Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Public Listening Session
May 5[th], 2021
Session Overview: 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) second set of public listening sessions designed to obtain further input on the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) was held on May 5, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this set of public listening sessions was held virtually on the Zoom platform. Members of the public were given three minutes to provide their comments. These meetings were also broadcast to YouTube so that members of the public wishing to listen could watch the sessions in real time. 
Each session was structured with one EPA facilitator and three EPA senior staff, referred to as listeners, who listened to commenters' statements. At the beginning of every session, the facilitator welcomed and thanked members of the public for joining and invited them to view two videos prepared by EPA, a welcome video from EPA Administrator Michael S. Reagan, as well as an introduction video on the LCRR and the public engagements titled "LCR 101", at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions-virtual-engagements. 
The EPA listeners introduced themselves and thanked commenters for taking the time to participate in these sessions and for providing statements about the impacts of lead in drinking water and the LCRR. The facilitator then reviewed the rules, designed to ensure an orderly and productive listening session, and invited commenters to make their statements. 
At the end of every session, the facilitator informed commenters and members of the public viewing the broadcast of the opportunity to submit written comments on the LCRR at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255.
The sessions held on May 5[th] are described below and can be viewed as an .mp4 file posted to the docket, EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255 at https://www.regulations.gov.

Session 1: 10am-12pm EDT
The EPA facilitator for this session was Ryan Albert. The EPA listeners were Benita Best-Wong, Jennifer McLain, and Anita Thompkins. During this session, EPA heard comments from 18 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations, national organizations, state governments, private citizens, and industry. 
Comment Themes: 
General
Commenters indicated that environmental justice communities should be prioritized when implementing the rule and addressing lead contaminant issues under the LCRR. Commenters were pleased that EPA was conducting outreach with the community and hearing community concerns. Commenters also indicated that they support President Biden's plans to significantly invest in water infrastructure and replace lead service lines (LSLs).
Health Concerns
During this session, commenters stated that current state and federal laws are not adequate to protect the public, particularly children, from lead poisoning and that the LCRR standards should be health-based. Commenters recommended implementing and MCL type rule and targeting an MCL of 5 ppb with one commenter calling for an MCL of 1 ppb to protect children. Commenters also noted that environmental justice communities are impacted more often than non-environmental justice communities -- noting that blood lead levels are much higher for people of color than for white communities.
Lead Service Line Replacement & Inventories
Multiple commenters in this session supported ambitious planning for LSL replacement, and most explicitly recommended a 10-year replacement timeline. One commenter stated that partial LSL replacements do not decrease water lead levels in the long-term and are not a complete fix to the problem. Multiple commenters indicated they supported utilities making LSL inventories electronic and publicly available for their consumers. One commenter noted that the cost of LSL replacements should be borne by both the water system and by the residents. They suggested that EPA can partner with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to identify funding sources for communities in need. Multiple commenters indicated that point-of-use filters should be utilized until LSLs in communities can be fully removed as a remediation technique. 
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Commenters in this session supported making changes to the LCRR to better protect children. They indicated that the rule should proactively replace fixtures containing lead in schools and child care facilities. Additionally, commenters indicated that the LCRR should be specially tailored to protect children, including establishing a lower action level for schools and childcare facilities and requiring communication with the families of the children at the school or child care facility. Some commenters were concerned that the small number of required samples could give these schools and facilities a false sense of security about their lead levels. Similarly, commenters stated that allowing schools to opt out of testing was problematic. 

Session 2: 12:30pm-2:30pm
The EPA facilitator for this session was Karen Wirth. The EPA listeners were Joe Tiago, Eric Burneson, and Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins. During this session, EPA heard comments from 5 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations, national organizations, state governments, and private citizens. 
Commenter Themes: 
General Comments
Multiple commenters reiterated that access to safe drinking water is a human right and that the LCRR should be based on best available science that protects the health of all people. One commenter noted that fixing this issue and protecting the health of communities is worth the financial cost, no matter how high.
Lead Service Line Replacement
Commenters stated that 100% of LSLs should be removed within 10 years. One commenter noted, however, that communities with populations on fixed income, minority populations, and those with older housing stock may be disproportionately impacted by rate increases due to LSL replacements and this should be considered when allocating funding for communities.
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Commenters noted that schools and child care facilities are a primary source of lead consumption by children and stated that the school and child care facility provisions should be stronger in the revised rule. 

