In contrast to  most other drinking water contaminants, lead is rarely found in the source  water. Specifically, states are  required to submit the following data to EPA:  for large and medium water systems, all 90th percentile sample  results (i.e., sample results that meet, fall below, and exceed the lead  action level);  for small water systems, 90th percentile sample results that exceed  the lead action level; on water systems that have been designated as having achieved  corrosion control because the state has determined that the source  water is minimally corrosive; on water systems that were required to install corrosion control  treatment, source water treatment, and lead service line replacement  and have completed the applicable requirements as a result of having  sample results exceed the lead action level; on water systems that have begun the process of replacing lead on water systems that have new violations of the LCR; and on enforcement actions taken in response to violations of the LCR. EPA generally agreed with our recommendation,  but has not fully implemented it. Violations

The available data reported by states in EPA’s SDWIS/Fed database  show that of the approximately 68,000 drinking water systems subject to  the LCR, states reported that at least 6,567 water systems (about 10  percent) had at least one reported open violation of the LCR as of  December 2016. Collection of Data on the Presence of Lead Pipes Was a 1991 LCR Requirement

When the LCR was promulgated in 1991, all drinking water systems were  required to collect information about the infrastructure that delivered water  to customers, including any known lead pipes and lead service lines. In February 2016, in light of the events in Flint, Michigan, and other U.S.  cities, EPA asked states to collect information about the locations of lead  service lines and publish the information on local or state websites to  better inform the public. According to EPA technical guidance on corrosion control, knowledge  about lead service lines is needed for studies of corrosion control  treatments. We reported in  March 2013 that, as the nation faces limited budgets and funding for  federal programs, the importance of targeting federal funds to  communities with the greatest need and spending funds efficiently  increases. However, officials in 3 of the 10 regional offices said that they  would ask states to provide these updates less frequently because of  limited staff resources. To  determine whether such factors were associated with a higher likelihood  of having a reported violation of the LCR, we conducted a statistical  analysis that calculated a system’s likelihood of a violation using selected  factors, such as the size of the population served and source water, and  currently available EPA data and found that incorporating multiple factors  in the analysis may help identify water systems at a higher likelihood of  violating the LCR. In addition,  EPA officials we interviewed in 3 of the 10 regional offices said that they  do not have the resources to sustain the agency’s current approach. Under federal standards for internal control, management should identify,  analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following three recommendations to EPA:
The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should  require states to report available information about lead pipes to  EPA’s SDWIS/Fed (or a future redesign such as SDWIS Prime)  database, in its upcoming revision of the LCR; (Recommendation 1)
The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should  require states to report all 90th percentile sample results for small  water systems to EPA’s SDWIS/Fed (or a future redesign such as  SDWIS Prime) database, in its upcoming revision of the LCR;  (Recommendation 2) and
The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water and  the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and  Compliance Assurance should develop a statistical analysis that  incorporates multiple factors—including those currently in SDWIS/Fed  and others such as the presence of lead pipes and the use of  corrosion control—to identify water systems that might pose a higher  likelihood for violating the LCR once complete violations data are  obtained, such as through SDWIS Prime. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the issue of elevated lead in drinking water and the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) use of compliance data for  oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). Our objectives were to  examine (1) what the available EPA data show about compliance with  and enforcement of the LCR among water systems, including schools; (2)  how EPA uses these data to monitor compliance; and (3) factors, if any,  that may contribute to water systems’ noncompliance with the LCR. Discussion groups with state regulators. Statistical analysis. Type. Appendix V: Statistical Analysis to Identify Water Systems with a Higher Likelihood for LCR Violations

To identify any factors that may contribute to noncompliance with the  Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), we conducted discussion groups with a  nonprobability sample of state drinking water regulators representing 41  states and 1 territory.
Why GAO Did This Study

Drinking water contaminated with lead in Flint, Michigan, renewed awareness of the danger lead poses to the nation's drinking water supply. Lead exposure through drinking water is caused primarily by the corrosion of plumbing materials, such as pipes, that carry water from a water system to pipes in homes. EPA set national standards to reduce lead in drinking water with the LCR, which applies to all water systems providing drinking water to most of the U.S. population, except places where people do not remain for long, such as campgrounds. States generally have primary responsibility for enforcing the LCR, and data help EPA monitor states' and systems' compliance with the LCR.
GAO was asked to review the issue of elevated lead in drinking water. Among other objectives, this report examines (1) what available EPA data show about LCR compliance among water systems and (2) factors that may contribute to LCR noncompliance. GAO analyzed EPA data on violations and enforcement of the LCR from July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016, interviewed EPA officials in headquarters and the 10 regional offices; conducted a statistical analysis of the likelihood of reported LCR violations; and held discussion groups with a nonprobability sample of regulators representing 41 states.

What GAO Found

Available Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, reported by states, show that of the approximately 68,000 drinking water systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), at least 10 percent had at least one open violation of the rule; however these and other data are not complete. When the LCR was promulgated in 1991, all water systems were required to collect information about the infrastructure delivering water to customers, including lead pipes (see figure). However, because the LCR does not require states to submit information on known lead pipes to EPA, the agency does not have national-level information about lead infrastructure. After the events in Flint, Michigan, and other cities, EPA asked states to collect information on the locations of lead pipes, and all but nine, which had such difficulties as finding historical documentation, indicated a plan or intent to fulfill the request. According to EPA guidance, knowledge of lead pipes is needed for studies of corrosion control. GAO reported in March 2013 that with limited funding for federal programs, the need to target such funds efficiently increases. By EPA requiring states to report data on lead pipes, key decision makers would have information about the nation's lead infrastructure.
Through discussion groups, state regulators identified 29 factors that may contribute to water systems' noncompliance with the LCR. In conducting a statistical analysis using EPA data on selected factors, such as the size of the population served and type of source water, GAO found that such factors were associated with a higher likelihood of water systems having reported violations of the LCR. EPA's current approach to oversight of the LCR targets water systems with sample results that exceed the lead action level. While this approach is reasonable because such water systems have a documented lead exposure risk, EPA officials in 3 of the 10 regional offices told GAO that it is not sustainable over time because of limited resources. Under federal standards for internal control, management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. By developing a statistical analysis that incorporates multiple factors to identify water systems that might pose a higher likelihood for having reported violations of the LCR to supplement its current approach, EPA could better target its oversight to such water systems.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three recommendations, including for EPA to require states to report data on lead pipes and develop a statistical analysis on the likelihood of LCR violations to supplement its current oversight. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations.