1.1 正如美国政府问责局（GAO）2018年报告的那样 ( 2. ) 2015年，密歇根州弗林特市发现饮用水中铅含量有毒，这重新唤起了人们对铅对公众健康构成风险的认识。接触铅会导致血铅水平升高，并对健康产生负面影响。儿童面临的风险尤其大，因为他们成长中的身体比成年人吸收更多的铅，因此保护他们免受铅的侵害对终身健康很重要。根据美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）的说法，血铅水平升高与贫血、肾脏和大脑损伤、学习障碍以及生长迟缓有关。由于人类的广泛使用，铅在环境中普遍存在；例如，它可以在油漆中找到（1978年美国禁止含铅油漆） 4. 以及土壤，并且可以从水龙头和饮水机等含铅管道材料中渗入饮用水中。 1.2 学校饮用水中的铅是一个令人担忧的问题，因为它是5000多万公立学校入学儿童的日常水源。学校的时间表模式，包括周末休息、假期和延长休息时间，都会导致学校管道系统积水。如果管道系统中有铅，水与管道接触的时间越长，铅渗入水中的可能性就会增加。在国家一级估计学校饮用水铅污染的风险是一项复杂而重要的挑战。水系统之间水质的变化以及分配过程中水化学成分的变化会影响管道和配件的铅溶解率。 此外，含铅管道材料的位置也不确定。环境保护局，2002年 ( 3. ) ，Triantafylidou和Edwards，2012年 ( 4. ) 。 1.3 美国环保局负责执行 《安全饮用水法》 （SDWA）在部落土地上；没有将这一权力下放给各国。 1.4 第50105节和第50110节 《基础设施投资和就业法案》 （公法117–58） ( 1. ) 提供资金并指导美国环保局和内政部解决为学校和部落土地提供饮用水的饮用水系统中的铅问题。环保局宣布，根据该法规，环保局不鼓励更换部分主导服务线路，并鼓励全面更换有缺陷的服务线路。该法案为美国环保局提供了约150亿美元，超过5年- 一年内实现这一目标。 1.5 本指南描述了使用公开数据快速识别SDWA中定义的社区和公共供水系统的步骤，这些系统存在铅浓度超过最大污染物水平（MCL）的风险。这些步骤加强和补充了美国环保局鼓励的记录审查活动，作为LSLR计划的一部分。 1.6 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的使用者有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.7 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认的标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 4.1 当含有铅的供水管线或管道固定装置腐蚀时，尤其是在水酸度高或矿物质含量低的情况下，铅可能会进入饮用水。根据美国环保局的说法，铅通常是由于与建筑物内含铅的管道材料和固定装置相互作用而进入学校饮用水的（美国环保局2019 EPA 2018， ( 5. ) )。尽管铅管和铅焊料在1986年后不再普遍使用，但直到2014年，饮水机和其他固定装置的铅含量才被允许达到8%（美国政府问责局，2018 ( 2. ) )。因此，无论是旧的还是新的学校建筑，饮用水中的铅浓度都可能超过NPDWR。 4.2 继2015年密歇根州弗林特市水中铅含量升高的报告之后，国会于2016年通过了《国家水基础设施改善法案》（公法114- 322），除其他外，该法案修订了SDWA，为各州制定了一项赠款计划，以帮助学区自愿检测学校饮用水中的铅污染。作为获得资金的一个条件，学区必须使用至少与联邦学校指导意见中的标准一样严格的标准进行铅测试。 4.3 加利福尼亚州水资源控制委员会的饮用水部门于2018年启动了一项积极的采样和公共供水系统计划，为学校供水。2017年10月12日公布的《加利福尼亚州议会第746号法案》于2018年1月1日生效，该法案要求社区供水系统在2019年7月1日前对2010年1月31日之前建造的所有加州公立K-12学校的饮用水中的铅含量进行测试。 4.4 洛博（2021） ( 6. ) 报道了两个主要控制铅浸出到饮用水中的因素: （1） 是否存在含铅管道材料，以及 （2） 促进可溶性或不溶性铅腐蚀产物形成的水质。本指南提供了一种使用公开信息来确定学校供水是否存在不可接受的铅暴露危险的方法。 4.5 指南中描述的程序与指南第4、5和6节一致 E3032年 。

1.1 As the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2018 ( 2 ) , the discovery of toxic levels of lead in drinking water in Flint, Michigan in 2015 renewed awareness about the risks that lead poses to public health. Exposure to lead can result in elevated blood lead levels and negative health effects. Children are at particular risk, because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults, so protecting them from lead is important to lifelong good health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), elevated blood lead levels have been linked to anemia, kidney and brain damage, learning disabilities, and decreased growth. As a result of widespread human use, lead is prevalent in the environment; for example, it can be found in paint (lead in paint was banned in the United States in 1978) 4 and soil, and can leach into drinking water from lead-containing plumbing materials, such as faucets and drinking fountains. 1.2 Lead in school drinking water is a concern because it is a daily source of water for over 50 million children enrolled in public schools. The pattern of school schedules—including time off over weekends, holidays, and extended breaks—can contribute to standing water in the school’s plumbing system. If there is lead in the plumbing system, the potential for it to leach into water can increase the longer the water remains in contact with the plumbing. Estimating the risk of lead contamination of schools' drinking water at the State level is a complex and important challenge. Variable water quality among water systems and changes in water chemistry during distribution affect lead dissolution rates from pipes and fittings. In addition, the locations of lead-bearing plumbing materials are uncertain. EPA, 2002 ( 3 ) , Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012 ( 4 ) . 