Lead Pipe Out, Which Pipe In? A Case For Prioritizing Performance, Safety, Health, and Technical Factors When Replacing Lead Pipes
By Marc Santos, Erica Galante-Johnson, Palencia Mobley, PE, and Denise Schmidt
As of the date of publishing, the majority of lead pipes in U.S. drinking water systems must be removed from service by 2037. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) solidified this action with the newly released Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), mandating the replacement of lead service lines (LSL) and galvanized pipes requiring replacement (GRRs) nationwide on a ten-year timeline starting in 2027. This new rule will attempt to expedite LSL and GRR replacements. However, there is currently no stipulation or guidance from EPA for water utilities on the pipe material that should be installed after removing lead or galvanized services, leaving water utilities with the responsibility for making this decision that communities will live with for the next 50 to 100 years. This begs the question: Which pipe material should utilities install to serve drinking water to millions of households across the nation?
To decide which material to use, water utilities must weigh a variety of factors related to performance, cost, procurement, workforce, and life cycle environmental impacts. Adding to the complexity, utilities must consider infrastructure resilience to withstand extreme weather events, which are likely to become more severe, less predictable, and more frequent in the future. In addition, national trade and other policies have the potential to impact supply chains and costs.
With all these uncertainties and considerations in mind, and as utilities proceed with replacing an estimated nine million or more lead pipes across the country, we acknowledge the very real concerns about LSL replacement program costs. At the same time, it is critical that performance, safety, health, and technical considerations not be sacrificed. Water utilities have a role to play in identifying and implementing cost efficiencies in areas beyond pipe material cost, including contracting, decision-making and planning, and adoption of sound policies and practices. States and the federal government also have an important role to play in both providing funding and financing to utilities and supporting procurement. A joint effort by local, state, and federal entities to minimize costs to the maximum extent practicable will enable water utilities to focus their decisions first and foremost on site-specific performance, safety, health, and technical considerations.
In this policy brief, we summarize the key factors that utilities often consider when making prudent, long-term decisions when choosing copper or plastic for LSL and GRR replacements. The Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) has indicated a preference for copper over plastic in previous recommendations and public comments due to the benefits it has to offer in many circumstances, but recognizes that utilities have a wide range of factors to consider and describes them in this brief.
This brief compiles learnings from: 1) interviews the Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) conducted with water utilities across the U.S. and one large contractor performing LSL replacements in several states; and 2) discussions with manufacturers and advocates for both copper and plastic pipes. There are many ways to compare pipe materials, and this brief covers the following key categories: 1) performance, safety, health, and technical factors; 2) costs; 3) supply chain issues; and 4) environmental concerns.
Background
Despite the negative health impacts of lead being known through the mid-1900s, it was not until 1986 when Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that a prohibition was in place for the use of lead in new construction. The prohibition covers pipes, solder, or flux (a compound used to solder pipe joints). In 1986, “lead free” meant less than 0.2% lead in flux and solders and less than 8% lead in pipes. In 2011, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA) revised the limit from 8% in pipes to a weighted average of 0.25% for all wetted surfaces of plumbing products, including pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.
What pipe material types should supplant lead has been a topic of discussion in the water industry since the early 1900s. One thing is clear: Galvanized pipes are no longer a viable solution as they can capture and leach lead and have a higher potential for corrosion compared to modern materials. Today, the typical LSL replacement pipe materials include copper (predominantly) and a variety of plastic pipe alternatives.
In considering pipe performance, utilities must take into careful consideration their site-specific construction methods, subsurface soil conditions, potential health hazards, and other variables. EPIC interviewed 19 water utilities across 14 states that are actively replacing significant numbers of LSLs (hundreds to thousands) to understand their replacement programs and methods. Of the group interviewed, 12 use copper pipe exclusively for replacements, while 7 use plastic pipe either as a primary replacement material or occasionally under specific circumstances (e.g., subsurface soil conditions).
Copper
Water utilities have used copper pipe in their distribution systems since the 1930s, and many utilities installed copper pipes instead of lead, despite lead being a lower-cost material. Copper pipes faced a minor setback in the 1940s with material rationing challenges during World War II, but otherwise have been a commonly available service line material.
Copper pipe is typically procured in coils for LSL replacements, which makes it easily deployable in the field. The lengths of copper pipe coils are joined together using mechanical joints. Copper pipe is heavier than plastic piping alternatives, which increases the overall shipping weight of the materials. This additional weight is a consideration for climate-related emissions resulting from product transportation. In general, most estimates of copper service line lifespans are in the 75 to 100-year range, making them a tried and true long-term solution.
