Low Lead in Plumbing Products: U.S. impacts on the Canadian side of the border

by mdoyle | May 5, 2013 2:46 pm

[1]

By Kevin Wong BSc, MBA, CAE
For most Canadians, the lead issue is dated. In the 1980s, the North American plumbing industry opted to limit lead content to eight per cent in an attempt to lower exposure to the chemical. There was then a consolidated effort of manufacturers and policy-makers to determine what would become of the plumbing code on both sides of the border.

Toxicologically, it is safe to say no amount of lead is acceptable for human exposure. Nevertheless, background lead from historical uses has pervaded our lives in soil, air, and water. The material is an understood historical relic; it is everywhere.

The Canadian plumbing industry imports approximately 70 per cent of its products from the United States. Therefore, regulation in the U.S. affects the availability and pricing of products available in Canada.

Changes in California
In early 2006, California Assembly Bill 1953 (AB1953) was introduced, proposing the limit of lead in plumbing to an average of 0.25 per cent of the wetted surface area. The California Legislative Counsel’s Digest states:

The existing law prohibited the use of any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, solder, or flux that is not lead-free in the installation or repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a facility providing water for human consumption, except as specified.

This new bill would, commencing on January 1, 2010, revise this prohibition to apply to any pipe or plumbing fitting, or fixture intended to convey or dispense water for human consumption, but would exclude from this prohibition specified devices.

The bill suggested the term ‘lead-free’ would be revised to not refer to the lead content of pipes and fittings, but to a weighted average content of the wetted surface area of the pipes and fittings. The previous law defined ‘lead-free’ as containing a maximum of eight per cent lead in pipes and fittings, and a four per cent maximum by dry weight. The proposed maximums were no more than 0.25 per cent lead content.¹[2]

[3]

With an enforceable date of January 1, 2010 hardwired into the legislation, there were numerous challenges to overcome. These included:

• the need for a referenced standard and test procedure;
• which state department was going to monitor and enforce this in California; and
• how manufacturers were going to comply.

These challenges were faced by testing bodies, manufacturers, regulators, and policy makers such as water utilities professionals, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the health department, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This was truly a challenge where all stakeholders had to pool resources and knowledge to develop a solution.

Challenges with enforcement and compliance
One of the first tasks determined by the AB1953, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) regulators, was the desire to codify something into a standard. Since NSF International/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 61, Drinking Water System Components–Health Effects, was the most recognized and referenced standard of choice for many of the United States’ water purveyors and regulators, it was the first choice. This meant there would be no need to add a new reference standard into regulation. In many places, NSF 61 was already written into regulations.

In the 1990s, Canada integrated NSF 61 into many of the plumbing standards referenced the country’s National Plumbing Code (NPC) and adopted by all the provinces.

All that was needed was to reference the latest version of the NSF 61 standard with the requisite requirements once it was developed and published. This was an administrative solution for the regulators and an easy solution for manufacturers since many would already be compliant with the standard and familiar with its stringent testing procedures.

The formulation of NSF 61–Annex G
In September 2007, EBMUD proactively responded to the issues with a proposal to the NSF Standard 60/61 Joint Committee. The proposal included a new Annex be created for NSF 61establishing a standardized evaluation method for product certification purposes.

Later that year, the NSF 60/61 Joint Committee positively responded to the proposal, and regulators from California asked the NSF 61 technical committee to integrate the state’s low-lead requirements into the standard.

The committee had an established group to work on continued refinement of NSF 61, in terms of lead. This task group was expanded to include representatives from the California Department of Public Health, EBMUD, and other interested parties such as, testing organizations, manufacturers, associations, EPA, and Health Canada.

The then-current draft was set up as an addition to the standard. The opening sections of the draft revision added references to Section 3. The addition of Annex G covers the specific aspects of calculating the weighted wetted surface area of a product. Concerns over what products are covered and excluded as sources of water for drinking and cooking are therefore the same as those listed in each of the product related sections in the main body of NSF 61. For instance, in Section 9, kitchen and lavatory faucets are included, but tub/shower valves, toilet tanks fill valves, and other items are excluded.