1.3 The US EPA is responsible for enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) on Tribal land; there is no delegation of this authority to the States. 1.4 Sections 50105 and 50110 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) ( 1 ) provides funding and directs the US EPA and the Department of Interior to address lead in drinking water systems that provide potable water to schools and on Tribal land. EPA has announced that in accordance with this statute, the Agency discourages partial lead service line replacements and encourages full replacement of deficient service lines. The legislation provided the US EPA with approximately $15 billion over a 5-year period to achieve this goal. 1.5 This guide describes steps to rapidly identify community and public water systems, as defined in the SDWA, at risk of lead concentrations exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL), using publicly available data. These steps augment and complement the records review activities that the US EPA encourages as part of the LSLR program. 1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 4.1 Lead can enter drinking water when service lines or plumbing fixtures that contain lead corrode, especially where the water has high acidity or low mineral content. According to the EPA, lead typically enters school drinking water as a result of interaction with lead-containing plumbing materials and fixtures within the building (EPA 2019 EPA 2018, ( 5 ) ). Although lead pipes and lead solder were not commonly used after 1986, water fountains and other fixtures were allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014 (GAO, 2018 ( 2 ) ). Consequently, both older and newer school buildings can have lead in drinking water at concentrations that exceed the NPDWR. 4.2 Following the reports in 2015 of elevated lead levels in the water in Flint, Michigan, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016 (Public Law 114-322), which, among other things, amended the SDWA, to establish a grant program for states to assist school districts in voluntary testing for lead contamination in drinking water at schools. As a condition of receiving funds, school districts are required to test for lead using standards that are at least as stringent as those in federal guidance for schools. 4.3 California’s State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water initiated an aggressive program of sampling and public water systems supplying water to schools in 2018. California Assembly Bill 746 published on October 12, 2017, effective January 1, 2018, requires community water systems to test lead levels, by July 1, 2019, in drinking water at all California public, K-12 school sites that were constructed before January 1, 2010. 4.4 Lobo (2021) ( 6 ) reports that two factors predominantly control lead leaching into the drinking water: (1) the presence or absence of lead-bearing plumbing materials, and (2) water quality that promotes the formation of soluble or insoluble lead corrosion products. This guide provides a method of using publicly-available information to determine if the water supplied to schools presents an unacceptable lead exposure hazard. 4.5 The procedures described in the guide are consistent with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Guide E3032 .