Plastic
Utilities also use plastic pipes for service line replacements, and the plastics commonly used include those made of polyethylene (PE), cross-lined polyethylene (PEX), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Our analysis does not compare and contrast the different plastic materials, but instead focuses on them as a group. For the purposes of this brief, the term “plastic pipes” refers to PE, PEX, and HDPE pipes. We do not include polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe in this group because, while many utilities use PVC for water distribution mains, none of the utilities EPIC interviewed mentioned PVC as a common replacement material for lead and galvanized service lines, despite recent articles and a reference in the LCRI regarding pipe supply. In our interviews, PE, PEX, and HDPE were all identified as being used by at least one utility.
Each plastic product has its own limitations and applicability related to chemical composition, flexibility, and strength. Other industry groups have developed guidance that highlights these differences, such as this potable water piping product guidance by Habitable Future.
Plastic pipes may either be joined by compression or other mechanical fittings (PE, PEX) or can be fused together through heated joining (HDPE). The claimed lifespan of plastic pipes can vary. For instance, the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) boasts a 50 to 100-year “conservative” service life for HDPE pipe, but others note a 25 to 50-year period. MUNICIPEX®, which manufactures PEX pipe, offers a 25-year limited warranty.
While the U.S. has embraced copper as the preferred plumbing material in recent years for all of the reasons described herein, other nations have taken a different route and are using plastic piping for service line replacement. Notably, the United Kingdom began installing medium-density polyethylene (MDPE) as early as the 1980s. MDPE is the “material of choice” for utility/public side (communication pipes) and customer/private side (supply pipes).
Performance Factors
Corrosion
Perhaps the key challenge affecting service line longevity is the corrosivity of soils. Corrosive conditions have been demonstrated to wreak havoc on water mains and also prematurely degrade service lines, regardless of material type. Highly corrosive conditions significantly reduce the lifespan of service lines, which can lead to failure (leaking) or contaminant leaching into the drinking water prior to the pipe’s expected useful life. Corrosive soil conditions impact virtually every utility in the country. A 2018 Utah State University study found that 75% of utilities surveyed reported having pipes in one or more soil areas with moderate or highly corrosive conditions (see: Figure 1 below).
Corrosivity can pose a significant challenge for both copper and plastic pipes. Anecdotally, some utilities reported using plastic pipes in highly corrosive areas due to their historically superior performance compared to copper, which is prone to pitting. These site-specific factors are often best understood by utility staff, who gain insights from inspecting pipes after failures.
Figure 1: Corrosion potential across the United States.
For copper pipes, corrosion concerns include both “pitting”—small holes that can lead to leaks and potential contaminant intrusion—and copper leaching, which is regulated under the Lead and Copper Rule. Beyond leaks and contamination risks, corrosion in metallic pipes can also degrade performance by reducing hydraulic capacity and flow rate. If flow rate reductions become significant, pipe replacement may be necessary. In contrast, plastic pipes are more resistant to corrosion and can maintain flow rates over time. However, they may be susceptible to other challenges, such as leaching, as discussed below.
Leaching and Permeability
Perhaps the main concern with plastic materials is the potential for leaching of chemicals from the pipes. In service lines, this is of particular importance because it may directly result in the consumption of leached chemicals through drinking water, potentially posing serious health hazards. Previous and ongoing research has highlighted these concerns, yet there is disagreement on the extent to which modern plastic piping may impact health if the piping complies with the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 61 material standards. Copper, by comparison, has been shown to perform well in terms of minimal leaching of contaminants; however, as described above, under corrosive conditions, leaching can occur from the tube wall or result in pinholes that allow leaks to occur.
Permeation, or passage of contamination chemicals (e.g., volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through the pipe wall and into the drinking water system) can occur in plastic pipes and is therefore a considerable health concern. Gasoline, for example, can permeate through polyethylene piping, and the concentration of individual hydrocarbons such as benzene and toluene can exceed their EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) before the odor is even detected. Utilities should consider the presence of contaminated groundwater or soils as a potential vector for permeation into piping. Utilities should also instruct contractors to exercise best practices to avoid fuel being spilled near piping trenches during the construction process. Anecdotally, one utility interviewed mentioned an instance where a contractor accidentally spilled fuel in a pipe trench, which negatively impacted water quality.
Copper, by comparison, is an impermeable material and does not allow chemicals to pass through the pipe wall. Permeation can, however, occur at the gaskets joining copper pipes.