In 2008, NSF 61 Annex G came into being as a referenceable section of NSF 61.

DTSC testing and emergence of NSF 372
In late 2008, the task group worked with the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control and the various testing labs to develop ways to determine and test the Annex G requirements. DTSC was the assigned surveillance and enforcement body in California.

DTSC released its testing protocol to assist industries who had to test their products for compliance with the California requirements before the January 1, 2010 deadline.²[4] Now manufacturers had a standard, test protocol, and the tools and interpretations to share with the supply chain, the regulators, and the testing labs.

The Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating (CIPH) took an active part in the development of the test protocol as a third-party. The organization collected data from testing bodies, benchmarked the procedures, lab testing, and interpreting the results to find any challenges. All this was done to ensure the government, certification labs, and industry were working with the same methodology and ending up with the same interpretation of the data.

[5]

Once a testing protocol and standard was completed, the critical issue of having to deal with the California legislation was managed. The industry was ready for the January 2010 deadline. The NSF lead task group now had to wrestle with some of the technical, legal, and logistical impacts of what it had done to comply with California’s laws.

A major issue was the bulk of NSF 61 was a technical standard based on chemistry, while the Annex G protocols were a calculation. This conflict affected manufacturers when they were able to meet one section of NSF 61, yet fail the Annex G criteria, and vice versa.

The solution was to take the Annex G requirements out of the NSF 61 standard and place it into its own separate standard. Then, the Annex acts as a pointer to the new standard. Through late 2009 and into 2010, the taskforce worked on developing what would become NSF 372, Drinking Water System Components–Lead Content.

In November 2010, the NSF Drinking Water Additives Joint Committee approved the release of NSF 372. This new standard allows products to be evaluated to low-lead criteria without having to be fully NSF 61-certified. NSF 61’s Annex G now refers users to the new standard.

Currently in Canada, certified plumbing products are already required to conform to NSF 61 for material safety. The new NSF 372 standard is a method that could be used to demonstrate compliance to a 0.25 per cent weighted average lead requirement.

NSF 372 was not directly integrated into the code and it is now being integrated into the plumbing standards. Later this year, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes will evaluate the updated Canadian plumbing standards for inclusion of the NSF standard.

Other states
As the events in California unfolded, Louisiana, New York, and Maryland considered passing similar low-lead laws. Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI), CIPH, and other associations, lobbied firmly for other states to harmonize their technical requirements and allow for reasonable implementation dates to allow manufacturers and the supply chain to adjust to new requirements and clear inventory in a responsible manner.

What the associations recognized at the time was the increasing trend of independent legislative actions from interested states wanting to create legislation similar to that of California, but each with differing language and requirements. Allowing this trend to progress would create a disaster for the U.S. plumbing industry, and confusion in Canada, so a national solution was required.

PMI successfully advocated lowering the national standard for lead in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

On December 17, 2010, U.S. Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. The legislation was presented for President Obama’s signature and approval later that month.

The new law provided a 36-month implementation period from approval, after which manufacturers and importers were required to comply with the new standard. It uniformly reduces the lead standard for pipes, pipe fittings, and plumbing fittings from as much as eight per cent to 0.25 per cent across the United States, which is consistent with the current (as of 2010) state laws in California, Vermont, and Maryland. CIPH, along with PMI and allies, worked tirelessly over the last few years with jurisdictions such as California, and other states, to advocate changes to the U.S. lead standards, develop technical standards, and educate key decision-makers on lead policy development.

At the end of 2010, the industry, on a national scale, had a referenced NSF standard, a method of how to achieve it, a federal regulation to apply, and a 36-month timeline.