Session 3: 3:00-5:00pm
The EPA facilitator for this session was Kira Smith. The EPA listeners were Jennifer McLain, Yu-Ting Guilaran, and Eric Burneson. During this session, EPA heard comments from 13 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations, national organizations, and private citizens. 
Commenter Themes: 
General Comments
Multiple commenters were concerned about the disproportionate impacts of the LCRR on impoverished communities, communities of color, and environmental justice communities. They stated that these populations frequently have higher rates of lead lines and reduced capacity to implement costly programs. One commenter indicated support for monitoring in all communities, and prioritizing communities with vulnerable populations. 
Lead Service Line Replacement & Inventory
Multiple commenters indicated their support for water systems being required to create inventories and maps of LSLs in the communities they serve. Additionally, these commenters suggested an increase in the rate of LSL replacement, and advocated for complete replacement of all LSLs within 10 years. Commenters also expressed that the financial burden for funding LSL replacement programs should fall on water systems and not on individuals. These commenters did recognize that most systems will need support to finance these replacement programs. They noted that if no financial support is provided to communities, the consequence will be that the wealthy are able to replace LSLs while others cannot or will have to wait to replace the line for a longer period of time.
Health Effects
Multiple commenters voiced their support for the reduction of the action level stating that the current action level is not protective of public health. One commented emphasized that the LCRR should propose a health-based level for lead, with another commenter suggesting that the action level should be at the rule's current trigger level. One commenter proposed higher frequencies of blood lead level testing in children to help identify communities that have higher exposures to lead. Commenters indicated concern about the lack of information EPA has provided about why they did not reduce the action level in the LCRR. 
Public Communication and Education
Multiple commenters emphasized the importance of public education about the impacts of lead. Most water systems, they argued, do not have staff employed to communicate about LSLs.  Additionally, they stated that the current outreach to consumers is often ineffective or does not actually reach the intended audience. One commenter indicated that the reduction of notification time for water systems under the current rule will be challenging for water systems and will result in systems failing to implement the rule appropriately. 

Session 4: 5:30-7:30pm
The EPA facilitator for this session was Keyyana Blount. The EPA listeners were Jennifer McLain, Jack Bowles, and Eric Burneson. During this session, EPA heard comments from 5 members of the public that identified themselves as representing national associations, national organizations, and private citizens. 
Comment Themes: 
General
Multiple commenters in this session brought up the impacts of lead and copper on communities of color and low-income communities. The commenters wanted to see EPA expand the environmental justice analysis that was done for the rule and ensure these communities are central to the LCRR. One commenter wanted EPA to reduce the flexibilities afforded to small systems as a protectionary measure for their communities and constituents. 
Lead Service Line Replacement
Commenters indicated that LSLs disproportionately serve low-income communities and communities of color and that this exacerbates inequities that currently occur. One commenter indicated support for full replacement of LSLs within 10 years, and another commenter indicated support for banning partial LSL replacement. 
Health Effects
One commenter indicated that the action level should be reduced while another commenter indicated that an MCL should be set at 5 ppb for lead. 
Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities 
Many commenters were concerned about schools and child care facilities under this rule. One commenter mentioned that testing in schools and child care facilities should be done in all buildings, regardless of the age of the building or the population drinking the water, as "lead-free" materials could still include lead. Additionally, they stated that all taps should be sampled because lead levels can vary by tap. One commenter supported requiring filtration devices at all schools and child care facilities as a precautionary measure stating it could provide cost savings over the current monitoring scheme. Additionally, commenters indicated that federal funding is going to be essential for effective and consistent monitoring at schools and child care facilities. 

