we do have a little bit of time, it takes quite a bit of time for foundry markings and so forth.
Jeff Kempic: The January 4, 2014 definition applies to the products you are going to install or introduce
into commerce after that date; they have to be 0.25%. Through the rulemaking process, if we come up
with requirements in terms of, what the label must say, specific language, or if we are going to require
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
29
August 16, 2012
Final
third-party certification, then that would be a part of that rulemaking, as a part of that standardization
component through the rulemaking process. That would have an implementation based upon the
rulemaking. So that would go with the rulemaking, and then the implementation timeframe associated
with the rulemaking, in terms of how long it would be before everybody would need to have the same
stamp or the same language on the package for any products going forward, but that would be associated
with the rulemaking itself. The law that is going into effect means that the products have to meet the
0.25% definition. There will not be a standard labeling that will be required as of January 4, 2014.
Eric Burneson: To add to the long list of things we have already asked for input on, how long would it
be appropriate to take to implement a labeling requirement or single or dual use implementation
requirement for us to be considered as we try and develop a proposal for your input again?
Pam Barr: I figured since not many people are talking now that I would start asking questions.
My question is for the plumbing manufacturers. The lead free coalition is saying, let the labeling for the
first phase of your proposal be sort of the way you all would like to do it, and many of you now label lead
free at 8%. For those of you who are saying let us label it the way we want, how will we then be able to
distinguish the 0.25% label lead free from the 8% label lead free?
Heath Sharp: On the existing parts that we are selling now for the traditional material, which is 7 or 8%
lead, we make no reference on that packaging or labeling that says it is lead free. Speaking for us, what’s
the simile? I know that is something you guys mentioned, that we haven’t anticipated. That 8% is gone
now from most of this. For most of us, even for products for non-potable application, the material we use
is driven by the product standard. I’m not aware of any product standard that allows you to use 25 or 30%
lead, but back to the point, the product we make now doesn’t have any marking on it at all for the
traditional products. The product that is in compliance with 0.25% is marked with some form of label.
Kenneth Lepage: I am actually responding. I’m Kenneth Lepage general council with Watts Water
Technologies. In California, when the lead free law went into place there, what we did for products where
we made both a standard material product and lead free product, we had two separate labels. One
indicated lead free, and the other indicated that the product did not comply with the 0.25% requirement in
California and Vermont. I think in terms of the future, what we are advocating is that we would like a
standard industry-wide label that everyone has to use and in the same format. I’m saying that everyone
should not use their own thing. I think that is part of what is confusing now.
Meeting Wrap-up
At the close of the meeting, Ms. Speight asked for any further questions and then provided contact
information where further comments could be sent. Mr. Burneson then thanked the panelist and
summarized some of the main points/concerns expressed in the meeting including; issues related to
replacement or restoring a service (re-installation), inventory related issues, interchangeability issues and
dual versus single use product lines.
Mr. Burneson then noted that it would be helpful if stakeholders could provide feedback to help EPA craft
proposed language for the Reduction of Lead in Drinking water Act in terms of the burden costs, marginal
costs, or any aspects of the various approaches that were discussed in the meeting.
Mr. Burneson then thanked everyone for their participation and added that EPA looked forward to any
additional comments and reminded everyone that the comment submittal deadline was August 31. He
added that the August 31 deadline would not close EPA and stakeholder interaction on these important
issues.
The meeting was adjourned.
Reduction of Lead in Drinking
Water Act Public Meeting Minutes
30
August 16, 2012
Final