In early 2013, manufacturers are abiding by U.S. laws and managing respective applicable products for low-lead requirements, in time for the deadline. EPA has not at this time indicated how they will be rolling out regulation to support the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. As 2014 approaches, this will crystalize into a clearer approach and guidance by the government. As the supporting regulation forms, guidance on relevant product requirements will be developed and enforced.

Outcomes for Canada
In the early stages of the developments in California, CIPH became involved in the NSF lead task force and standards development work. Lead was not a critical challenge in Canada at the time. CIPH determined early involvement was in the best interests of not only its members, but also the Canadian industry. The 70 per cent of products coming from the U.S. are already, or will soon be, compliant.

In the Canadian context, the U.S.-style federal regulatory approach and route was unsustainable. Health Canada has little power to enforce this type of regulation as the water industry and sector have been governed mostly by the provinces. In 2009, CIPH wrote Health Canada indicating ‘blanket’ regulations were not desirable or necessary. Health Canada agreed to adopt low-lead criteria via the model national plumbing and NPC system in the country.

[6]

To achieve this strategy of adopting low-lead criteria into the model codes, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) created a task force to work on adopting similar 0.25 per cent low-lead specifications and to propose requirements and definitions for inclusion into (American Society for Mechanical Engineers) ASME A112.18.1-2012/CSA B125.1-12, Plumbing Supply Fittings,and CSA B125.3, Plumbing Fittings. Manufacturer compliance to lead content requirements can be demonstrated through certification to the referenced standards.

By integrating low-lead requirements into the appropriate technical standards, this approach places the adopted lead content criteria into a system already well understood by manufacturers and regulators responsible for creating, importing, and enforcing of products under these standards.

The provinces and territories currently follow modified versions of NPC, which references the technical standards for plumbing products. CIPH believes all provinces should be directed to adopt any updated codes and fully use their present authority to eliminate the sale and installation of non-compliant products from the country’s marketplace. Comprehensive application of existing enforcement models will remove the need for any new Canadian federal regulation pertaining to lead content in plumbing products.

CIPH encourages the appropriate federal departments, including Industry Canada and Health Canada, to work together with the provinces and territories to ensure timing of such code adoption in the country will coincide with implementation of similar U.S. legislation.

In the meantime, this segment of the market can work closely with their manufacturers to see where low-lead fittings apply and to source them from certified manufacturers.

What’s left to do for Canada?
Currently, actions that must still be accomplished in Canada include:

• integrating the standard into other CSA standards for applicable products;
• referencing the latest versions of CSA standards into NPC; and
• having the provinces adopt the model NPC through building regulations.

CIPH urges Canadian regulators to consider a strategy to align Canadian lead content guidelines and timelines with the January 5, 2014 effective date stated in the U.S. legislation. Uniform requirements and effective dates in both countries will help protect the health and safety of the public by preventing any potential for dumping of non-compliant products. It also provides Canadian manufacturers with a clear strategy for developing products to be compliant for both domestic and export markets.

Conclusion
As the regulations outlined in this article become adopted into the supply chain, Canada’s specifiers, engineers, and other professionals will have to start looking at how they specify and design plumbing systems. Only the potable water systems anticipated or intended for human consumption will be affected. The rest will follow the established requirements.

Notes
¹ Visit info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1953_bill_20060930_chaptered.html[7]. (back to top[8])
² DTSC’s Testing and Evaluation of Lead Content in Plumbing Products, Materials and Components and the regulatory Fact Sheet. More information can be found at www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/LeadInPlumbing.cfm[9]. (back to top[10])

[11]Kevin Wong, B.Sc., MBA, CAE, is the executive director of the Canadian Water Quality Association (CWQA) and staff member at the Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating (CIPH). He is responsible for the execution of the association’s strategic plan, membership growth, and interface with regulatory bodies. Wong can be reached at k.wong@cwqa.com[12].

Source URL: https://www.constructioncanada.net/low-lead-in-plumbing-products-u-s-impacts-on-the-canadian-side-of-the-border/

---