Copper and Rule Proposed Revisions Addisen Antonucci

Water is essential to support life. Every human being has the right to clean . The new revisions proposed on the National Primary Drinking Regulation for lead and will make tap water safer for more people around the nation. Although copper is an essential element to the human body, excess exposure can cause vomiting, diarrhea, headaches and abdominal cramps (Dietrich, 2008). Exposure to lead can lead to brain and kidney damage, anemia, and weakness (Jirles & Thigpen &Forsythe, 1997). Lead and copper can get into the water supply from the pipes as the water travels from the treatment plant to peoples’ homes (Dennis, 2016). For these reasons lead and copper concentrations in drinking water need to be more strictly controlled under the Lead and Copper Rule; however, the Lead and Copper Rule is somewhat lacking as it hasn’t had a major revision in years (Berndt, 2019). The Lead and Copper Rule has resulted in some improvements in the public’s health by simply determining the levels of lead and copper in drinking water, requiring suppliers to educate their consumers about the effects of lead as well as controlling corrosion in their treatment systems (Bhardwaj, 2005). This used to be sufficient but with major lead contamination events such as Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey the need for change is long overdue. Newark and Flint revealed the shortcomings of the rule in place. The events finally pressured the EPA to strengthen the Lead and Copper Rule (Dennis, 2016). It is argued by many that the rules in the Lead and Copper Rule are too easy to bypass and too difficult to enforce (Dennis, 2016). Due to the fact that the lead and copper do not contaminate the water in the treatment plant, the existing method of testing the concentrations while still in the treatment plants is useless and requires reform. The Copper and Lead Rule is implemented on 68,000 public water systems and it affects the health of millions of Americans so it is not something that should be easily evaded (Dennis, 2016).

The EPA recognized the need for major change and has been working on the revisions being proposed of the Lead and Copper rule for almost ten years now (Dennis, 2016). They not only acknowledge the faults in the current rule but provide solutions to fix it. These proposed revisions will act to enhance the Lead and Copper Rule by strengthening the implementation of lead tap sampling, public awareness and education, corrosion control treatment as well as replacement. The Maximum Containment and Action Levels did not need revision so they will remain the same. The best revision is the requirement of testing the concentrations in households. This will provide more accurate numbers as to how much lead and copper people are actually consuming rather than the inaccurate testing that currently takes place in treatment plants. Annually this will cost between $450,000 to $675,000 to implement but it is worth it for safe water (Dennis, 2016). I support this revision because it provides better methods of testing the concentration levels and stricter enforcement of the concentration levels. I believe this revision, overall, will be beneficial to the health of the public and effective in controlling lead and copper levels in drinking water. Works Cited

A.M. Dietrich, J.D. Cuppett, & S. Duncan. (2008). How Much Copper Is Too Much? Opflow, 34(9), 28-30. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/opflow.34.9.28

Berndt, C. (2019, October 21). EPA Moves to Overhaul Lead and Copper Drinking Water Rule. Retrieved from https://citiesspeak.org/2019/10/21/epa-moves-to-overhaul-lead-and- copper-drinking-water-rule/ .

Bhardwaj, V. (2005). Question & Answer: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Journal of Environmental Health, 68(5), 46-46. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44529092

Dennis, B. (2016, May 5). The EPA's lead-in-water rule has been faulted for decades. Will Flint hasten a change? Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/epas-lead-in-water-rule-has-been-faulted-for-decades-will-flint-hasten-a-change/ 2016/05/04/8d25bb12-0de9-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html.

Jirles, B., Thigpen, J., & Forsythe, D. (1997). Lead in Drinking Water: A Preventive Solution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(1), 15-15. doi:10.2307/3433045