Wildfires and Heat
Another major hazard for water pipes, particularly plastic pipes, is the rising prevalence of wildfires in many parts of the country. The heat produced by fires can significantly impact the resilience of plastic pipes and has been shown to degrade distribution system pipes to the point where chemicals, including carcinogens, leach into drinking water. This concern is relevant for water distribution mains and also service lines in wildfire-prone areas. Wildfires can also impact service lines directly if the fires occur sufficiently close to the impacted home(s) and indirectly if the service lines are connected hydraulically to areas impacted by wildfires. These impacts can lead to water utilities issuing “do not drink” water advisories, as was the case in the recent Los Angeles area wildfires (see: Figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Screenshot of Do Not Drink/Do Not Use advisories for wildfire-impacted areas found on https://waterforla.lacounty.gov/.
Research has also shown that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that enter the distribution system via thermal degradation or intrusion during depressurization can diffuse into plastics and sorb to metal surfaces, biofilms, and sediment in service lines. Plastic pipes can leach contaminants over time and should be properly decontaminated. Flushing service lines as soon as possible can help reduce contaminant concentrations, but in some cases, replacing distribution system piping may be necessary to meet EPA drinking water standards. Utilities should consider developing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how to properly inspect, flush, and decontaminate plastic pipes following a wildfire incident.
Metallic pipes, such as copper, have been shown to be more effectively flushed after wildfires compared to plastic pipes, which are susceptible to VOC diffusion into the pipe walls. For communities prone to high-intensity wildfires—or those expected to experience increased wildfire risk due to extreme weather—this factor may be critical when selecting service line materials.
In an interview EPIC conducted, one water utility explained that they use copper service lines specifically for areas of their city where steam lines run through a downtown urban area. In this application, there was concern about the resilience of plastic pipes due to the high underground temperatures.
Costs
The water sector is acutely aware of the uncertainty around material costs, which have increased for both construction materials and consumables used for water treatment operations. Construction cost increases of 10 to 50% are not uncommon and have been reflected in contractor bids. Additionally, prices for treatment chemicals have more than doubled in some areas affected by inflation and supply chain disruptions. Given these fluctuations, utilities should proactively budget for rising costs. However, it is also common for utilities to explore “value engineering” or other cost-saving measures in project planning.
The cost of lead service line replacement varies by utility, influenced by factors such as local conditions, required construction methods, workforce availability, wage rates, and related activities. A few studies, including those by CDM Smith and Safe Water Engineering, have sought to break down costs. In EPIC’s interviews with utilities in 16 states, staff reported costs as low as $2,000-$3,000 per line when replaced by local plumbers. However, the more typical cost range is $8,000–$15,000 per line. While the replacement costs are often driven by labor and hard surface restoration (repaving roads, replacing concrete, etc.), pipe material cost is also a factor. For a utility using local plumbers with direct contracts at a low-end cost of $3,000, the pipe material cost could make up a much larger fraction (potentially 25%) of the total replacement cost and could significantly increase the overall spending bill for an LSL program. Conversely, for larger contracts with higher replacement costs, the benefits of economies of scale in material procurement can minimize the impact of using a more expensive pipe material on overall LSL program costs.
The cost of copper piping varies but typically ranges from $4 to $5 per linear foot. In comparison, various plastic pipes cost less than $1 per linear foot, with PE being the least expensive, and HDPE and PEX priced higher, generally reflecting their performance characteristics. For example, MUNICIPEX® —a high-performance crosslinked PE pipe—reports a 70 to 84% lower cost than copper, depending on the diameter.
While the price of copper piping may not currently contribute significantly to the overall LSL or GRR replacement cost for some utilities (as noted above), this can change if significant supply chain limitations (discussed below) for copper and/or associated price spikes from material shortages occur over the next decade or more that it will take to get the lead out. This is especially relevant as utilities across the country concurrently ramp up LSL replacement to meet the ten-year timeline in the federal regulations, potentially leading to a price spike for copper service lines. Pricing pressures for copper will also come from other sectors that are ramping up copper usage, like batteries for electric vehicles.
A commonly cited advantage of copper piping is its salvage value. Copper scrap metal holds significantly more value than plastic, which is currently difficult to recycle. However, in practice, this salvage benefit may not present a strong value proposition. First, since copper service lines can remain in use for 70 years or more, any financial benefit from salvage would not be realized by the current generation of ratepayers. Second, the method used for service line replacement affects whether the pipe is recovered. Many utilities use a pull-through method to remove and dispose of old service lines, but several utilities interviewed by EPIC reported using directional drilling instead. In this approach, lead and galvanized service lines are abandoned in place, and a completely new hole or path is drilled for the replacement pipe. As a result, recovering a service line for salvage in the future would require a specific construction method, such as pull-through replacement.
On the other hand, if an alternative material to copper has a significantly shorter lifespan, the cost of more frequent replacements may significantly outweigh initial cost savings, because construction costs make up the lionshare of LSL replacement costs. Ultimately, the service line’s longevity is likely a more critical factor than its salvage value.
