“…The Washington DC, USA Lead Crisis (2001–2004) first demonstrated that the standard water Pb avoidance flushing guidance was inadequate during AL exceedances, and that flushing for only 15–30 s would directly expose consumers to hazards of water that had been held within the lead service lines [ 15 , 18 ]. A decade of follow up research has since confirmed that flushing protocols which reduce exposure in a given home, are highly dependent on variables that are difficult or impossible to control, including, but not limited to the length, configuration, material, condition and disturbance of service lines or plumbing, water use patterns, spatial changes in chemical and microbiological water quality within a given distribution system; and type of Pb released (particulates vs. dissolved) [ 2 , 3 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. In light of the evidence challenging the efficacy of flushing under different conditions, the EPA identified a need to further evaluate flushing [ 38 ] and revised the Lead and Copper Rule and Consumer Confidence Report Rule to allow utilities to modify the required flush time recommendations if they determine longer flush times are needed [ 17 , 39 , 40 ].…”