Another important cost consideration in lead service line (LSL) replacement is electrical grounding. If a household currently relies on a metallic service line (e.g., lead or galvanized) for electrical grounding, proper grounding protection must be addressed when installing the new service line. When metallic pipes are replaced with copper, the copper line is often replaced in-kind and used for grounding. However, a plastic pipe cannot provide electrical grounding, and an additional grounding wire must be installed. In these instances, a utility must use the services of a qualified individual, such as a licensed electrician, to ensure that the electrical grounding is installed properly and that local codes are followed. Both the labor and materials for these installations can increase the replacement cost.
It should be noted that the American Water Works Association opposes the grounding of electric systems to pipes conveying drinking water, and instead recommends a separate grounding electrode. If a utility follows AWWA’s recommendation, then the example described above of using the copper line for grounding would not apply. This is because the additional cost of a new separate grounding electrode would be required for all replacement material types, meaning that no “cost savings” would be realized for copper installations, despite being a metallic pipe.
Supply Chain Outlook
Once the world’s largest producer of copper, the U.S. now relies on imports to meet its growing demand, driven in part by infrastructure expansion. Today, the U.S. meets 47% of its copper demand through imports, with 70% of those imports coming from a single country, Chile. To sustain supply, a combination of increased domestic production, recycling, and imports will be essential.
Replacing all lead pipes in the U.S. would require an estimated 150,000 tons of copper. While domestic copper manufacturers are increasing production, demand remains high due to the growth in electrification. Policy measures aimed at retaining scrap and enhancing metal recycling could help strengthen the domestic copper supply. The U.S.’s reliance on foreign copper imports leaves the supply chain vulnerable to potential bottlenecks (e.g., disruptions through the Panama Canal by low water levels in Gatun Lake) and raises concerns as copper demand is expected to surge in the coming decade. While many products have the potential to be hindered by universal tariffs, copper could also face targeted tariffs due to its role in the defense industrial supply chain.
In conversations with water utilities, multiple interviewees noted ongoing supply chain challenges in obtaining brass fittings used for service line connections. This shortage is already impacting some pipe components, even before the anticipated increase in construction driven by new federal funding availability and regulations.
Plastic piping, on the other hand, is manufactured from byproducts of oil and natural gas production. As a result, its cost and availability are likely to fluctuate with the volatility of these markets.
Environmental Impacts
EPIC did not conduct a full life-cycle analysis comparing copper and plastic pipes and is not aware of any extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies from manufacturers of these materials. Such policies could serve as a critical measure of the full environmental impact of each pipe type. Given the need to replace at least nine million lead service lines with durable alternatives, we believe a comprehensive life-cycle analysis would be helpful and should be developed to support utilities in evaluating pipe materials.
Assessing environmental impacts requires consideration of multiple factors, including sourcing and procurement of raw materials, processing of virgin or recycled materials into pipe, energy consumption for transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, water usage across all life-cycle phases, and the recovery, recycling potential, or disposal of materials at the end of their useful life. In addition, not all plastics are the same, making it important for future studies to differentiate between service line materials such as PE, PEX, and HDPE. A full life cycle analysis would offer a more complete understanding of the environmental tradeoffs between copper and plastic pipes.
Summary
Based on our interviews with utilities and other water sector experts, copper piping appears to be the preferred material for LSL replacements in the U.S. Copper generally outperforms plastic due to its longer track record, proven reliability, and well-documented lack of health risks. Practical and engineering considerations, such as site-specific conditions and increased wildfire risks, often make copper a more favorable choice over plastic; however, highly corrosive soils present a challenge for copper service lines. On the other hand, for some water utilities, the upfront costs, procurement challenges, and supply chain constraints are significant factors driving the decision to use plastic pipes for LSL replacements. Unless these challenges are addressed, they will likely continue to influence material selection.
To maximize cost efficiencies, water utilities and local governments should explore savings opportunities throughout the entire LSL replacement process, rather than focusing solely on pipe material costs. Ultimately, we recommend that utilities evaluate cost-saving measures across all project areas but prioritize performance, safety, health, and technical considerations when selecting materials.
State governments can play a crucial role in supporting utilities by facilitating statewide procurement of materials. Some states, like Pennsylvania (COSTARS) and Michigan (MiDEAL), offer cooperative purchasing programs that help utilities reduce costs in the procurement process. In addition, both state and federal governments must ensure that sufficient funding remains available to replace all LSLs even after the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding expires.
Significant work remains to replace the millions of remaining lead service lines, and many challenges will evolve in the coming years related to supply chains, construction methods, and material procurement. Regardless of future challenges, the water sector must remain committed to its critical public mission to replace every lead service line with a safer, more reliable alternative that will serve communities into the next century.